User talk:Factcolony
November 2012[edit]
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Arab-Israeli arbitration notice[edit]
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Factcolony, per WP:USERTALK, you may not remove "ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect". As your block notice, and Bbb23's notice about the restriction, are part of such a restriction, you may not remove them while the block is in effect. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- As Factcolony has sent an unblock request through to UTRS, wherein they claim that their account was compromised and they did not make the edits in question, I have changed the block to indefinite per WP:GOTHACKED. I have restored talk page access, however it will be revoked again should the blanking continue.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ponyo, how do I undo this block and reverse the damage done to my account? I simply left my computer/account/revisions open here at home. I think this is really unfair. Factcolony (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Factcolony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My computer was left open last night and I have now been blocked. I read the discussion that was conducted in my name and there were some good points. I would have comported myself a bit differently though. It makes no sense for me to have this account for a year and then suddenly jump off the deep end and get banned. And to top it off, I suddenly "retire?" No way. This was the work of my brother who, as I mentioned in my appeal email, is jet lagged and still on European time from the trip he recently took. I live on the West Coast of Canada and can assure you, I wouldn't be up all night causing trouble on Wikipedia (check the times of the edits against my West Coast IP address). I own 3 computers and have access to many more so it would be absolutely no problem to simply open another account. I don't want to do that as I've had this account for a year and have always contributed positively to Wikipedia where I can. Everything I wrote yesterday, I stand by up until the following: Factcolony, I see you are a new editor. I reverted your edit. Your comments above with several unhelpful and irrelevant personal remarks, statements about what you think you know and others don't, without reliable sources to support your statements, does not mean that you have resolved this issue and can proceed with the edit to the article. Have some patience. You need it to work on articles like this one. What we think we know and others don't really has little value here. We aren't the reliable sources referred to by the WP:V policy. You might want to consider completely re-writing your comment above, removing all personal comments and anything that isn't directly supported by a cited reliable source. That would be more consistent with the talk page guidelines and it will make it much easier for other editors to work with you to improve the article based on published reliable sources and Wikipedia's policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Also, you now need to self revert. I reverted your edit. That's it. You must then stop and continue the discussion to gain consensus. You don't restore your edit. Can you confirm that you understand this process and that you will self revert ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC) You need to respond and self-revert. The reason you need to respond is because if you don't self-revert I am going to file a report at the edit warring noticeboard, something that wastes my time, administrator's time, and may result in a 24 hour block for you. I would rather not do that. This article is covered by a WP:1RR restriction precisely to prevent the kind of editing you are engaged in. There is a large and very prominent warning at the top of this page. Editors are only allowed 1 revert per day on this article and indeed any article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You have made 2 reverts. Your first revert here was a revert of this edit made by WLRoss at 06:42, 2 November 2012, that added the failed verification tag. The issue has been discussed in this section since then. You are well aware of that. I reverted your removal here because discussion of the issue is ongoing and you do not have consensus to proceed. You made your 2nd revert within 24 hours here, to remove the failed verification tag again, with an odd edit summary about my opinions which you have deduced using magic, "So according to you, Osama bin Laden wasn't a "terrorist" but rather someone vaguely "associated with terrorism"? I don't think so". So, what is it going to be, a self revert+continued discussion or a report at editing warring noticeboard that may result in a block ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sean.hoyland, I've been editing for quite some time but have only recently felt the need to open an account. What I find particularly troublesome is that common sense is clearly not prevailing here. From what I can see, Canada's wiki classification of Hamas as being a terrorist entity was perfectly acceptable from 2010 until now (November 2012). There was absolutely NO rationale (or need) for altering this to begin with. I find it disconcerting that I'm being called inappropriate and impatient when the initial edits that sparked this "debate" were allowed to proceed unchallenged. Furthermore, Wayne makes a number of incorrect statements that need to be checked -- i.e. Hamas successfully suing the Canadian government, Canada's DPSEP not listing Al Qaida as a terrorist entity, unlearned interpretations of how Canada's Anti-terrorism Act (and therefore laws in most countries) is administered, etc. I don't need to cite any more material because I've used the only source that matters -- the DPSEP's Officially listed entities. Both the United States and the United Kingdom have similar lists the only difference being Canada perhaps uses different language (this is irrelevant though because the U.K. uses different language from the U.S. as does Australia). I've not made any unsubstantiated claims in regard to the core issue at hand -- does Canada classify Hamas as a "terrorist organization"? Yes, absolutely, on par with Al Qaida, Hezbollah, ETA, etc. I will say, I can appreciate the obvious attempt at critical thinking here but I fear we're now getting caught up in a tomato tomahto-type debate over precise wording and language. Based on the flawed argument trying to be put forward, Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist but someone vaguely "associated with terrorism." Similarly, Al Qaida is not a "terrorist group" but rather a group vaguely "associated with terrorism." This is wrong as the Canadian government (and most -- if not all -- Western governments) considers Al Qaida to be a "terrorist organization" and bin Laden to have been a "terrorist." You need to refrain from what I call reflexive reverting. I've spoken with enough editors to know that people who indulge in your kinds of tactics are frowned upon. It's considered bad form. Can you confirm that you have read the entire discussion and will refrain from reflexive editing? Thx. Factcolony (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Sean.hoyland, file a report. I'll simply file one against you for uncouth bullying. Factcolony (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC) My "revert" involved sourcing. I didn't add or remove anything substantive. Furthermore, the edit(s) I did make were related to the ONE issue. That issue of course being Canada's designation of Hamas as a terrorist entity. Factcolony (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC) hmmm...it seems you have no idea what you are dealing with. I'm not interested in the content issues. You are trying to reason with me. Don't bother. You have broken a rule in this topic area designed to prevent the kind of editing you have engaged in, which is called edit warring. Breaking rules in this topic area must have a cost to editors. This is much more important than the content issues that concern you. I take it you are not going to self revert so I shall file a report. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC) You seem to be uneducated regarding Wikipedia's policies that deal with the kind of offensive bullying you obviously resort to. I too shall file a report WP:BULLY. You also say "content issues" are immaterial to you yet that's not the impression you gave in your first statement. I can't keep up with you. What's the issue? My reverting (I only reverted your reflex revert once) or the supposedly inconsequential content issue? Factcolony (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So basically you are claiming WP:BROTHER and a compromised account? That's why it has been indefinitely blocked - 18:27, 22 November 2012 Ponyo changed block settings for Factcolony with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (claimed via UTRS that the account was compromised Ronhjones (Talk) 20:10, 22 November 2012 (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.
- You don't really expect anyone to read all that, do you?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I just copied and pasted from where the edits in question began. But you know what? I've played by the rules. It's now time for me to open another account. There's not a thing you or anyone else can do about that. Don't worry about it. C ya. Factcolony (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Factcolony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was told to file an unblock request from my actual user account, but have been informed that my account is blocked indefinitely. I changed the password to this account and am the only one with access to it. My IP 173.180.192.115 was blocked on some obscure grounds. If this account is not unblocked, and I have waited MUCH MORE than 24 hours, I will simply revert to editing using my IP address. I've played by the rules, I think it only fair that I'm met halfway. I will not be silenced on Wikipedia though Factcolony (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Compromised accounts will never be unblocked; this is for security and copyright reasons. We have no way to establish that you are the original owner of the account, or if your account was ever compromised in the first place. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:32, 29 November 2012 (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.