User talk:71.174.137.143

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

the climate ds notice above

• I gave one to myself, too
• They are for FYI purposes and imply no wrong doing
• They are only intended to get you to read the principles section of the ARBCC ruling (see link for "here" in the notice), and the various links that you will find in those principles
• In addition, please review our standards for what wikipedia defines as a WP:Reliable source and WP:Original research

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

since you guys want to piss on me here's me pissing back.

Don't do this, unless you want to be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming‎

You are allowed to copy small amounts of copyrighted text here, not whole paragraphs. And lay off the personal attacks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to trigger the edit filter, as you did at Talk:Global warming, you may be blocked from editing. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

please unbloack

[[unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. 71.174.137.143 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)]]

I believe your content filter was probably triggered by the words "d e a t h" or "k i l l" as in "the heat will "k i l l" us all" referring to Global Warming and/or "Those going to Florida for the winter to get that there 50% increase in temperature must be dropping "d e a d"" making fun of Global Warming. You can find variations of those comments in my attempts to remove the offending words (unless the comments have been deleted in which case you will need to look at the Global Warming - Talk page to find them). There were repeated attempts to massage the comments to avoid the problem words, resulting in repeated filter warnings.

Hoping whoever reads this is not a Global Warming fanatic, and doesn't consider a comment like "The heat will "k i l l" us all" a threat to life, liberty or property.

and I got more content filter warnings while attempting to post this response

Please take whatever action is needed to remove the block.71.174.137.143 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You were blocked for repeating the personal attack re: cretin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Copied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• 71.174, your request is unnecessary. Your unblock request can be handled here. As it is currently presented it will be declined. Your request should indicate your understanding of the situation that resulted in the block and steps that will be taken to assure that further disruption will be avoided. Tiderolls 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls: You are incorrect. It's an AE block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the ban given above was triggering the edit filter and not abusive language "If you continue to trigger the edit filter" .That is what I responded to.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Again the reason given is "If you continue to trigger the edit filter" Please advise if comments like "The heat will "k i l l" us all" is a threat to life, liberty or property.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, another editor warned you about the edit filter. I blocked you for the repeated personal attack. Discretionary sanctions covers standards of behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As for abusive language I was responding in kind to comments as follows. Notice all my posts were directed at JJ and are date stamped after his posts. I hereby make a notification to you about a poster using abusive language. I believe you need to ban him for a week as well.

samples

. I could go on, but most of the folks here know this. And I forgot, you are just a blathering idiot. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's time to ask for a range block on this idiot. He's definitely wp:nothere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

At this time I see neither a warning nor a similar ban on JJ for his comments - and he started the name calling. Please advise why you are singing me out when he started it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J._Johnson#top

and I have notified one other who also seems to be ignoring his abusive language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#on_.22if_you_piss_on_me_I_will_piss_on_you.22_comment

Please explain to me why I got banned and JJ did not.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You were warned and repeated the behavior after the warning. J. Johnson has now been warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But why wasn't he banned?

The repeated name calling that you refer to, I believe was the restoration of a deleted SECTION on the talk page, due to excessive use of newspaper material. The restoration was not to call JJ a cretin again but to restore the points made in that deleted section using less material. You can confirm by checking the deleted material and the reduced material that was restored.

At this point my understanding of the situation is that after JJ used abusive language to describe me (idiot) I used abusive language to describe him (cretin). Is my understanding in error?

Also At this point my understanding of the situation is that I have been banned for 1 week for using the word "cretin" while JJ has not been banned, but has been warned, but only after my repeated complaints, of his use of the word idiot. He was not banned and was not even warned when he originally made the disparaging comments. He was only warned AFTER I complained to you and was not warned when I complained to Connelly. Is my understanding of this correct?

My understanding is that if two people use substantially the same level of abusive language and only one is banned, and that person is NOT the instigator, then something smells in Denmark. Is my understanding of this wrong?

I notice that my use of the word cretin has been redacted, but that the word idiot, which is on roughly the same level as an insult, has not been redacted. Is my understanding of this in error?

I notice that JJ is a regular wiki poster, having a long standing talk page, and should have a good knowledge of wiki policies. By any standard you care to name his level of knowledge on wiki policies is greater then mine. So we have a poster with a good knowledge of wiki policy, breaking wiki policy by using disparaging language, and a poster with less knowledge of wiki policy responding in kind. I believe the instigated with the greater knowledge is more at fault. Is this understanding wrong?

Lastly! If you do not ban JJ for using abusive language, or alternatively remove the ban on me, then you are a biased two faced loser. If you do one of the above then you are even handed and praiseworthy. I will be waiting with bated breath to see you actions, or your lack of actions, in order to finalize my opinion of you.

Have a nice day!71.174.137.143 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)