User talk:Luke 19 Verse 27
Blocked
[edit]Your edits that were reported at WP:ANI#Luke 19 Verse 27 were disruptive. Your whole attitude towards other users as demonstrated, for instance, on User talk:Oncenawhile, has also been unacceptable. Take this together with the fact that you just came off another block for disruptive editing, a mere four days ago.
I have blocked you for a week, and I am giving you the standard warning about impending discretionary sanctions, should you make any further disruptive edits related to Israel-Palestine topics:
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Indefinite block
[edit]Based on the rationale here, and noting FP@S specifically said he had no problem if I felt this was appropriate, I've increased this block to indefinite. I have noted your approach to editing here, and this was the last straw. Please find another website to contribute to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Luke 19 Verse 27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for one week by an uninvolved editor. This one week block was increased to indefinate by an edit that I had previously had a content dispute with. This means he isn't an uninvolved editor. It has been many months since this block. I have contacted the involved editor by email and he hasn't responded. I request that the indef block be removed so I may return to Wikipedia. I've learned much more about Wikipedia policy since the block, since I've continued to be a reader.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. You have accusations against others but fail to address what you did wrong. Please read WP:NOTTHEM.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 07:07, 18 September 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.
Luke 19 Verse 27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Here is the comment by admin Floquenbeam = No, don't re-add the edit, since people have disagreed with it. Discuss on the talk page first, and gain consensus beforehand. Doing otherwise is edit warring, and will probably lead to a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 9:01 am, 11 April 2012, Wednesday (5 months, 8 days ago) (UTC+8) This shows that the admin was acting as a user. Since I had a content disagreement, the above user chose to increase my one week ban to indef without reason, other than the inplied reason that I disagreed with the admin in the above dispute. I recognize the importance of admins, but Wikipedia Policy notes that all users have equal say, and Admins banning users for not doing what they say is a violation of this same policy.
Decline reason:
First of all, you seem to have seriously misunderstood what it means for an administrator to be involved. Warning you about possible administrative action does not disqualify an administrator from subsequently taking administrative action. Secondly, even if you had a valid claim of admin involvement, it would not lead to an unblock, as I would have looked at your editing history, seen that the block was justified, and declined your unblock request. (If you like, you can think of this as being a shorthand for unblocking because of admin involvement, and immediately imposing an identical block on the same grounds. However, that is all irrelevant, as the claim of involvement was invalid anyway.) You seem to have ignored the advice to read WP:NOTTHEM before making a new unblock request on the same grounds as the last one. JamesBWatson (talk) 9:53 pm, 18 September 2012, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+8)
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.