User talk:Sepsis II: Difference between revisions

Currently banned for dealing with socks and pointing out how useless admins are at dealing with socks.

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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have never come across your work on WP, the more so I want to thank you for the way you dealt with the Seaman arbitration issue.
For what it's worth, here is, in my opinion, what we are dealing with here. This is a high-tension topic, Mr Seaman was until recently one of the policy makers organising the covered payment of government money to sympathetic students in- and outside Israel, who would then support the current government's politics on Facebook, Twitter etc. pretending to act as private, objective contributors. He managed to be fired by his own gov't right before launching the programme on a grand scale, for making quite rude and undiplomatic political comments on his own FB page. His "friends" (or himself?) usually try to whitewash his WP page anonymously, Plot Spoiler is the only exception in a very long time, but the most extreme one of them all.
I didn't add anything to the article, I only brought back in what Plot Spoiler had blighted. I have rearranged one lead paragraph setting the events in a more logical, chronological sequence and addressed Plot Spoiler's formal complaints re. subchapter headings. The only additional material comes from Nishidani, a truly academic contributor. That would be it. All the best, ArmindenArminden (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do try, but please keep in mind that I always leave explanation on talk pages, unlike other side. In the particular case of UANI, this is how it goes:

1. First they simply remove sourced material without any discussion, basically engaging in edit war.
2. After explanations on talk pages are given, then they claim source is "invalid". It can be an opinion written by university professor and published by academic house, but it's still "bad".
3. After running out of arguments, they play a passivity game. However, after they realize period of inactivity in my contributions (mostly few weeks), then they return to point 1 (new edit wars).

When I say they, I'm not sure am I talking about one person or group of people behind this accounts: AnarchistFakest, Averysoda, All Rows4, Bad Dryer... all blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, all socks, and all engaging in similar pattern like mr. PlotSpoiler. --MehrdadFR (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there are poor editors out there, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to edit poorly as well. Try using the talk page more and try going to Wikipedia:Third opinion if you are stuck alone with a silent revert warrior again. Sepsis II (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you give an edit warrring notice to someone for an edit from six weeks ago, for which the editor was already blocked? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a warning, just advice, and the editor has continued to revert on that particular article, and others, this week. Unlike many admins, I'd actually like to see him improve so that he doesn't get blocked. If you look up above on this page you can see us talking about this weeks reverting. Sepsis II (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who participated in the discussion leading up to this Rfc, please see Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert and the edit summary "bias, no consensus, stop edit warring go to talk page". 1. One revert does not an edit war make. 2. I am on the talkpage. 3. Take your own advice. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really seem to have a problem. Reverting an good edit, that uses NPOV language and saying that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, is not going to make a good impression. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most wikipedians have a problem with clearly bias edits. While you may deny knowing that you are pushing a POV it is obvious to everyone else what you guys are up to. 30/500 was suppose to make accounts like yours stop making such edits. Sepsis II (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "you guys"? Are you accusing me of teaming up with other editors? If so, you better be prepared to show proof.

What 30/500? I have over 80,000 edits in over 7 years behind my name! Debresser (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed in my edit summary, and explained on the talkpage, my edit is the best edit possible, in line with both NPOV and the source. Maybe it is you who has a bias? :) Debresser (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of teaming up with others, but there are a number of accounts who's main purpose for being here is for anti-Palestinian/Pro-Israel purposes.

A number of editors with an anti-Palestine agenda cleared 30/500 and came back with new accounts after being banned.

Your edit makes the sentence more vague when there was no need. The only purpose of the vagueness was to separate the Palestinians and their land; what a horrible goal. I'm a white agnostic scientist who has never been outside North America; I have no connection to the conflict. Sepsis II (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]