Difference between revisions of "Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal/sandbox"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
blackwiki>GoldenRing
(Make instructions venue-specific)
blackwiki>DannyS712
(Syncing sandbox code with main template (sync-template-sandbox.js))
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--
+
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}==
  Add your experimental template code here
 
--><noinclude>
 
  
{{documentation}}
+
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators noticeboard | editors | administrators}}" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> <p><small>''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]]).''</small></p>
</noinclude>
 
  
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <SonofSetanta>==
+
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|{{{Appealing user|Example}}}}} – ~<includeonly>~</includeonly>~~
  
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|administrators|editors}}" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action at {{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|[[WP:AE]]|[[WP:AN]]}}. <p>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]]).''</small>
+
; Sanction being appealed : {{{Sanction being appealed}}}
  
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|<SonofSetanta>}} – [[User:SonofSetanta|SonofSetanta]] ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
+
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|{{{User imposing the sanction|Example}}}}}
 
 
; Sanction being appealed : <Appeal against a topic ban https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=569961730#SonofSetanta as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles>
 
 
 
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|<Sandstein>}}
 
  
 
; 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 [[WP:DIFF|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.''
 
; 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 [[WP:DIFF|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 <SonofSetanta>===
+
===Statement by {{{Appealing user}}}===
 
 
<It would be my feeling that the ban was imposed incorrectly because the sysops involved did not take me at my word.  The detail of the complaint clearly shows I was having difficulty with a process, receiving help from others, engaging in discussion and most importantly, reverting edits which I clearly thought were vandalism.  I made no alteration to the text of the article and my decision to nominate it for deletion wouldn't have taken effect immediately but would have required discussion which clearly could have resulted in another method of dealing with my concerns over the article.  The situation wasn't helped by the intervention of an editor called Mo aimn.  I believe his alterations were designed to invite reverts from me as he knew I would be under preessure and make mistakes.  He wold have observed this from previous (unhappy) interaction with me.
 
 
From the text of the complaint you can see that sysops and some other editors argued for a ban because I had been consistently disruptive since 2008 and should have known by now how to nominate a page for deletion.  They claim I have hidden two previous identities to avoid scrutiny by sysops.  They appear to ignore the representations made by the other editors who were involved and who speak in support of me being confused but discussing.    I am accused of causing a "Battle Royale" over image copyright.  This is far from true.  I was accused of deliberate copyright violation yes, but after several weeks of activity was able to prove that I had never violated copyright but had made mistakes in the pretty complicated area of Crown Copyright on images uploaded in 2008.
 
  
The facts are:
+
{{{Reason for the appeal}}}
 
1.  I have not edited constantly since 2008.  I had a username for 2 months in 2008 before retiring under pressure from editwarring gamers.  A second identity was created in 2008 which lasted for arounf four months.  My current identity was created in 2010 but used sparingly until May of this year with only a handful of edits in 2010, 2011 and 2012.    The truth is my editing history spans 12 months since 2008 with substantial breaks.
 
 
2. My issues since 2008 have always revolved around articles concerning the Irish Troubles and my unsuccessful attempts to edit out POV where I saw it.  A dedicated cabal was roaming the wiki ensuring that all of these articles were guarded and kept with their particular POV intact.  My opposition to this was noted and I became a target for "gaming" to get me off the wiki.  It sounds bizarre but it has happened to many people who have dared to edit these articles with a neutral POV.  Why don't I just leave these articles alone?  I am from Northern Ireland and am of very moderate views.  I also have a passionate interest in the military of Ireland, our police forces and  the British Military.  Why should I not edit the articles?  In my opinion, after examining what happens and being part of it, the thing to do is to stay involved and to try and assist admins in identifying what can be done to prevent this type of gaming. 
 
 
3. I am not guilty of copyright violation or disruption but this is used against me by sysops and those supporting a call for me to be banned.  All I did was to stand my ground, discuss, learn and save the images which were tagged for deletion.  Why is this wrong?
 
