User talk:Arcanery

Case: 02 - December ban
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Commentary:

 * As previously stated to the blocking admin and as one of the 2 users contacted by the puppet account, I didn't see his edit as illegitimate. The tone was polite. Wikipedia is a maze, users get lost, especially young ones. I therefore don't see the point of a indefinite block equal to a Wikipedia death sentence. I encourage Wikipedia's admins to maintain proportionality in the sentence, therefor opting for a warning and shorter block period. Yug (talk)  23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Chat

 * Discussion pre-permanent ban:
 * The Blade of the Northern Lights, maybe the block should be longer. I blocked the account (and revoked TPA); it's not a CU-block, though the geolocation confirms the socking, as much as geolocation can. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I'll up this to an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my refusal to support Arcanery's request on my talk page and push back so he follow the ongoing process (light 60hrs ban) is in no means a request or support for indefinite block. Tone was polite, 60hrs block AND educational-training discussion on Wikipedia usages must go on. Yug  (talk)  20:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC) (or it should be more thoroughly argued for)
 * Hello, a message to state that as one of the 2 users contacted by the puppet account I didn't see his edit as illegitimate. The tone was polite. Wikipedia is a maze, users get lost. I therefore don't see the point of a indefinite block equaling a Wikipedia death sentence. I encourage you to maintain proportionality in the sentence. Yug (talk)  19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also contacted on my talk page. The block evasion is inappropriate and grounds for extended the ban. Compounding the situation is the, IMO, absolutely mess the user made of this talk page with the rethreading of things into cases. It's so impossible to unwind the threads of what was said that it raises serious questions of whether the user can contribute to Wikipedia constructively at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller's contribution in chat
 * @Yug and now they are accusing Drmies of having framed them. Politeness isn't enough. I'm with C.Fred in doubting their ability to contribute constructively. Doug Weller  talk 22:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have said this before, and it is already established that this conflict originated between me, you (:Doug Weller), Khruner and Drmies. So you're now just adding fuel to a fire getting involved again in someting that has nothing to do with you, unless you are friends as I suppose. Arcanery (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, admins and experimented users are also accountable and higher standards are expected from them, fast block is convenient but not proper. We are all in the context of Wikipedia maze and complex rules, requiring constant learning and adjustments. Arcanera & puppet account having a civil talk with me should not be ground for immediate, warningless revert and indefinite block. Request to get back to reasonable edit behavior, a warning and rational must be stated.Nay. Yug (talk)  17:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I still see the low collaborative level of Arcanery : only 9 of 372 of his edits were in the encyclopedic space, the rest is chitchat and conflict. . Yug (talk)  23:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Arcanery. While I would like to help you get back to peaceful and constructive editing, So far it is difficult to take your side seriously. With a very partial knowledge of your conflicts I already see major issues from contribution style :
 * 1. You got into major conflict within you 10 first edits since then, you edited 360+ times only for deconflicting your situation. Ratio of 1 for 36 edits.
 * 2. You constantly restructure your talkpage and explicitly considered it you own territory without regards for other contributors.
 * I can see other users are concern that letting you in will only cost the community energy. Can you take some good will steps to prevent that ? Yug (talk)  23:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: User_talk:Arcanery is a step forward. Be aware that administrators are volunteers giving their free time to maintain wikipedia. Wikipedia is a large site. Admin's tasks include pushing back trolls routinely wasting users time. You currently match this profile (see your encyclopedic edit vs conflict ratio). Sorry for that, but yes, we have to do so. If you seriously wish to contribute, you now have to show you are a benevolent users for wikipedia and its community of editors. Please also take into account the motives in the various "Decline reason", keep in mind that admins try to do their best to protect wikipedia with limited time in their hand. Yug (talk)  23:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your comments everyone. It seems that multiple times it is being pointed out that the majority of my edits are "chitchat and conflict", and "only 9 of 372 of his edits were in the encyclopedic space (..)". To me all this says is that upon my first edits, I have run into a congregation that worked its tactics to get me removed for my differing views as quick as possible. I've let myself get carried away and (unaware of the concept) involved myself in an edit-war. It seems to me that some forget that this is my second day on Wikipedia as a contributor. It is only logical that when my first edit turned out into a dispute, the percentage of contributing edits aside to talk edits would be out of balance.
 * On that note I'd like to adress the second matter. I am constantly editting on wikipedia as it is my way of learning how this website coding works (which I happen to enjoy), and as I am learning this coding I am designing my talk page for the very first time. Unfortunately this doesn't go without mistakes as it is my very first time. If you have advice, please share. On a final note to make sure I don't forget anything, I am more than willing to take into account the motives in the various "Decline reason", however when these reasons aren't given or explained it is very difficult to do so. Maybe it's the language barrier, dutch being my native tongue, that causes a distortion in the communication; maybe it's a difference in custom considering my background education; maybe I am just not bright enough to understand the complexity that this expertise accompanies, I don't know. What I do know is that I will try my best to abide Wikipedia policy, as this epxeriece has taught me a lot in little time. Arcanery (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that a permanent ban would be very beneficial for the other parties involved in 'case 01', as they were already made aware by me that once I would be unblocked, I would address their conduct through the appropriate channels. I don't think they have behaved in good faith and there's been a WP:COI in regard to 'case 02'. If I don't survive this, I do recommend looking into all relevant actions.

