User talk:Wikieditorpro

Welcome!

Hello, Wikieditorpro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for helping to make a more supporting user environment for us "noobs". You rock! --monochrome_monitor 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from all pages and making any edit broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is suggested that you don't appeal for at least six months.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since reading of the ban issued against me it has been my intention to appeal. However business and family commitments have prevented me from doing so until now. Given the deeply flawed actions of the administrators in implementing this ban, and their disregard for universally accepted norms as demonstrated below, I intend to utilize the Wikipedia appeals process to the maximum extent permitted in order to draw attention to this. The ban is being appealed because of the flawed process that led to the ban. The administrators failed to adhere to the most fundamental principle of procedural fairness required in any arbitration procedure, and reached a consensus before I had even posted my reply. No respectable arbitration or administrative panel would allow a decision to stand where this principle was violated, irrespective of whether all or only some of those involved in the decision making process violate this principle. Furthermore it is obvious that not even one administrator made any attempt to critique or even verify the statements that they based their ban on, but rather accepted them uncritically and blindly. While all administrators cited Nishidani's statement, not even one of them noticed the serious distortions by Nishidani, who claimed that I had reverted vandalism per se, when the focus of the revert as evidenced by the edit summary was to revert two highly controversial changes for which he did not seek or obtain consensus. Further evidence that the administrators neglected to follow basic standards is that none of them noticed the distortions by pluto2012 and the fact that his statement was not related to ARPBIA, as well as the failure of all administrators to notice the egregious violations of Wikipedia rules by those who made statements, including the the egregious personal attacks against myself by the aforementioned user. The failure by Wikipedia's administrators to abide by universally accepted norms raises serious questions about Wikipedia's procedures that need to be addressed. Wikieditorpro (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good luck with all that. Please read the topic ban notice and specifically the link that outlines the potential appeals process. Using the unblock request template is not one of them. Kuru (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2014 (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.

This appeal is as per stage two of the appeals process. I have already contacted the blocking administrator as per part one of the appeals process who attempted to shift responsibility for an unblock to other other admins, who when contacted, shifted the responsibility back to him. Given that I cannot keep running in circles I proceeded to step two. Step two directs the user to the Administrator's noticeboard which contains the following instruction: If you are blocked → place the code: {unblock|Your reason for unblock} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "Email this user").

If these instructions are not correct in my case, please point me to the specific instruction that I ought to be following at this stage. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, you are not currently in any way blocked; you are simply topic banned. If you are being systematically prevented from editing another page, please post the message you are seeing here. Kuru (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to appeal the topic ban.

This is due to the administrators' flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental principles of the process i.e. waiting for the accused to respond before passing judgement, in addition to other serious errors of judgement such as basing their verdicts on false and dishonest statements without performing any due diligence on those statements. Please advise me how to proceed with the appeal and which forum I should use for such an appeal. Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]