User talk:EmilCioran1195

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring on an IRANPOL article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for ARBPIA and NPA violations. Please ping me if you intend to appeal this block and I will copy that appeal onto AE (instructions on how to construct such an appeal are on that page). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

EmilCioran1195 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what "ARBPIA and NPA violations" have I supposedly committed? I haven't edited a single article on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. And if calling someone biased after them calling me biased is a "Personal Attack", then shouldn't the other user be blocked too? Surely for a 2-week block an admin has to provide diffs? This admin is clearly involved in the dispute, and has a habit of showing up wherever I edit... not even edit, but simply comment on a Talk page. And blocked for 2 weeks, for my contributions on this Talk Page? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Eva_Bartlett EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appeal has been declined at AE.} Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Again, this is an Arbitration enforcement block — the guide as to how to construct an AE appeal is on that page. The charge that I am involved in the dispute is groundless. I am not. But I am the uninvolved admin who indefinitely semiprotected the article, so of course it would make sense that I'd keep an eye on it, although actually I wasn't — I was pinged by Drmies. El_C 00:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this addresses the substance of my objections. (also, I have no idea what you mean when you say "this is an Arbitration enforcement block — the guide as to how to construct an AE appeal is on that page"). EmilCioran1195 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. Again, it's on the AE page. I'm not sure I'm able to express it any more clearly. El_C 23:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By pasting the correct link, as you did above (Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal), that's all that is required. Obviously. Instead of just referring to AE, which, without further explanation or a link to the template, just sounds like you're trying to make this whole process as opaque and tedious as possible to avoid scrutiny. I am blocked, so I can I edit the AE? Should I use that template here? Why aren't there any clear instructions? Why are you unable unwilling to provide them? Clearly you've done this many times before. It shouldn't surprise you to learn, I haven't. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly mentioned on the AE page, so I don't see what is so complicated there. El_C 23:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because one cannot "create a new section and use the template Arbitration enforcement appeal" when one is blocked! Did that not occur to your? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the initial block message, which reads: Please ping me if you intend to appeal this block and I will copy that appeal onto AE (instructions on how to construct such an appeal are on that page). I note that you did not bother to ping me. Oh well. El_C 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't edited a single article on the Arab-Israeli Conflict." EmilCioran1195, the ARBPIA sanctions extend to talkpages as well as actual articles (see WP:ARBPIA4). ← ZScarpia 13:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What has Eva Bartlett to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Because the word "Gaza" appears once in her article? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by EmilCioran1195

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: EmilCioran1195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 2 week block for "ARBPIA and NPA violations"

Administrator imposing the sanction: El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by EmilCioran1195

what "ARBPIA and NPA violations" have I supposedly committed? I haven't edited a single article on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. And if calling someone biased after them calling me biased is a "Personal Attack", then shouldn't the other user be blocked too? Surely for a 2-week block an admin has to provide diffs? This admin is clearly involved in the dispute, and has a habit of showing up wherever I edit... not even edit, but simply comment on a Talk page. And blocked for 2 weeks, for my contributions on this Talk Page? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Eva_Bartlett EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Another user has warned (including adding the awareness criteria ^[1]) the OP about ARBPIA and NPA.^[2] The OP's response was "errant nonsense."^[3]

The page is clearly marked as 500-30, with a notice at the top of the page which reads: accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Even notwithstanding that, ARBPIA4 has clarified that this involves any edits which relate to ARBPIA, in general, regardless of the page even falling under ARBPIA itself, which this page does. This restriction, if anything, becomes more applicable for ARBPIA-related edits which are combative in nature, I challenge.

Again, the reference is to any page, not article per se., a distinction which the OP fails to recognize.^[4][5]

As for my supposed ("clear"?) involvement in the dispute — there is simply no basis for that assertion. I am, however, incidentally, the uninvolved admin who indefinitely semiprotected the article itself^[6] (although these violations took place on the article talk page).

Anyway, as the admin who recently blocked the user for a different violation in another article, Drmies pinged me^[7] so that I would evaluate the situation. El_C 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by EmilCioran1195

Result of the appeal by EmilCioran1195

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.