Case: 01 - Block (edit-warring) - from Drmies

 * Drmies: "You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. (TW))"

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Arcanery → @ Drmies: the initial review leading up to the series of appeals.

Case: 01 - Contact with other involved parties
A study of the edit history of the following publishments should provide sufficient background information: Black Egyptian hypothesis, Kerma culture.

Drmies

 * "Do you actually want to be unblocked?" Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Arcanery → @ user: Drmies: Could you clarify? Arcanery (talk) 01:xx, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies

 * "Can you maybe not move people's comments around, taking them out of context? Yes--you are not behaving as if you want to be unblocked. You're arguing you're right, you're insulting administrators and call them liars--these are not the things someone who wants an administrator to unblock them would do. Good luck!" Drmies (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Arcanery → @ Drmies: If you would be so kind, try the following: Go to my talk page. Press ctrl/alt + F (: search function). Write in 'liar' and tell me what you see? I jest; I found the true liar. Arcanery (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Anyways;

Arcanery → @ Drmies

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:


 * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
 * Fixing layout errors:

If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings.
 * Sectioning:

Just to make this abundantly clear. It is up to me how I wish to design the layout of my own talking page. You should be grateful that - I - permit these suggestive and accussatory comments. You're pointing out that I am 'arguing that I am right'. This is what you are supposed to do when you make an appeal. I've not been insulting to anyone. There's a difference between explicitely pointing out someone's lie and calling them a liar. Stop trying to coerce the outcome by putting words in my mouth and framing me. Thank you very much. Arcanery (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller

 * "The context isn't relevant. It sounds as though you didn't read through the warning I gave you. Although it's not relevant to the reason you were blocked I will tell you that the 6th-Dynasty claim is actually in the given source on p. 77. There is no Kruger, but User:Khruner and I only reverted twice. I'm curious, when you reverted my 3RR warning you wrote "There's no point in trolling me now with your alternative account.". What alternative account?" Doug Weller  talk 18:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Arcanery → @ Dough Weller I (perhaps) mistakenly thought you to be an alternative account of User:Khruner, who appeared out of nowhere participating in an edit war, to harass me. I was (perhaps) wrong on the alternative account. I however wonder why you didn't give him the same warning, is it perhaps because certainly you and User:Khruner have an established relationship? You assisting him in his griefing is something you will also be reported for as soon as possible. Arcanery (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Khruner

 * Information orange.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kerma culture, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Again, please read WP:RS. Keep blanking reliably sourced material and I'll call for an admin intervention. Khruner (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Arcanery → @ Khruner: in my opinion this was a smere and an attempt at fueling the underlying disagreement.

Doug Weller
Welcome! Hello, Arcanery, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Black Egyptian hypothesis did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Black Egyptian hypothesis

This article is meant to be about those who put forward or supported the hypothesis and those who disagreed with them, although it has wandered at times. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * December 2019

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Note that including the edit as an IP you've reverted 4 times. Please now wait 24 hours and take that time to use the talk page for discussion. '' Doug Weller  talk 21:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is meant to be about those who put forward or supported the hypothesis and those who disagreed with them, although it has wandered at times. Doug Weller  talk 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

- Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion - Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 02:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)



Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 02:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kerma culture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Arcanery → @ Doug Weller: adding additional fuel to the fire as consesus was already being reached, solely to support his friend Khruner's claim in an on-going disagreement on content, masqueraded as good intent, to build up his report.

Case: 01 - Series of appeals
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS ticket closed
--  Deep fried  okra    19:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)