User talk:Crissedcrossed
Notification
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.In addition, as a result of a recent ruling, all IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RolandR (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Crissedcrossed, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Crissedcrossed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
March 2017
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon
[edit]Please stop. You're fighting a losing battle because you don't understand the ground rules.
The Wikipedia article doesn't have to accurately summarize what Atzmon wrote in his blog. It has to accurately summarize what Dershowitz wrote in his review, and I think it does that (although if you think it doesn't, I'm willing to listen to your arguments). If Dershowitz misinterpreted Atzmon, it doesn't matter because we've attributed the (mis)interpretation to Dershowitz. That's the way things work here.
Please stop insulting other editors, unless you want to be blocked from editing. And don't edit war under any circumstances. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Gilad Atzmon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:RolandR, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RolandR (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are engaging in both edit-warring and personal attacks against several editors in your edits to this page. If you continue, you are likely to find yourself blocked from further editing. RolandR (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
AN/I
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Crissedcrossed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
We are in the middle of discussing the actual edit on the topic page and the misapplication of an arbitration policy. Oh, and can I say, the accusations are bullshit. -- Crissedcrossed (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
- Just to make the obvious more obvious: there is no "discussion" on that talk page, only an edit war that reinstates a rant. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just to make the obvious even more obvious: there is no "discussion" on that talk page because Drmies, to whom I was not addressing my questions and appeared out of the blue from no where to distrupt discussion, keeps removing it before the party to whom it was address can answer it.
- Clearly this little cabal does not want there to be discussion or the issues to be raised, hence all the exaggerated accusations and deceptive distractions. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Crissedcrossed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand perfectly what is going on.
In line with policy on the biographies of living people, I toned down a deliberately exaggerated and misleading misquotation that a highly critical and biased opponent of his had made. One taken out of its original context in order to create a prejudicial impression.
(From the original source, the reference to Fagin and Shylock actually relates to commentary in a book by Anthony Julius.)
It is clearly taken out of context, and pulled out further with an unnecessary blockquote, with the intention to further prejudice readers.
Now what's going on is just game play on behalf of a little cabal who, for what reasons;
a) want to make that prejudice stick, b) want to block or remove any parties who might argue for a less biased or more accurate version. Anyone who might question their intentions with the mispresentation, and c) actually want to be able to misapply and exploit this "Arab-Israeli conflict" decision to control topics according to their agendas.
Now, when I first read the page, I was just looking for some information about a jazz musician and, knowing Alan Dershowitz's reputation, questioned whether the musician was being accurately represented. It turns out he was not, and so I toned the most exaggerated and unsustained element down.
What I did not know at the time is that there is a long history between the subject and members of this cabal going back at least 10 years. I am specifically identifying RolandR here. Given that, and that he had been outed on the subject's own website. True or false, one has to, therefore, question RolandR's and others impartiality in these matters.
As far as the chosen user name goes, the first person to censor my edit without discussion was someone "Cross". I could not have criss-cross, so I added the past tense to 'crissedcrossed'.
It was merely a riff on his name and what happened. "Criss" in the West Indies means cool or fashionable.
That a member of this cabal now jumps to the assumption that I am, therefore, a Nazi is hysterical. It's starting to feel like a scene in a Mel Brooks movie (Black guy in a KKK hood scene).
Now, does that sound reasonable and accurate enough?
I mean, seriously, look at this page [1] where Drmies accuses me of being the one making the BLP violations and edit warring when he was the remove removing discussions I was having with others. Are you really sucked in by this? --Crissedcrossed (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)"
Decline reason:
Almost all of this is about others. You should be discussing your own conduct. There's quite a bit to discuss there. Huon (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Crissedcrossed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am asking you to make a judgement on the actual edit and how I was following the living persons biography policy.
There's no question of "discussing my own conduct" beyond that. I followed the policy and removed a deliberately inaccurate and deliberately exaggerated quotation which other restored without discussion and with a false summary.
You need to look at where and from whom the first offences started and how the provocations, and lies about them, continued afterwards.
Again, I was discussing, as per the rules, other kept removing the discussion before the party I address it to had a chance to respond. Or show they had no intention to respond.
Leaving the quotation as is makes a mockery of the idea that this is all about following rules.
A Bit of Perspective
Just to put things into perspective, when one of the cabal stomping all over me for removing a single line was personal involved with arranged protests against the subject, see [2] or [3] or here; https://www.gilad.co.uk/search?q=rance, and note that it has been going on for 10 years,
And another player's family was directly involved in "shipping guns illegally to Israeli terrorists (Igrun) according to their own user page, see here [4]. (User:MShabazz or Malik Shabazz).
Surely it is reasonable to suggest, just a little, that just perhaps there are non-neutral elements involved here when the topic's subject is a critic of Israeli?
I mean, it would be ridiculous not to.
Thank you. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your unblock request can be summarised as "here is why I am right and everyone else is wrong". That's not what unblock requests are for, so I'm turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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.
Wrong end of the broom
[edit]Advice: you are sweeping with the wrong end of the broom here, Crissedcrossed.
It is not Wikipedia's place to judge whether Dershowitz is wrong or right on Atzmon, only whether his position is (a) accurately represented and (b) representative of a (not "the") notable mainstream opinion on its subject. And unfortunately it's easy to show that there is a substantial part of the mainstream — left, right, and centre — that finds Atzmon's rhetoric and activity to be noticeably anti-Semitic even when taken entirely independently of any political question on Israel. If you think that Dershowitz's views are not accurately represented, then say so. But "I personally don't believe it's true" is not sufficient grounds to demand its removal; your subsequent tantrum was therefore misdirected from its first keystroke.
Rather than stop and attempt to understand *why* you were sanctioned for your behavior, you instantly chose instead to climb aboard the "censoring cabal" horse and as you rode it you attacked other editors for what are at root *your* misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. When your edits were reverted, you decided that the solution was to repost them, usually verbatim, and JUST SHOUT LOUDER even as calmer voices were asking you to stop and think. This behavior dug you into a rather deep hole. That you wrapped your attacks on other editors in specifically Jewish vocabulary ("cabal," "the chosen people", "the chosen editors") has not helped you at all, I'm afraid. And the alacrity at which you hopped aboard that horse and rode it hell-for-leather makes it more difficult to accept your claim that you're just an objective everyman with an innocent question about a random saxophonist.
Note also that there is no rule or Wikipedia principle that says only authors friendly — or not unfriendly — to a subject may be quoted in a biographical entry, or that only editors friendly to a subject may edit the subject's biographical entry; the determining factor is whether the editor does so fairly and according to the rules of Wikipedia. We cannot judge what's in someone's heart, but we can judge what's in his/her edits, in his/her behaviour on Wikipedia. Ensignobvious (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)