Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Kuioooooo
No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Kuioooooo
Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel." seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection. I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda.
Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119 Discussion concerning KuiooooooStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KuiooooooI only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox [1] That editor was reverted by Jim1138 [2]. I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Kuioooooo
|
Islington Bloor
Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks. Sandstein 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Islington Bloor
I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."
Discussion concerning Islington BloorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Islington BloorAs I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with.
Statement by IazygesI don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephI don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Exemplo347This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through. Statement by (username)Result concerning Islington Bloor
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by dailey78
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Rod (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles
Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by dailey78
I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia.
If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page:
- I'm three years older and wiser and should be given a chance to contribute. If it doesn't work out, just ban or block me again. We all agreed to discuss the highly contentious topics on the Talk page and then edit the article. It seems that I'm the only one being forced to follow that agreement, but I have followed it. The administrators are complaining about recent edits, but have you actually reviewed some of those edits. In one edit, a sentence said "authors said xyz", I added several citations so that readers would know exactly which authors made the statement and where they could read more about it. The article was enriched. What is there to complain about?Rod (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Dailey78: Thank you, and I do think it would be a benefit for you to post this to your AE request so the other commenting admins can read it. I'm willing to extend good faith generally and I believe you can make useful and productive contributions. When when conflicts occur, and they will occur, how will you react? --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- All the editors of the highly contentious article(s) agreed to post contentious edits on the Talk page and discuss there, without edit warring the posts on the actual article. It's the only workable solution, because editors disagree strongly and often about this topic.Rod (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
For those arbitrators that don't have time to review my recent posts, here are some excerpts:
- Example 1 from AE race controversy article: Before my edit, the article contained this sentence with no citations: The Black Egyptian hypothesis is held by various authors that Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization.
- After my edit, the following citations were added: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Next I went through the trouble of fixing citation errors from duplicate citations.
- Example 2 from Black Egyptian Hypothesis article: On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe" into the article against the wishes of two editors without any discussion on the Talk page. If all editors were being treated equally by the adminstrators, Doug Weller would need to gain consensus on the Talk page before reverting and reintroducing the contentious word "fringe" that is opposed by at least two editors.
- Doug Weller, the point is that the article contained two instances of the word "fringe" (in two separate sentences). One instance was removed by Temple3 with an edit summary that let other editors know that they didn't think the word "fringe" was appropriate for the article and that it destroyed the balance with the debunked Hamitic, Dynastic, etc. theories. I removed the other instance in the second sentence. You reverted my work, which had the effect of reintroducing the word "fringe" to the article that Temple3 already indicated was contentious. There was no discussion on the Talk page. This is typical and why the content matters. There's is a pattern in these articles where editors that seek to balance the black egyptian hypothesis with the other hypotheses are silenced, censored, and banned by supposedly neutral adminstrators. Conversely, if other editors make extremely controversial additions (e.g. adding a picture of Romans in an article about the Black Egyptian hypothesis after years of discussion on the Talk page agreeing to not add any pictures to these articles to avoid picture warring. Literally, years of consensus and agreement among editors destroyed with the most controversial post possible). The supposedly neutral administrators, however, are silent.Rod (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Example 3 before my edit, the article contained the following run-on sentence with no citations, original work, and a lot of factually inaccurate opinionated statements: The Black African model relied heavily on the interpretation of the writings of Classical historians, who were writing during and after the time when Egypt was a province of the Persian Empire, i.e. long after the golden age of pharaohic Egypt had passed and when Egypt was full of foreigners. I edited and added the much more neutral sentence: The Black African model relied heavily on the interpretation of the writings of Classical historians from the 5th to 1st centuries BC. This factual sentence covers the lives of Herodotus (5th century BC) , Diodorus of Sicily (1st century BC), and Strabo (1st century BC), as they are the most often cited Greeks on this topic in peer reviewed secondary sources. I would ask the administrators to compare the two sentences and let me know which is more encyclopedic. I would ask the editor that added the former sentence, which source will confirm that Egypt was "full of foreigners" by the 5th century BC and at what percentage of foreigners is the term "full" attained? Was there a census? Can this info be found in a peer reviewed secondary source? I would also like to ask the editor in their original work how they concluded that the black egyptian hypothesis relies solely on writings from the period of the Persian occupation, when Strabo and Diodorus are frequently cited in the hypothesis and they lived in the 1st century BC during the Roman period? This example illustrates how unencyclopedic and factually inaccurate these articles will quickly become without my constructive contributions.Rod (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Again. Yes, I fully expect this to be taken seriously, as there are real life criminals that have received shorter punishments than three years for committing a real life crime. We are discussing a topic ban on Wikipedia. A three year punishment is more than enough. I also don't think I should be punished for being passionate about Egyptian History. Some people like baseball, or soccer, or hunting. I like A.E. history. I traveled to Egypt last year and toured the entire country from the far north, to central, to the extreme south. Being passionate about Egypt and not contributing to other parts of the site is not a crime. It's up to you guys, but I stand by my statement. Read the version of the articles before I made my first edit and read the versions after. There are a lot more citations. A lot more encyclopedic content. The articles have been greatly improved and a great deal of the text in these articles (even today after my 3 year ban), I actually contributed. What is Wikipedia without people like me that are passionate and concerned enough to keep contributing over the years and keep the website accurate and informative.Rod (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As an example of how other editors and I can work through disagreements without the need for a ban. See this discussion from my Talk page. Dougweller and I often don't see eye to eye on these articles, but we can work together. It might be annoying for him, but it's doable and a ban is unnecessary.
First, I've seen that you wrote " The majority of the balance can be found in the A.E. Race controversy article, however the black theory article is also balanced as Yalens, Aua, Doug, etc. ensure that it remains that way (and I appreciate them keeping everyone honest)." Thanks very much for that. You have indeed helped improve these articles and your knowledge is useful. However, there are have been a couple of problems One of them has led to your current block. I'm hoping that when you come back nothing like that will happen again. I felt that you were implicitly supporting Andajara - and that was a real train wreck with no other likely outcome, although I think discretionary sanctions are better in this area than the obsolete article probation.
The other problem which I think feeds into the behavioral problems is that you lack width of experience on Wikipedia and probably because of that still don't fully understand our policies and guidelines. You've only made 790 article edits and only to 72 pages. It takes time and experience to really understand how we work, and I am still learning after over 114000 edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Rod (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ DuBois, W.E.B. (2003). The World and Africa. New York: International Publishers. pp. 81–147. ISBN 0-7178-0221-3.
- ^ Williams, Chancellor (1987). The Destruction of Black Civilization. Chicago, Illinois: Third World Press. pp. 59–135. ISBN 0-88378-030-5.
- ^ Diop, Cheikh Anta (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. pp. 1–9, 134–155. ISBN 1-55652-072-7.
- ^ Diop, Cheikh Anta (1981). Civilization or Barbarism. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. pp. 103–108. ISBN 1-55652-048-4.
- ^ Mokhtar, G. (1990). General History of Africa. California, USA: University of California Press. pp. 1–118. ISBN 0-520-06697-9.
- ^ Jackson, John G. (1970). Introduction to African Civilizations. New York, NY, USA: Citadel Press. pp. 60–156. ISBN 0-8065-2189-9.
- ^ Sertima, Ivan Van (1985). African Presence in Early Asia. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers. pp. 59–65, 177–185. ISBN 0-88738-637-7.
- ^ Bernal, Martin (1987). Black Athena. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 63–75, 98–101, 439–443. ISBN 0-8135-1277-8.
- ^ Bauval, Robert. "The Official Robert Bauval Website". Black Genesis. Bear & Company. Retrieved (2012-07-27).
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help)
Statement by EdJohnston
Statement by Doug Weller
daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe".
What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78
Result of the appeal by dailey78
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- You weren't topic banned "for editing", you were topic banned for behaving poorly in that topic. For us to consider removing the ban, I'd like to see some indication that you understand your role in the disputes, why you were banned, and what you would do differently going forward. As far as I can tell, you are quite recently making potentially contentious edits and I think the probability of your getting into further conflicts is high. Getting into conflicts and disagreements is not problematic in and of itself, but how you behave in those conflicts is critical. --Laser brain (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Is this meant to be taken seriously? Dailey78 was topic-banned from "all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles" in 2014, yet as recently as yesterday they have been violating this topic ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy (e.g., at [5]). It seems that they have never edited anything unrelated to this topic. Asking for a topic ban to be lifted a day after violating it is preposterous. I'm instead considering a lengthy enforcement block. Sandstein 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is slightly complicated by the 12 month Wikibreak they took 2014-2015 and then the 18 month 2015-2017 break. But not much. I can extend a bit of good faith IF their current edits weren't disruptive and IF they stay stopped during the discussion, that they might legitimately not have understood the sanction was permanent / nonexpiring. Enough if both are met to withold sanction now and discuss whether they can address prior issues enough to consider some form of standard offer. But I have not yet reviewed the current edits enough. Reviewing now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- This can't be serious. Arguing that three years is too long for a topic ban would make sense if you'd spent those three years editing other areas on Wikipedia but, instead, you merely left and then returned three years later to continue where you had left off. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this appeal, demonstrate that you can edit non-combatively by editing in other areas, and then, after a reasonable period of time, return with evidence that the ban is no longer necessary. Otherwise, I think we'll have to go with Sandstein's enforcement block suggestion. I'd also suggest not making statements like without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia, they aren't exactly reassuring. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)