User talk:Notrium
Welcome
[edit]
|
July 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Notrium (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Vanjagenije's 48h block of me is against WP:BP as there was no reason to think I would be disruptive in any way in the future (I'm a stickler for rules and as such try very hard not to edit war, and, in fact, I have a personal 2RR rule I abide), and the accusation of edit-warring itself (on Milutin Milanković) is clearly unjustifiable as 1) The editor who I had a dispute with agreed with my partial revert up front (He can be Serbian and Yugoslav for all I care, or just "scientist"), i.e. I had freaking consensus backing me; and 2) My last revert previous to the one I was blocked for was almost a week ago, on 2020-06-28.
Furthermore, my block would be excessive even if based on something, as it was 48 instead of 24 hours, and as I was blocked even from Vanjagenije's talk page (so, from everything else too, I guess) and thus couldn't even ask for clarification regarding the block; and because I was given no warning and have no prior offenses against policy.
Even if there was something wrong with an edit of mine (if there was, per policy I demand an explanation of how), consider that I picked a tough problem to crack (applying MOS:BIO to Balkans biography article leads), while each of my edits was based completely on policy and/or guidelines, and while I put much effort into talk page communication with users who were both ignorant of the English language (nationality vs ethnicity), Wikipedia guidelines (the Manual of Style), unresponsive to discussion; but most importantly in the majority of cases the editors were unwilling to even educate themselves using the wiki-links I provided in both edit summaries and talk page messages. My point is, do you really want to punish an editor for picking a tough problem on a feared part of Wikipedia justified by supposed minor procedural issues?
Lastly, no offense, but I think it would be appropriate for Vanjagenije to clarify whether he is biased and/or holds strong opinions regarding this particular case (regarding Milanković, the MOS, or maybe some of the users) seeing as sanctioning admins should not be involved and Vanjagenije states in his user page that he is Serbian. Notrium (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were unambiguously edit warring. When I look at the history of that article, I see you have made the same change five or so times in two weeks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Jpgordon: I changed "Serbian" to "Yugoslav" four times in 14 days (while trying very much to discuss on Talk and getting one nonsensical response, but mostly being ignored), but how am I to recognize that (preventively) as edit warring? Also note that that wasn't the only thing I did in those edits, and that I have no prior involvement with the article. Also, that wasn't what I was blocked for; I was blocked for my last edit (at the end of the third week) that was based on consensus (removing Serbian without adding Yugoslav).
Also, considering what I laid out in the rest of my appeal, I think I deserve a shorter block.
And please tell me what should I have really done so as not to get blocked (which I didn't expect, BTW) and still move WP forward. The way I see it (and the way I interpret BRD and other methods of reaching consensus), discussion is necessary to move forward, and how am I supposed to make discussion happen if other editors are content with just reverting me without discussing, or with "discussing"/ranting with no regard to Wikipedia policy or guidelines? I've had similar problems on other pages (but also as part of my MOS:BIO in Balkans lead paragraphs effort) where a user literally insulted me and told me he doesn't care to discuss with me - I'm not equating the situation altogether, but in effect they are very similar in that there is a "dispute" where one side does not care to discuss or learn anything. (BTW, I wasn't talking about Sadko, they are a relatively good editor, but note that even their comment on the talk page came only after I pinged them to the Talk page after they reverted me, and even then it largely didn't make sense because of a misremembering/misunderstanding of theirs as I pointed out in my response there.) Notrium (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Tangentially related: look at this IP: Special:Contributions/178.9.202.230. Four reverts in a row at Battle of Kosovo. His latest edit: revert on Milutin Milanković with a vandalism aspersion. Notrium (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
From WP:BP:
- WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE: "Blocks should be preventative" - how is this block supposed to be preventive if I am not even being taught how to recognize the behavior I am being punished for?
- WP:BEFOREBLOCK: I got none of that. Notrium (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
[edit]
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)