User talk:YehudaTelAviv64

AE Complaint

I have closed the AE complaint concerning you.

You have now been warned of discretionary sanctions that apply to Palestine-Israel articles. Please read the discretionary sanctions page to make yourself familiar with them. Feel free to ask myself or any other admin about them.
You have acknowledged your mislabeling of a reversion, however, editing comments do count and are read. Don't label edits as vandalism when they are clearly not, that behavior in this topic space is subject to sanctions or blocks.
Myself and other admins have noted your are a passionate editor in this area, while I don't want to discourage anyone's passion these can be tough articles to edit in. Always remember we strive to remain neutral.

Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned

You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#YehudaTelAviv64. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but that user is just hounding me. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brew

Where did he say you was my sock? reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here on my talk page (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YehudaTelAviv64&diff=463512614&oldid=463508198) -- I removed the entire message thread because it was so negative. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I need to discuss something with you, and would prefer to do so off-wiki. Would you be willing to enable your e-mail, or to e-mail me from your local client if you would prefer to not use EmailUser? I'm watching your talk page and will see any response here. Regards, AGK [•] 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Received, with thanks. AGK [•] 20:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Administrator

See EdJohnston's response here where he claims that this edit was a "revert". Wikipedia's definition of "revert" is:

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

EdJohnston is inventing new Wikipedia policies and threatening to block users who do not fall in line with his power trip. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down

I have been noticing your situation. With situations like this it is best to stay cool and not get confrontational. That doesn't necessarily mean you will be showered with WikiLove or be viewed favorably by admins, but there is no need to add undue stress to your editing experience by letting your emotions get the better of you.

My opinion is that you have made several good contributions in your brief time here and should be commended for them. Do not let those contributions become secondary considerations by getting livid with other editors. Sometimes people really are just being dicks, but other times they are just confused or letting their emotions get the better of them as well. Responding with malice only escalates the situation and impedes progress towards a resolution.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

I have given you the opportunity to explain yourself by e-mail, but in the first instance your response was unsatisfactory and in the second you ignored my message. Further to technical (checkuser) evidence, I have blocked you indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, because you have used this account and User:Dimension31 to edit Golan Heights - a contested article that has been the subject of an arbitration case. Additionally, under the provisions of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing any page that relates (broadly interpreted) to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The usual method of appealing an indefinite block apply, as summarised at Wikipedia:Appealing a block; community support for returning your editing privileges after socking (or a satisfactory explanation of the situation) would be required. The usual method for appealing the arbitration enforcement action applies, and is summarised at WP:AC/P#Reversal of enforcement actions. AGK [•] 22:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last email you sent me was a one sentence message and you did not indicate that you wanted a response. You're either bad at communicating, deliberately "stacking the deck", or both. I suspect both. I think that your poor communication skills are related to your general lack of intelligence.

To protest your idiocy, I have no choice to but to use one of my clean accounts (I have several) with a clean IP history to troll some other troubled topic area. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify if / why you switched from Dimension31 to this account? u n☯mi 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user intentend "to troll some other troubled topic area".That tells us all that we need to know.--Shrike (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't switch from Dimension31. I explained this clearly to AGK in our email exchange, but his blighted intellect was unable to grasp that. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley has offered his own summary of the case at User talk:Unomi#AE. "So, to sum up, we have a single-use account making disruptive edits in the ARBPIA space that turns out to be a sock despite numerous denials to the contrary and reports of other users as harassment." EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your personal attack against WGFinley, and am disabling your talk page access. For any further review of your block, write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]