User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edits re Golan Heights

Hi, I see that you have recently edited to remove large swaths of text from the Golan Heights article, and removed the Golan Heights category from articles such as Rujm el-Hiri even though the Rujm el-Hiri article seems to establish the connection to Golan Heights. I think it is best that you self revert your 1 edit 10kb removal on Golan Heights and make smaller edits that are easier to discuss, I would also welcome an explanation of why Rujm el-Hiri should not bear the Golan Heights category. Thanks, Unomi (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Golan Heights category is redundant to Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights. I still think it best to split up the edits on the Golan Heights article. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed material after posted Quneitra needs compacting yesterday. Rujm el-Hiri is categorised under Category:Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights and Category:Former populated places on the Golan Heights, both sub-cats of Category:Golan Heights. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP following me around, reverting my edits and typing "ugly bitch" in hebrew in edit summary's. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Please make sure to avoid personal attacks. What I presume to be your IP address has already been blocked for 1 week. Given that you first added the material here, and then as an IP the same material was added back here (with an attacking comment), and the high correlation of articles you and User:Supreme Deliciousness both edit, I am applying WP:DUCK in explicitly warning you against NPA here. If this is merely a coincidence, please accept my apology, but WP:DUCK points pretty strongly to this conclusion, as does a review of the talk page history of, for example, Talk:Golan Heights.  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it might be helpful if you tried to steer clear of direct conflict with User:Supreme Deliciousness, however difficult it may be for one (or both) of you. Nothing good will come of disputes which turn personal, and some of the messages and edit summaries I've seen point in that direction.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP is not me. Me and SD do manage to get along without attacks. I for one never would use such language. I never have done so, even as a teen, and am sure that I never will. Bad language including nasty remarks are something I personally abhor. (Something quite unique I think!) B-) Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. The WP:DUCK test does sometimes fail, and indeed SD didn't seem to think you and the IP were related either. No need for me to look for trouble where there's none; the IP was blocked for the comment and I guess that's that. Best regards!  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights lead

		The Geography Barnstar
		For expanding the lead of the Golan Heights article with much needed and not purely political information after so many others shied away from the taskCptnono (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias.com

fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisadespkwy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sandur, Kurdistan

Hello! Your submission of Sandur, Kurdistan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism article

Hello Chesdovi, you reinserted a number of unreliable sources with the edit summary of "structuring". Some of the specific sources you reinserted were this self-published website, this WND piece, this random website. Was this intentional? nableezy - 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jpost and Nytimes sources on Palestinian racist cartoons and the "this is not RS campaign"

Chesdovi, thank you very much for your contributions.

In reference to what nableezy wrote...

What's wrong with WND site? who's decided it's not reliable? incidently, that particular article is even cited in the 'arabnews' source (which was) just added. Is 'arabnews' not RS by nableezy all of a sudden?

From New York Times

racist cartoons. A Palestinian newspaper, Al Qud, depicted Ms. Rice as pregnant with an armed monkey, and a caption that read, “Rice speaks about the birth of a new Middle East.”

New York Times Rice’s Hurdles on Middle East Begin at Home, by Helena Cooper, August 10, 2006 [1]

In reference to what you just said there, the research by Dr. Susan is widely noted: Reflections on Arab-led slavery of Africans, by K. K. Prah, 2005, p. 198 [2], Tinabantu: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society, 2002, p. 17 [3]

His attempts in discrediting very reliable sources is noted, as he removed the portion I added on (Israel National News of its wide acceptance and credibilty, stating that it is being widly quoted in books and cited by mainstream media including The Guardian, Washington Post and others, if it's reliable as news and facts source by mainstream RS, it should be fine to all) Thank you.RS101 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

My apologies on the block mistake, your edit earlier today was not a revert, please keep the 1RR rule in force on the page in mind. --WGFinley (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Friendliness

Hi Chesdovi,

I'd suggest that you refrain from directly insulting other editors as that tends to lead to temporary or permanent bans. Feel free to disagree with me ... I'm happy to have a conversation or to be proven wrong, but talking about someone's "crude little mind" is quite insulting and does not meet the wikipedia standards for WP:Civility. Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me, but other editors are less forgiving are are likely to report you to an admin. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one really do not appreciate having to decode two-letter acronyms used in place of profanities or having to read talk page posts littered with lewd references. Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well apologies for the acronym then. It was not directed at you but rather at the particular argument that many groups have made regarding the out-of-date medicine. I also wasn't suggesting that you were the one making the argument, since it looked like you were just passing along information you heard. It's something I know quite a bit about ... and while out-of-date medicine is certainly not preferred, it can be extremely useful. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether directed at me or not, I find crude references uncalled for. You must be a teenager, who are unfortunately prone to think and talk crudely. Hopefully, during your maturing years, you will learn to appreciate the quality of refinement in speech. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

I have nominated Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, about my work on the article. It is much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar Synagogue

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jobar

hey, im not sure what you mean exactly with the transaltion for it... the Arabic Word for it is Pronounced Jobar, and is spelled in Arabic Letters, as follows "جوبر", yet it is usually referred to as Hay Jobar, حي جوبر , which means, jobar district... i hope i was helpfull Arab League User (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Those that push the section about "settlements" (or shall we say disputed territories) have no beef, it does not belong in the Racism in Palestine page.RolesRoice (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Menarsha synagogue attack

Hello! Your submission of Menarsha synagogue attack at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Anti-spam check. Do NOT fill this in!

Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue

Hi - I think that you erroneously changed the name of the "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue" to "Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue". "Al Yisrael" is not the eqivalent of "Al-Aksa" (e.g.). In Hebrew, "al" means "on" or "over", and is a separate word. In Arabic, "al-" is "the", part of the referenced word (not separate). I think the correct page name should be "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue".
I won't even bring up the merger proposal that I have, here... --Sreifa (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sandur, Kurdistan

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Menarsha synagogue attack

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph's Tomb

The article Joseph's Tomb you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joseph's Tomb for things which need to be addressed. Nothing too serious, but the WP:Lead needs a bit of work before I can award the article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Wall Interfaith Service - deletion

Chesdovi, I just checked your user page and I'm blown away by the contributions you've made and the knowledge that you have.... I see that you have deleted the sub-section on the interfaith service held at the Western Wall in honor of the Sixth Fleet, and hope you agree it was not overly chutzpadik of me to restore it on a temporary basis, just asking for other editors to help make a group decision. For reasons I outline on that page's discussion page, I do think it was historically significant. However, as I mention on that page, I am not neutral in terms of this event, because I was involved. Therefore, I'll just ask that others make the decision as a larger group decision. However, I hope you know that my request in no way shows a lack of respect for your many significant contributions to wikipedia!!! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Note placement in the Western Wall

Thanks for your opinion; I value it. Do you prefer moving the material out of Kvitel and into this article because kvitel is not a common English term? Fair enough. Also, do you think I could rename this article Placing notes in the Western Wall, because the way it's titled, I thought it was talking about where the notes were placed. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Judaism and bus stops

The article Judaism and bus stops has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a meaningful intersection of topics

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Soap— 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Judaism and bus stops

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Judaism and bus stops, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It's a funny joke though.Marokwitz (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and bus stops - misleadingt edit summary

You did not 'Undid revision 389090261 by Dougweller ' - why does your edit summary say you did? I removed text cited to an email archive, you may have restored the text, but you changed the sources. Please don't leave edit summaries like that, whether they are done manually or not. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Understand totally. Sorry for the mislead. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Judaism and bus stops for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Judaism and bus stops, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFOWR 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude

As amusing and as much as i agree with your point I am actually surprised no one has blocked you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess other people do not view it that way. Or maybe they have more undersatnding? Who knows. Chesdovi (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at WP:POINT. Interesting. Does this fall under WP:NOTPOINTY? Besides, the subject possibly has redeeming factors, as stated at AFD. Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude I agree with your with you Judaism and Violence is a violation of WP:SYTH. I love the [[Judaism and Bus Stops] but its pointy as hell. I am just surprised that no one has given a Block for being so pointy. Its a sitution where I dont know if i should give a barnstar to you or TroutThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No, Bad languauge is much worse. (Who adsded this?) Chesdovi (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wailing wall.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Wailing wall.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa)

Hello! Your submission of Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Damascus

Let me give you a clear warning: if you continue to revert without responding to attempts that have been made to discuss the issue, your account will have to be blocked from editing. This will happen regardless of the number of reverts that fall within a 24 hour period. You must discuss the issue rather than just keep reverting! Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you here. [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA notification

You are hereby notified of and subject to the discretionary sanctions in the Palestine-Israel Arbitration committee case previously decided in 2008. Please read the notice below closely and stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

Settlements

Could you please provide a good reason why you inserted a nonsensical phrase like "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel" and removing that the settlement is illegal while immediately before that adding, without a source, to the articles on places in Northern Cyprus that "It is occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community."? I am dying to see what possible reasoning could lead one person to make both of those edits. nableezy - 06:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And I should note, I reverted the edits to the articles on the Cyprus localities. If you can provide sources for your assertions great, but until then you cant edit in such a way. Im tempted to revert the Golan articles, but Ill wait for the explanation. nableezy - 06:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please revert all the edits you made to the illegal settlements in NC using these sources easily found on GB:

"The Turkish government decided to rely for its demographic base not so much on Turkish Cypriots, but rather on heavy and illegal colonization by tens of thousands of Anatolian Turks, in addition to the large Turkish military force occupying the north, much of which would ultimately settle there. As a result of the settlement policies, many Turkish Cypriots eventually decided to leave Cyprus. This illegal settlement, whose intention was to alter the demographic reality of northern Cyprus and drive out the Greeks who had remained, was for a time denied by the Turkish government and, in particular, by the us State Department in the person of its special Cyprus negotiator, Nelson Ledsky."[5]

"Turkish forces are present in Northern Cyprus, which is home to some 146000 illegal settlers (illegal because Northern Cyprus is internationally held to be under Turkish occupation). These settlers, from the Turkish mainland, outnumber the 89000 Turkish Cypriots. In defiance of international law, one-third of the settlers have been "naturalized.""[6]

Thanks so much Nab. Ask SD if she wants to give you a hand. I know I can count on you both. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first source is published by "greekworks.com" and the second one by a children's book publisher. Thanks but no thanks. You havent answered my question as to why you removed what was sourced in the Golan articles and replaced it with nonsense while you were adding similar, but unsourced, information to the Northern Cyprus articles. nableezy - 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are making it very difficult for me to not ask for a block or topic ban with your actions at the Rachel's Tomb article. nableezy - 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear. What children today are being indoctrinated with! Results of a more comprehensive search:

The situation in the northern part of Cyprus has been made deliberately worse by the illegal settlement of many thousands of mainland Turks, in itself a clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions.[7] (Official journal of the European Communities: Debates of the European Parliament, Issue 4; Issue 486) (Not sure if "debates" constitute RS.)

"The homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots[…] continued to be the object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol and the general principles of International Law. These continuing violations have been intensified through the increased and systematic settlement of settlers from Turkey, with the encouragement and assistance of Turkey, against the will of the lawful Government of Cyprus”. Council of Europe Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 39; Volume 1996. Chapter 2 – Case-law of the Commission: Texts of selected decisions: Application No. 25781/94: Cyprus v. Turkey. Decision of 28 June 1996 on the admissibility of the application. 4(d). BRILL 1998. ISBN: 9041105530.

If you can find more sources, by all means include them. Now please proceed to add it back. I have asked SD to assit you. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have yet again refused to answer my question. Thats ok, Ill ask again once I address your comments. The settlement of Turks in Northern Cyprus does indeed violate the Geneva Conventions, however, only those localities that were established for those people can be called "illegal". A village in Northern Cyprus that has been continuously inhabited from before the Turkish occupation of the territory is not a "settlement" and is not "illegal". The settling of Turks in occupied territory is illegal under international law, your sources support that. But here, as with the Rachel's Tomb article, you misrepresent the source. The source does not say the villages are illegal, it says the settlers are. Now, back to my question. How is it that you can justify removing a aourced line from the Golan articles on the illegality of Israeli settlements there but at the same time add an unsourced line about the supposed illegality of localities in Northern Cyprus. Id like to understand how one person can do both of these things in good faith. nableezy - 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR. And with regards to your question, I have answered at the Incidents page. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR???? What is OR is your taking a line saying the Turkey settling its civilians is illegal to say that X village is an illegal settlement. You havent given a source that says that or anything close to that. You have finally answered my question though, it is not possible to make both of those edits in good faith. As you have demonstrated that you are not editing in good faith Ill adjust how I deal with your actions. Bye. nableezy - 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not being rational. It is your own OR that states illegality only applies to newly constructed settlements after an occupation began. This is inconsistent with examples in other parts of the world. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My source for illegal settlements: The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. Synonymous with: The homes and properties of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. If this citation does not support that the villages occupied by Turkey in NC are not illegal settlements, what does? Over to you Nab. Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You can pretend that your sources are "equivalent" but anybody who reads them can easily see that you are making things up and clearly editing in bad faith. But the reason I am writing this comment is to inform you that you have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. See here. nableezy - 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation, that means they, the settlements and villages inhabited by the Turks, are invalid, or illegal. Hence, illegal settlements. Why should I have to re-add all the info?Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb links

I have noticed that several links in the Joseph's Tomb article are no longer working. Dead links can become a problem if someone raises this issue. The dead links are: 35 MKs want Joseph's Tomb reopened, Israel to ask PA to repair Joseph's Tomb and Site of Joseph's Tomb vandalized

If you have a page number for the print version of the article, that would be preferable. Otherwise an archived version may need to be used. Dead links are an increasing problem with news sources. You can check the current status of the links in the article using this tool. • Astynax ^talk 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of January. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What does 1RR mean. Only 1 revert? Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 1 revert per day. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions of which you were notified yesterday, I have blocked your account for one month for massively disruptive and tendentious editing. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why Prunesqualer receives a 24hr block and a rather limited 14-day article ban[8] while Chesdovi receives a 1-month block and a broad 3-month 1R restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli topic area and both involve the same type of infraction. I am at a loss to explain the lack of consistency? Can another admin review the facts of both cases? Perhaps I missed something?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• For the sake of consitency and transparency Chesdovi's sanction should be similar to Prunesqualer as they both involve similar infractions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The only difference between the two is that Chesdovi had one prior block and that occurred way back in 2006[9].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The first point is that consistency is a secondary consideration. Containing disruption is the most important thing, and we won't allow the editing environment to fall apart merely to be consistent. The second point is that if you look at the contribs of the two editors, you will see a big difference. Whatever Prunesqualer was doing was on a much smaller scale -- his last 50 contribs go back into July. Chesdovi's last 50 contribs are from October 21. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright fine. But he already received a 1R from PhilKnight for the entire topic area until January. That is a significant restriction and serves as sufficient warning. The guy had only one prior block and that occurred four years ago! Jeesh what more do you want from the guy?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ANI and WP:AN3 threads concerned different problems. It's hardly the fault of the admins that he went over 3RR on an article and engaged in widespread disruption at the same time. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi speaks up

I am afraid Uncle G is mistaken again. That I decide to add information about the illegality of Turkish settlements was indeed prompted by thoughts relating to Rachel’s Tomb. Yet it is easy to construe it as a barrage of disruptive edits to make a point. You will see however, from my edits preceding the North Cyprus (NC) changes that I had not been discussing the legality of any Israeli settlements. Rachel’s tomb is not a settlement, neither is Acre. There was no recent “original dispute”. As I am more often than not editing I-P articles, any changes regarding other geographical locations should not be viewed as automatically linked to edits made in I-P articles. Yes, they are often influenced by them, but not made necessarily because of them. That’s why I have created a number of articles on separation barriers around the word and other nation’s settlement schemes (although the one about Turkey was deleted). Should I not have done, for by doing so, it would be construed as making a disruptive point?!
I take umbrage at UG’s comment that my 39 edits to NC pages was an intentional ploy. I added information to all the settlements beginning with A. I had not counted how many GH settlements there were. Nor how many WB settlements there were. That SD subsequently edited the GH settlements which also numbered 39 (I have not checked the numbers myself) is a coincidence. It does not “speak volumes”. So please take that back.
That Nab reverted all my edits relating to NC without leaving me a message or tagging instead shows that he was not interested in improving the article. Ask him why he behaved this way. (I concur in retrospect that a source be needed, but I was thinking more along the lines of Neo: “the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus since 1974 is a world-known fact and needs no documentation”.) Neo, the uninvolved user, subsequently reverted Nab only for SD to come to Nabs assistance (surprise, surprise) by re-reverting. This surely incriminates these two editors, who I feel caused disruption by twice removing mention of illegality in NC settlements. That a discussion has subsequently taken place about the status of NC settlements is not linked to any I-P dispute as UG would have it. There is no indication that the two are sinisterly linked. What is “abundantly clear” to UG, is not to me. That’s just the way it turned out. If Nab and SD have a major problem with me and Neo adding stuff over at NC, so be it. It is possible to have two discussions about similar topics simultaneously. In fact, it is more effective to discuss both at the same time.
Was it okay for me to replace “Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community” with “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? I hope so. How then can further later edits to GH which modified the wording to “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community” be considered disruptive? Is it because the magic word “illegal” or “unlawful” is missing. The modified formulation is supported by the two sources given by SD. Maybe it was the weasel words “good intentions” which were a problem. I am not sure. Indications of various editors seem to call this “utter nonsense” or OR. But is it? It is effectively saying Israel went ahead, believing it had the right to construct settlements although it knew it was a move not supported by the IC. I did not add “The settlements was built with the consent of the IC” or words to a that effect. All accusations regarding this matter are false. And they are not disruptive any more than SD adding it to the 39 pages in the first place. That’s why I have a problem with Looie stating that I have caused a “huge” amount of disruption. Is it really huge? I am within my rights to add information to 39 pages en-masse. Looie then has the audacity to states that I have “shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior”, when it is quite clear that as soon as Nab raised the issue with me, I removed, in an act of compromise, what he considered unacceptable from all the relevant GH pages. (And this was before I had noticed an incident report about the matter.) Looie should have also noticed that having found sufficient sources backing the NC issue, I did not go right ahead any re-add. There seems to be a climate of impetuosity on the part of Admins who will issue warning and blocks in haste without giving time to await responses and consider all facts. Indeed, one only need hold as an example the glaring error of Georgewilliamherbert who contended I had edited after the 1RR was imposed. Do Admins enjoying flouting their power under the guise of not being “capable of micromanaging the editing process”? They should learn to manage the blocking process first.
With regards to the violation of the 3RR, I also dispute conclusions made by other editors. (I did not have sufficient time to respond and gave hurried and incomprehensive responses). I am sure that careful examination of the edits will reveal that there were signs of compromise in most and they were not outright reverts.
I am sorry for causing disruption, but that would be to all the disruption and time used in discussing the alleged disruption I deny I am guilty of. If other editors view it differently that is their choice. But I doubt they have gone through all the edits by all those involved and heard both side of this issue. I do not ask to be unblocked as the stain has already been made. It was becoming too much of an addiction anyway. Enjoy the month without me. Chesdovi (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this as I see it. This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate. In fact, those "good faith" statements were very problematic, because they were clearly an attempt to inject a point of view into the articles. Other edits showed the same sort of POV editing. But assessing the range of the problem is very difficult because of the sheer volume of your edits. It isn't realistically possible to even look over all your edits to judge how many are problematic. So how do we handle this? There are basically two possibilities: either you know when you are making controversial edits, or you don't. If you don't, then I don't think you should be editing in this area. If you do, then I ask that when you make edits you think might be controversial, you start by making one or two, and make a serious effort to ensure consensus before extending them to other articles. This affair has already cost hours of work for me, and substantial amounts for other admins. The top priority, as far as I am concerned, is to deal with it in such a way that it won't flare up again in the near future and cause more hours of work. There are only a few admins involved in this area and a lot is going on -- we have no choice but to find ways of dealing with things that don't require knowing every aspect of every dispute. That means that sometimes the solutions are going to be crude. So here is the bottom line. If you think you can find a way to deal with disputes by trying to solve them quietly instead of battling obstinately until they get thrown into the admin domain, I am willing to lift the block I imposed. Do you think that would be possible? Of course you can't be held responsible for the behavior of other editors, but in my experience it is usually possible to tell who is trying to be cooperative and who is not. Looie496 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I get why you are [removed slang], Chesdovi. Nableezy has received 11 10 sanctions (is that right? At least one was reduced after tons of screaming see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans) and numerous blocks (with only one that exceeded 72 hrs since it was a legal threat) yet you are the one who received a month. You should be [removed slang]. However, you did [removed slang]. The best thing for you to do right now is to clearly and concisely admit where you made a mistake. Precedent in the topic area says you do not deserve such a lengthy block. But it is time for this [removed quasiobscenity] to stop and you are doing great if you are looking to make an example of yourself. You have done some good work and have reason (and some back up) to return early. Just make sure you admit to your mistake and don't do it again. Ask for some leanency and learn from it. And I am not trying to preach. I am lucky with some of the stuff I pulled a year ago to not be bounced out for an extended period.Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, please do not use bad language when conversing with me. I think you know I find it obnoxious and do not appreciate having to stumble across such drivel. I have dissociated myself form "Bali" for this reason. Please grow up. It is not cool to use such low speech. I have been taught that certain words are rude and offensive and not to be used. It should not be that hard to control oneself in this area of speech. To use such talk really lowers the tone here. I hope it is not too much to ask. You are correct regarding Nab. He is all too familiar with this kind of stuff. I have never had to be so involved in having to defend myself in such circumstances with such frequency as Nab has had to. Nab is much more experienced at playing the game here.
And Looie, for me this started when an editor noticed my mass edits to GH pages. Had she noticed SD previous mass edits, would it of also sparked a report? If my edits at NC are to been seen as disruptive, then SD's actions to GH articles and subsequent changes at the NC pages should also be termed disruptive. Your advice about adding one or two edits first to test the water also apply to SD, Nab, Neo and Pol. We all carried out mass-edits. If there are too many edits for you to figure it all our: Halt! Wait for my explanation. Since this began had I caused any further "problems"? Anyways I am not annoyed with you. I respect that you acted in what you believed was correct. But urge you to be a little more patient in future. You noted that I hadn’t responded. I was not near a computer. The discussion was taking place without my input and a verdict was reached, even thought I had not responded or carried out any more editing. That's what I find annoying. If Nab is so familiar with all the protocol here, he should not have reverted while discussion was taking place at talk. In my memory I have not violated this 3RR and did not comprehend the consequence of Nabs note to me: “Self-revert.”

