User talk:Achird/Arkiv01

hi there.Dr Locke (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image from user page

Hello. Another user asked me on my talk page to remove the image File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from your user page. I have done so, because according to our policy WP:UP#POLEMIC, "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" are not allowed on user pages. Please do not reinsert the image, or you may be made subject to formal sanctions under the Arbitration Committee's decision WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. Thanks, Sandstein 13:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad that some political extremists are allowed to censor my user page. / Achird (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image again after you re-added it. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby prohibited from using images that advocate against any party involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict on your user page. If you do not comply with this prohibition, you may be blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia without further warning. This sanction is logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed as described at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop censoring my user page in this highly offensive way! I am a serious wikipedia editor, and I don't want to be attacked in this offensive way! / Achird (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a right to free speech on Wikipedia. Instead, you are required to comply with community policies, as outlined above, as a condition of being allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sandstein 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is very different from what I am used to on Wikipedia. When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you, Sandstein, behaving like an totalitarian asshole? I'll point out that I am not sarcastic or trying to be rude, but just genuinely curious why you behave like this. / Achird (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Sandstein 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This block is to enforce the image use restriction imposed above which you violated by your edit at [1]. Please understand that arbitration enforcement procedures are binding. If you disagree with a restriction imposed on you, you are required to comply with it until it is successfully appealed. If you continue to violate the restriction, you will be made subject to increasingly severe sanctions. Sandstein 22:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I must protest against this censorship! I am a serious wikipedia editor, and I cannot approve of this kind of censorship protecting political extremists who are approving violence! / Achird (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity

I share your anger at this censorship of your user page. You may be interested in my own experience of this; I have been banned from using the file Commons:File:No Israel.svg in my user space. There is a discussion of this on my talk page, and another at my rejected appeal. I think that you should appeal against this arbitrary ruling RolandR (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history here, I see that you and I were both sanctioned after complaints by the same editor, who is banned "from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed and without exception". I agree with your comments about censorship by political extremists. RolandR (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! / Achird (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked this Sandstein a bit, and I am surprised that people here let him act at all. It all seems extremely fishy. Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit? / Achird (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kafka Award

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.
RolandR (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong, Kafka was quite related to Zionism [2]. --Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"we can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that Kafka's gut reaction to the modern national-cultural Jewish enterprise, whether or not he was a Zionist, was one of distaste." -- Dan Miron, Professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at Columbia University, Sadness in Palestine, Haaretz 24 November 2008.[3] RolandR (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's very interpertive, but he might be correct, I don't realy know. However, according to this and Page 147 here, he was Zionist...It's just funny, thats all. --Gilisa (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that statement is *highly* interpretive, and I would guess there are a half-dozen other literary professors who would say the opposite. Just because he found the language difficult to learn and if he found some of the literature boring, does not mean that his "gut reaction" (whatever *that* means) to the "modern national-cultural Jewish enterprise" (whatever *that* means) was one of "distaste." Kafka was a Jew writing about what it was like to be a Jew in his day, ie on trial for heaven knows what, always guilty even without a trial ,etc. : A microcosm of the Jewish state today. Stellarkid (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second block

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Sandstein 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This concerns your second violation of the restriction imposed above. The third block will be of indefinite duration. Again, if you disagree with the restriction, it will do you no good to simply disobey it, because it will be enforced with blocks. Instead, if you believe I was wrong to impose the sanction, you may appeal it as provided for in the arbitral decision. Sandstein 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole! / Achird (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you ask questions in this tone you are not likely to receive answers. Sandstein 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why would I be nice to someone that behaves like a dictator? Just because you have the power to block people you don't like? Sorry, you cannot scare me into being nice! Stop this misusing of your administrative role and start to play nice yourself! / Achird (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear countryman (as I believe is the case), in case someone hasn't pointed you to that policy, WP:NOT clearly states that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", see WP:NOTSOAPBOX to get a more direct link. The choice of words and tone above unfortunately don't indicate that you have comprehended the issue. Also, as a Swede living outside of Sweden, I can't help but point out that reporting on Israel is one of those areas where Sweden (in the form of Swedish media and Swedish left-wing politicians) differ clearly from an "international Western world world standard" (at least the English- and German-speaking world), at least of the last couple of years. What is seen as more-or-less acceptable there would be seen as totally unacceptable in many other Western countries. So there is actually little surprise that you run into problems in English Wikipedia on an issue like this. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomas e for explaining the real problem for me! I wasn't aware that the difference between Swedish media standard and "international Western world standard" was that huge regarding reporting about Israel. That's also the reason why I didn't understand Sandstein's actions at all. / Achird (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Thomas, as I see it, Achird name calling of Sandstein and blatant incivility is much behind soapboxing and the fact he's from Sweden change nothing. From my experience in wikipedia, I believe his actions justify long term blocked (from at least month to one year). Achird, I have watched your short contribution list to Wikiepdia, while it's very short, it's also clear that you were familiar with Wikipedia procedurs from your first edit under this user name. I hope you don't mind and don't see it rude if I ask whether you have additional active user here in Wikipedia? Also, can you tell what was your former user name-if you had? --Gilisa (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly active on svwp, which is clearly said in the first line of my user page. As you can see there I almost never edit any political or controversial articles on svwp, just serious NPOV editing. So when I made this mistake and showed my opinions about the boarding of the Freedom Flotilla, the extremely harsh reactions here was a huge shock to me. I am used to having a sensible discussion before anything is done, not this kind of extreme behavior. / Achird (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your user page before asking and knew before asking that you are mainly active with this user name in the svwp. My question was, and still is, if you have or had any other user name under which you edit or edited here in English WP? --Gilisa (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no other user name. / Achird (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Achird, it was me, who asked Sandstein to remove the cartoon from your user page in accordance with few wikipedia policies. Sansdstein blocked me for three days for doing this because I violated my topic ban, so you cannot claim the admin was unfair towards you. They just acted as they should have complying with Wikipedia user page policies. They are absolutely uninvolved with I/P conflict issues. That's why I'd like to ask you to remove personal attacks against the admin from your talk page. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]