Dehr
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
Hi. Please be aware of this report at WP:AE: [1]. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012 edit
Notice to administrators: In a March 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."
Dehr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh. There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage: I never showcased this fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss. I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. It was an honest mistake.
- The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be interpreted as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future.
- I was not given any opportunity to explain my actions in AE report filed by User:Grandmaster [2]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be balanced. Several old users already expressed their surprise [3]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he, like many administrators, is possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
- I have a good WP record. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, etc.). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations (civility, AGF, etc.). The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
- I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request. Dehr (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline, please use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Max Semenik (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (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.
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr edit
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
- Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- indefinite block; Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Timotheus_Canens (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 Dehr edit
- The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log [4] and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" [5]. My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
- There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
- The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see [6].
- I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster [7]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise [8]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
- I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
- Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts [9]. Reason?
- I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.
Statement by Timotheus_Canens edit
Statement by (involved editor 1) edit
Statement by (involved editor 2) edit
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr edit
Result of the appeal by Dehr edit
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Dehr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Per advice from the administrator Max Semenik I have (hopefully) used the proper template for appealing my block. The filled out template can be found on my talk page right above this notification. Thanks. Dehr (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As mentioned below, I copied your appeal to ANI, to allow a community discussion. It is perhaps worth mentioning that I did not need to do that. The guide to appealing against arbitration enforcement blocks says "You are not entitled to a community review of your block. The reviewing administrator may decline to initiate a community discussion if you do not prepare a convincing appeal before making your unblock request." My view was that you had not prepared "a convincing appeal", and I could have declined the request, but I chose to seek further community input. The result, as you can see for yourself if you look at the discussion, was a substantial consensus that the block was warranted. There is no need for me to repeat the reasons given in that discussion, but I will make one comment that may or may not be helpful to you. You said "The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith." If you really need it spelling out to you that to evade the restriction in the way that you did was unacceptable, then you have a fairly fundamental misunderstanding. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (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.
- I have copied your appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr, and it should be discussed there. I have informed the blocking administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)