While Looie says it was difficult to assess the problem because of the sheer volume of my edits, if she means the 3RR violation, that should not have been to difficult to go through the various edits and see that it was not such a simple matter, as is shown below. There may have been mass editing, but they all included the same information and only involved 2 areas, so it should have been easier to assess. What is difficult is creating a timeline of event with all involved editors, which would have been made available in due course before rash decisions are made. Especially since I acknowledged Phil’s 1RR.

Time	Edit	Map	Location	Notes
03:53, 3 October 2010 Chesdovi	Adding infobox		n/a	I added a map showing Israel.
22:42, 12 October 2010 SD	[10]		n/a	Changed to West Bank
23:39, 12 October 2010 Chesdovi	[11]		Jerusalem	Kept WB map, but gave location as J, I.
22:49, 14 October 2010 Termswagon2	[12]		Jerusalem	Uninvolved user.
23:56, 14 October 2010 Nableezy	[13]		Jerusalem	Changes map to WB, but leaves location.
15:39, 20 October 2010 SD	[14]		West Bank	Start of edit war: Changes location so no reference to Israel is given. 1st time no Israel shown
17:11, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[15]		Jerusalem (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, but add reference to J, I, with compromise de-facto
17:51, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[16]		West bank	Removes any reference to Israel. 2nd time no Israel shown
18:03, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[17]		Jerusalem, West bank (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, re-add reference to Israel de-facto with further compromise by adding West Bank as location.
18:37, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[18]		Internationally recognized as within the Palestinian territories in the West Bank De-facto annexed by Israel	Compromise attempt.
22:24, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[19]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	Upon further thought, change all to Israel with de-facto. 1st time no WB shown.
03:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[20]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise".
11:08, 21 October 2010 Chesdovi	[21]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	2nd time no WB shown.
16:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[22]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise" for a 2nd time.

