Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Kuioooooo

No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kuioooooo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kuioooooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Feb 5 20:53 I removed the claim that his loan from an Israeli bank is a government connection.
Feb 6 16:12 He then reverts, violating DS by not seeking consensus for a challenged edit.
I then revert back to the way it was prior to his violation of DS, (using my 1revert in the process).
Feb 6 16:14 He then reverts me violating his 1RR and DS for not seeking consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

In the talk page.
In edit notice on page when editing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764063225

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

On the talk page, he is doubling down, with this, "Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 4:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)" Clearly someone has an agenda, when they are pushing government regulation as a source to be government connection.
Just to add, disregarding everything else, the claim that Kushner has a loan from Hapaolim is unsourced. (Which would possibly make it a BLP violation since it would insinuate that Kushner is beholden to a foreign government.)
Sandstein, I apologize, I fixed the diffs. Also, the edit notice only mentions BLP, but all the diffs I brought were after I posted the DS to his talk page. There were prior reverts, but he was not properly notified before, even though the talk page specifies. (Also, I am not sure why the claim that someone has a loan with a bank means they have contact with a government. I have an account with a US bank, does that mean I have connections with the US?)

Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.

Georgewilliamherbert, his first revert was a violation of ds, not 1rr. His second revert was a violation of 1rr (and ds) And as for your claim of clubbing, please note I gave several courtesy warnings. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119

Discussion concerning Kuioooooo

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Kuioooooo

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kuioooooo

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Sir Joseph, please format your request such that all diffs are identified by date and time. Also, tell us why you think that Kuioooooo was aware of the 1RR restriction at the time of their last revert. It doesn't seem to show up in the edit notice. Sandstein 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kuioooooo, please tell us why you should not be sanctioned for re-adding obviously contentious material about a WP:BLP (a) that is based only on a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and (b) is based on a source that does even not name the person at issue and seems therefore unsuited as a basis for the statement you sought to add? Sandstein 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can overlook the issues given that everyone backed off to the talk page. I suspect the removal by Ryk72 is correct but it's not all so obviously wrong or unsourced that zero tolerance is needed. Sir Joseph, your timeline accuses him of a problem on his first revert, which is not how it works unless 0RR is applied (and it is not for this article). AE is not a club to beat disagreeing editors with. Kuioooooo, you need to pay attention to the content criticisms in the talk page. Try and move beyond going back and forth with Sir Joseph and discuss with others there.

I would close no action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closing as no action, but on different grounds. Even as amended the complaint does not make clear that Kuioooooo was properly notified of the applicable sanctions before the edits at issue. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Bloor

Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks. Sandstein 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Islington Bloor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Islington Bloor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Islington Bloor

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Islington Bloor

As 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.

- (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Wikipedia is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Wikipedia Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Wikipedia. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iazyges

I 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)[reply]

@Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I 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)[reply]

Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Exemplo347

This 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

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

@Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. Sandstein 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 me and thus 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~~ making edits that reintroduce the contentious word "fringe", which 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~~ Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] DuBois, W.E.B. (2003). The World and Africa. New York: International Publishers. pp. 81–147. ISBN 0-7178-0221-3.

[4] Williams, Chancellor (1987). The Destruction of Black Civilization. Chicago, Illinois: Third World Press. pp. 59–135. ISBN 0-88378-030-5.

[Diop_1974_1–9,134–155-5] 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_1981_103–108-6] Diop, Cheikh Anta (1981). Civilization or Barbarism. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. pp. 103–108. ISBN 1-55652-048-4.

[Mokhtar_1990_1–118-7] Mokhtar, G. (1990). General History of Africa. California, USA: University of California Press. pp. 1–118. ISBN 0-520-06697-9.

[8] Jackson, John G. (1970). Introduction to African Civilizations. New York, NY, USA: Citadel Press. pp. 60–156. ISBN 0-8065-2189-9.

[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.

[10] Bernal, Martin (1987). Black Athena. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 63–75, 98–101, 439–443. ISBN 0-8135-1277-8.

[Robert_Bauval-11] Bauval, Robert. "The Official Robert Bauval Website". Black Genesis. Bear & Company. Retrieved (2012-07-27). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards