User talk:Twitbookspacetube: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:00, 22 August 2017

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

ANI

Hi TBST, thanks for your supportive notes at ANI. If you do consider bringing a full Arbcom case against Rubin's actions, feel free to ping me regarding the plethora of diffs I have which demonstrate the ongoing

WP:ADMINACCT obligations, some of which I didn't get round to adding to the initial ANI report. As I suspected, the ANI report has been obfuscated by retaliatory accusations, none of which address the principle issues of his abuse of policy and his abuse of his position. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No Worries! You can find a draft of my statement at my sandbox - feel free to draft your statement there. Arthur, I know you're watching as well - feel free to do the same after you post that status update or those diffs (Not keeping your word will hurt your case). Twitbook space tube 06:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re

That's enough of that. Please read

WP:NPA

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please stop fiddling around with that page about the Philadelphia police shooting. I have cited the reference; it is your responsibility then to disprove the citation, which you cannot.

I do not understand your angle here, this is a simple and unobtrusive change which makes the sentence make some sense. It is illogical to say that such a man 'claimed to pledge', whether such a pledge reflects accurately on Islam or ISIS or not is irrelevant and is not the question, this is a simple statement of fact found in the police report. The man pledged his support, and his crime, to the Islamic State.

You're a republican, your political bias is what's driving this. Until such time as you have consensus for the change, we go by what the majority of the sources say. Twitbook space tube 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, whereas I have made at least some of my views public, you hide yours behind filters and use the privileges granted you by this monstrosity of left-wing propaganda called 'wikipedia' to enforce them and conceal the truth. Tell me though, if you would: Who is "we"? And these sources, have you actually bothered to look at them? Come on, why don't you make an argument rather than hiding behind your privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from all American politics-related
WP:BLP
content for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

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. Sandstein 21:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Old enemies rear their heads and all I got was this lousy topic ban. Thanks for the notice. Twitbook space tube 00:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating counts at case requests

This is meant to be an action done only by arbs or clerks. Silly, I know, but others (including me, I believe) have been yelled at over it in the past. Just letting you know as a courtesy before someone gets annoyed about it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous community-imposed topic bans reinstated

Per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, you have, in the past, been "topic banned from all noticeboards", and told you "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages". I recall the circumstances when this ban was implemented several years ago, and it was caused by a long-term problem of you inserting yourself into contentious situations that had nothing to do with you, and making them worse. These sanctions were lifted, with a note under the entry that "Past restrictions may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, should [you] return to past behaviour".

While I have no thoughts on the Arthur Rubin ArbCom case (except to note it had nothing to do with you), your case request for Winhunter was horrible (smug, inaccurate, poorly formed), and also had nothing to do with you. I also note with some alarm that you say in two different places you plan to file more ArbCom cases in the future.

I also note that at the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Twitbookspacetube, you were sanctioned for behavior that, among other things, included editing a contentious article (and violating your still-in-place 1RR restriction on it). Note that there was a suggestion - which gained some traction there - that you be be indef blocked. I opposed this at the time, recognizing your improvement as an editor, but I'm beginning to regret this a little bit if you are going to return to other disruptive behaviors that I thought you'd overcome.

These are examples of a return to past behavior. So, as an uninvolved admin, I am reinstating your topic ban from all noticeboards, including ArbCom cases and requests. I'm also reinstating your topic ban from "contentious articles and their talk pages". The topic ban from contentious articles has no exceptions. The topic ban from noticebaords has the following exceptions:

As a party to the Arthur Rubin case, you can of course comment there once it is accepted.
As the filer of the Winhunter case request, you can of course continue to comment there. If the case is accepted, you'll be a party, and so you can of course comment there if that happens.
You can comment on noticeboard threads opened by others that mention you.
You can file an appeal of this reimposition of the topic bans at
WP:AN
.
If you need admin help on something that directly involves you, you can ask any admin directly to investigate. They can either choose to get involved, or give you one-off OK to file a noticeboard request.

Both topic bans are indefinite. I will note both of them at

WP:AN. You can do so right away, if you want, but it has been my experience that topic bans are more likely to be successfully appealed if there is a history of non-contentious editing first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=795922093 This] is meant to be an action done only by arbs or clerks. Silly, I know, but others (including me, I believe) have been yelled at over it in the past. Just letting you know as a courtesy before someone gets annoyed about it. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 15:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
+== Previous community-imposed topic bans reinstated ==
+Per [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]], you have, in the past, been "topic banned from all noticeboards", and told you "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages". I recall the circumstances when this ban was implemented several years ago, and it was caused by a long-term problem of you inserting yourself into contentious situations that had nothing to do with you, and making them worse. These sanctions were lifted, with a note under the entry that "Past restrictions may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, should [you] return to past behaviour".
+While I have no thoughts on the Arthur Rubin ArbCom case (except to note it had nothing to do with you), your case request for Winhunter was horrible (smug, inaccurate, poorly formed), and also had nothing to do with you. I also note with some alarm that you say in two different places you plan to file more ArbCom cases in the future.
+I also note that at the recent [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Twitbookspacetube]], you were sanctioned for behavior that, among other things, included editing a contentious article (and violating your still-in-place 1RR restriction on it). Note that there was a suggestion - which gained some traction there - that you be be indef blocked. I opposed this at the time, recognizing your improvement as an editor, but I'm beginning to regret this a little bit if you are going to return to other disruptive behaviors that I thought you'd overcome.
+These are examples of a return to past behavior. So, as an uninvolved admin, I am reinstating your topic ban from all noticeboards, including ArbCom cases and requests. I'm also reinstating your topic ban from "contentious articles and their talk pages". The topic ban from contentious articles has no exceptions. The topic ban from noticebaords has the following exceptions:
+#As a party to the Arthur Rubin case, you can of course comment there once it is accepted.
+#As the filer of the Winhunter case request, you can of course continue to comment there. If the case is accepted, you'll be a party, and so you can of course comment there if that happens.
+#You can comment on noticeboard threads opened by others that mention you.
+#You can file an appeal of this reimposition of the topic bans at [[WP:AN]].
+#If you need admin help on something that directly involves you, you can ask any admin directly to investigate. They can either choose to get involved, or give you one-off OK to file a noticeboard request.
+Both topic bans are indefinite. I will note both of them at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]. As mentioned above, they can be appealed at [[WP:AN]]. You can do so right away, if you want, but it has been my experience that topic bans are more likely to be successfully appealed if there is a history of non-contentious editing first. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)