But I do not seek an unblock. Wiki has been taking over my life of late and the block will help me work on myself to ensure that I do not spend hours on end in front of a computer screen, but find more healthy, fulfilling and rewarding pursuits to engage in. If I succeed, you will be to thank. (Not Nab, I hasten to add.) Chesdovi (talk)

If somebody else makes mass edits to articles that inject POV into them, the right approach, if the editor can't be persuaded to behave properly, is to file a complaint, not to inject an opposite POV into all those articles. I think people have been reluctant to do that because of the weak responses they have been getting from admins. My aim in getting into this is to give strong enough responses to keep problems from recurring. In any case, I think we have been making some progress, and if you feel a wish to get back into Wiki before the block expires, feel free to reopen the discussion. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is why does only one person get the strong response here when the other guy mass edited articles as well, first adding information with an improper source (I mentioned this on AN/I) then following Chesdovi around reverting his edits?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for a zero-tolerance approach for the IP topic. I think this should be announced through ArbCom and then implemented. Taking the first random guy and without warning hitting him with a ban completely out of proportion to what is normally given, particularly someone with an almost clean record, isn't the way to do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who did mass edits with an improper source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I did not actually "inject an opposite POV into all those articles". In all of the GH articles, I actually provided balance. To half of the approx. 40 pages with SD’s POV addition ("Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community") I added: “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? How more NPOV can you get? After making these changes to around 20 pages, I tried an even softer tone: “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community”. In both formulations, both sides stance is vouched for. The problem Nab and SD seem to have it that the incriminating word “illegal” is missing. SD was the one who added a one sided POV by not adding the words "although Israel disputes this", (Notice how SD is of the opinion that Israel’s position regarding its own settlements is of no concern and doesn't deserve mention is such articles. Indeed, to do so would be an unnecessary step and unbalance the “NPOV” already presented with the one sided view. SD does however suggest that if Israel’s position really has to be mentioned "although Israel disputes” can be added"! [23]
It should also be of further concern that when I have subsequently brought sources which talk of NC settlements being illegal, Nab does not accept them. Yet he accepts the 2 sources SD provided for the GH articles. SD uses the words IC, but such usage is not provided for in either of SD’s sources. One is a Primary source which although citing a UN resolution does not state "IC". The second also belongs to a UN body and does not cite the IC. (Nab should have a problem with this too. The 2nd source does not specifically mention "Israeli settlements", rather Israel settlement activities". Yet he only will infer from the sources I provide for the NC settlements that it only refers to Turkey's settling of its civilians as being illegal, not the actual settlements themselves. The words "activities" in the ILO source negates the actual settlements themselves. This is further evidenced by the end of the sentence: "desist from changing its demographic composition”, i.e. the settling of civilians seems to be the issue, not the actual physical settlements themselves. This is good enough for Nab with regards to the GH but not good enough when it comes to NC. (I will add that I did not provide a dissenting view with regards to the NC settlements, because I do not know of one. Had Nab added one, fine. That was not the case. Nab and SD proceeded to completely remove my additions to the NC pages, even after another uninvolved editor re-added my edits.) I want to know:

• 1. If by looking at the above chart if I was in violation of the 3RR.
• 2. Why my edits to the GH articles were viewed as disruptive, bearing in mind that
  • a. I endeavoured to provide NPOV in all the pages and did not take away sourced info or add fallacies.
  • b. The edits by SD were not presumed to be disruptive, although they were all subsequently removed by Poliocretes under the premise that "mass editing, legalities and motivations covered by linked settlement article."
• 3. Why I was blocked while I had not been given a chance to explain my actions.
• 4. Why after I had acknowledged the 1RR, I was still blocked having made no further edits.
• 5. Why was it "clear" that I was going to "blast forward until blocked?"
• 5. Why it is deemed okay for users to use bad language and re-instate it after others have asked that it not be used. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The language (the three words are often not considered vulgar) was an issue with refactoring. Refactoring is frowned upon so I struck them out instead. I'll remove them right now if it is still an issue you are concerned with.Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to Q4 is the threads on WP:ANI and WP:AN3 concerned different edits. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be verified that the comments made at ANI about AN3 (by Uncle G, etc) were not taken into account by Looie when deciding to impose the block for "massive disruption". It would seem that Looie did, as she has referred to "This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate." Nab report was on AN3. Chesdovi (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I want from you at this point, in order to unblock. 1) I want you to acknowledge that the purpose of Wikipedia's articles is to give readers information in the most neutral terms possible, not to persuade readers to accept or reject some point of view. 2) I want you to acknowledge that editing should not be a battle between editors. If you will indicate an understanding and acceptance of those points, then I am prepared to remove the block. If you dodge the question by arguing about the validity of the block, I am not going to do anything. I have already said that I will accept removal or reduction of the block by any other admin without arguing about it, but those are my conditions. (And I'm a "he", by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Looie, It’s not the block per se. It’s the principle and result. I care about my reputation and feel that a decision made in haste has tarnished it. ([24]) I feel this happened too quickly for me to give my version of events and that I was blocked in absentia. Other editors jumped on the bandwagon supporting the block without the full facts. Unluckily, one editor noticed my mass-edits and not SD’s, and I get sanctioned. I may have not tested the water with the edits over at Cyprus, but I did not see a block coming. Nab contributed a lot to this, but he cannot exactly be viewed as being neutral in such a discussion which involved the I-P issue. How can he have of been given so much credence? I am naturally biased, as are most other editors, but do try to provide neutral viewpoints and will discuss things at length to achieve this, as was happening at Rachel’s Tomb. I have also not shirked from adding material that does not sit well with my viewpoint in order to get that neutral balance, [25]. I don’t mind adding the PA flag to sites under PA control either. I do have an issue with the legal status of the NC settlements and have tried to address this before and discussed it again here (where I suggested not using the term “settlement” at either in GH, WB or NC pages, although the result was to include it, hence my additions to NC). When I carried out those edits to NC pages, how can they be viewed as making a point when no recent edits had been made regarding the subject as I-P? It was SD, who after seeing my edits, made her point by altering the GH pages in response! This fact is consolidated by them both removing my edits at NC! I am doubtful if Nab or SD have ever tried researching the NC subject. Nab and SD had no good reason to remove my additions, albeit them being un-sourced, to those pages without discussing the issue first. It shows their robust POV attitude that only Israel is allowed to be crowned with the title “illegal settlement.” I have been editing for many years with appreciation of both your points and are already familiar with them. From time to time things flare up and this time it involved a number of different articles all at once. I need to know firstly if I was indeed in violation of 3RR and whether that had an input it the block. All I am concerned about now is the validity of the block. I want to know if it was imposed justly. If it was not, I would want the block-log deleted, or at the most a summary noting error of judgment. If the block was justified for my mass-edits to NC and subsequent rewording of SD’s edits at GH. The block can stay. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I used a slang that I don't feel is lewd but realize you do. Since you mentioned it at the AE I wanted to let you know that I really will try to tone it down. Bad habits! I struck it out pretty quick so at least but still feel kind of bad. Apologies for the confusion on striking v redacting before and I hope you can see past it.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of Block contested

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I need assistance to evaluate whether my block for what has been termed "massively disruptive and tendentious editing" is justified.
My mass edits to Golan Heights pages were claimed by Cs32en to be unsourced. This stance is taken up by other users, one of whom suggests a block until I follow the rules and guidelines about sourcing. (Secret further suggests that "this is like the 10th notification this week". Yet as far as I know, there was only one message left to me about sourcing, regarding Damascus on 15 Oct. and a further mention here). Georgewilliamherbert then left me a message asking me to "stop editing in a disruptive manner." The blocking admin states "Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced.” All these about complaints about no sourcing and disruptiveness I countered were baseless. Yet I did not have a chance to explain before the block was implemented. As far as I am concerned my edits to the Golan Heights pages were sourced and I had reworded a sentence in an attempt to provide balance, as explained above on my talk page. It is probable that all editors commenting at the incident page were unaware of the facts, even though I had made a shrewd attempt to inform them of their error. Uncle G launched into other allegations, all of which I subsequently denied above as well. Suggestion of a 12 month topic ban by Physchim62 after reading the short discussion and my "contributions" to it, is a little rash. Had he bothered at all to view all my edits, I doubt he would have come to such an opinion. A suggestion by ElComandanteChe that the mass-edits by Supreme Deliciousness were of a similar disruptive nature are not latched onto. Why? This may be due to Nab’s misleading comments that SD’s edits were "sourced"; although as I have shown above, SD’s sources were token. No editors seemed to address the fact of SD’s edits. I therefore fail to see why mine were so hugely disruptive. It is clear that mass-editing was not the problem here. The block was a response to the view that only my edits were of a disruptive nature because they were 1: not sourced, which is false. (I actually provided the NPOV that was missing from SD's addition.) And secondly, that the edits to Cyprus pages were made to make a disruptive point, which, as I have tried to explain above, was not the case either.
"Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior" – False. As are the other reasons given for the block. I feel the block enforced in haste and was unjustified. I do not consider my editing to be so disruptive that a block was called for or needed. None of my points above have been answered, only an acknowledgemant of my "disruptive" actions are requested. I do not however seek a mere "unblock". I want to know if I was blocked fairly. If after reading my side of the events, the block is seen as unjust, reference must be made to this.
Mention must be made of User:Bali ultimate. This editor has raised a number of complaints against me, (here and here), in the most undesirable and alarmist of fashions. He is no doubt slanted from my admonition of his WP:CIVIL violation. He has been creepily following my moves and is causing trouble. (He even left an edit at Ed Miliband after I had commented there!) I have not been reported on an ANI for years, and this editor see it fit to do so twice in quick succession. His comments on all pages involving me should be viewed as biased and prejudiced in nature. I will have nothing to do with him.