 
4. The most important point is that I was not disruptive.  I tried to nominate a page for deletion.  Several AfD patrollers came at me from nowhere and so quickly that the situation was developing whist I was responding to them on the talk page of the article, their own talk pages and mine. 
 
 
5. After the ban was applied I adjusted the licencing on image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg.  I was not aware that such an action was a violation of the ban and pointed this out at Sandstein's talk page.  Without warning I was then blocked.  Was that fair? 
 
 
Summary:
 
 
The real meat of the issue is at the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags  The edit history will show me putting in headers including the 1RR Troubles Restriction before opening a discussion as required to debate the possible deletion of the page.  I am experienced in 1RR and wouldn't have engaged in an edit war.  My belief was that I was reverting vandalism and that can be seen in my edit summaries.  The issue to me is that sysops are claiming I'm being disingenuous when all the evidence says otherwise.  I think it has to be examined why an uninvolved user (Psychonaut), who is a copyright enforcer, came to file the complaint at AE and why Mo aimn became involved.  Both of them excacerbating an issue which was by then under control and clealry needed no further intervention as an admin was already involved.  If the admin didn't feel it necessary to file a complaint why did Psychonaut? 
 
 
I request that the ban be overturned and my name cleared.  If possible the block that was applied to my user name because I did not understand that image pages were not part of the ban should be expunged. 
 
 
Only since May this year have I been able to edit at any pace on Wikipedia.  My success in doing so had me feeling for the first time that I was a real and active part of the Wikipedia community.  I brightened up my talk page for the first time ever by putting in colour and infoboxes.  I want to stay as part of the community and I believe the outcome of my learning when I was thrust into copyright issues proves that I am willing to work hard to remain and be productive.  Where I think the problem lies is that some editors still want to play games and sysops are too prone to looking for past demeanours to prove a knee jerk feeling that someone is being disruptive - that people like me can't learn to avoid being gamed.  The central issue is that the content of an article wasn't the cause of my error.  I was learning a new process, made mistakes, and thought what I was doing was subject to vandalism (for a short period).  No credit has been given to me for backing down and following instruction given by other, concerned and helpful editors and admins. 
 
  
 
+
===Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}===
 
 
>
 
 
 
===Statement by <Sandstein>===
 
  
 
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
 
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
Line 54: Line 21:
 
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
 
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
  
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <SonofSetanta> ===
+
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}} ===
  
===Result of the appeal by <SonofSetanta>===
+
===Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}===
 
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 
+
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
<!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. [[:Template:AE sanction]] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."-->
+
*
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
+
<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

Revision as of 23:31, 28 March 2019

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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 
Template:Userlinks – ~~~
Sanction being appealed 
{{{Sanction being appealed}}}
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Template:User-multi
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 {{{Appealing user}}}

{{{Reason for the appeal}}}

Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

Result of the appeal by {{{Appealing user}}}

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

Usage

This template may be used for appealing arbitration enforcement actions as explained in the 2010 motion in re Trusilver. To use it, please copy the text below to the appropriate forum and fill out the required fields (or proceed as per WP:AEBLOCK in the case of a block).

Note: Do not keep the angle brackets (<>) that appear below in the template. These should be replaced with the text described within them.

{{subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal

| Appealing user        
  = <Username>

| User imposing the sanction
  = <Username>

| Sanction being appealed  
  = <Text>
  <!-- Provide a brief description, a link to the sanctions log (if any) and to the
       discussion resulting in the sanction (if any). Example:
       
       Topic ban from the subject of Antarctica-Micronesia relations, imposed at
       [[WP:AE/Archive50#Request concerning ProudPenguin]], logged at
       [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antarctica-Micronesia#Log of blocks and bans]] -->

| Reason for the appeal
  = <Your text>
  <!-- Please explain *why* you appeal the sanction and whether you want it to be lifted or modified. -->

}}