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block ([26]). It can therefore only be appealed by following the procedure described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  13:21, 27 October 2010 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The WP:AEBLOCK should not apply. No further edits were made after it had been noted.

Decline reason:

Of course! You were blocked! Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (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.

• If you think the AEBLOCK should not apply then you need to follow the procedure for appealing against an AEBLOCK, and if you are right it will probably be overturned. An individual admin is not allowed to overturn an AEBLOCK, even if he or she thinks it is mistaken, so requesting an unblock here is not going to achieve anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions message was left on my talk page at 00:44, 21 October 2010. I only noted it at 11:23, 21 Oct 2010. And I was blocked at 18:21, 21 October 2010. (There were a group of edits, but those were made before I noted the notification. I subsequently made no edits to pages besides from those at talk & ANI. Why is that procedure needed if it was issued in error? Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi, this is a somewhat legalistic defense, which in my humble opinion, has little chance of success. Anyway, you were notified when the ARBPIA case closed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the message in 2006 regarding the ARBPIA of which I was not personally invovled in, you are correct. I was "notified" 4 years ago, and have since made many thousands of edits without being aware of what was discussed, neither of the consequences of the ARBPIA. I do not feel I was given a fair chance in putting forward my case, and claims that I was ready to "blast ahead" with unconstructive edits is totally unfounded. Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It should also be noted that Looie496 has thrice indicated that she or other individual Admins had the authority to lift the block? And if this is the case, why was it not made clear at ANI, to prevent multiple editors airing their views about the block - which do not accomplish anything? Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I'm getting tired of this. Either make a coherent argument that has at least some chance of being accepted, or go and do something else. If you continue in this manner, I'll revoke your talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight—For what reason would you revoke his Talk page access? It seems Chesdovi is trying to clarify what situation he is entangled in. It seems he should be allowed to ask questions and it seems he should be deserving of full and forthcoming answers. I don't think he is trying to inconvenience anyone at the receiving end of the question. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just used a word processor to do a word count from immediately after the block, up to your post, and the result was over 5000 words. In my humble opinion, that's excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be excessive, but that seemed the only way I could defend myself after I had been denied the chance at ANI. It does not look as if I have a simple way out of this. It really is a sham. You can be blocked by an individual admin for ARBPIA but cannot be unblocked without a group discussion. Why is that? Looie stated in his first rational for the block that it was clear I was going to blast forward with unuseful edits. My edits actually prove the opposite. Looies action is somewhat understandable, though. I was not given the chance to refute the allegations before he blocked. In my view, this block was enforced unjustly, and there is little I can do to reverse the situation. If the blocking process is so serious when it comes to ARBPIA, Admins should not be so impetuous when issuing them. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My logical argument is: The block was issued due to “massive disruption” carried out over a short period. I believe this was based on a number of edits regarding controversial issues I was dealing with at the same time. I have attempted to explain my actions, and have not received specific responses to points I have raised regarding each case of “disruption”. This leads me to believe that the block was based on misunderstandings, chief of which is that that I added unsourced, POV sentences to approximately 40 pages. I have demonstrated that they were sourced to the existing sources and consisted of a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, what you are saying above in your unblock requests is incorrect, your edits at Cyprus and the settlements in GH were unsourced, you not only removed that the IC view is that they are illegal but you also added "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community"... what source says that? And my edits to the GH settlements were indeed sourced, I used two sources, the first one showed the vast majority of all countries voting in favor of that the settlements are illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not be available to answer till tomorrow. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, if you believe that this block was wrong, it will do you no good to argue so here. Nobody here has the authority to lift it. Only the blocking admin, the ArbCom, or the community at WP:AE have that authority. You will need to explicitly appeal to any one of these authorities. In order to seize the community with an appeal, you need to convince a user to copy your appeal to WP:AE. Your chances of doing that will increase if you write an appeal that has at least a minimal chance of success (i.e., is compliant with WP:GAB) and uses standard formatting (see Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal/doc). People who repeatedly seize WP:AE with frivolous appeals may themselves be subject to sanctions under the applicable decision.  Sandstein  18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I take the course of action you have mentioned above, will I be able to contribute to the discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)