Dear sir, madam,

This has unnecessarily gone completely out of hand. Forgive me, but it feels like Asymmetric Warfare.

I made a final appeal in the former matter ("case: 01") and with having that appeal rejected once again, I was digesting my errors and reflecting upon my actions to see if and how to proceed with my will to dedicate to Wikipedia's good cause, only to find myself permanently banned.

Not knowing how to come in contact with administrators with my edit rights being removed, what I did in regard to my other account was contact two administrators that had done the most recent reviews on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Requesting them to review my case so that it would be looked into in timely fashion. Would I have done it with the benefit of hindsight? Absolutely not. I didn't know how I could have contacted admin the right way.

You won't find me writing a lengthy plead, because I figure it will be perceived as another rant and probably make things worse. But I do ask you to evaluate if this action is proportionate and to reconsider this verdict.

I'm not all too familiar with how it all works yet, obviously and I am very sorry for that, but I thought it would be important to this case just to add this:

I think it's curious that the underlying conviction that recently appeared on my other account and the report for this current verdict are respectively judged and filed by Administrator Drmies, whom has also been very much involved in another matter ('case 01'). This is a blatant misuse of administrative powers. A glance at what has happened thus far on my page, should reveal a conflict of interest. In the end, administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). I believe it to be in line with Wikipedia policy to have this conduct scrutinized.

Truly, it is my wish to be able to look back on this in the future and see it as a rough speed course to Wikipedia regulation, policy and accepted behavior within this community that has eventually lead to great performance and contribution.

Yours faithfully,

Arcanery (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to make sense of this talk page. Every time I try, I get confused and give up. It's long, convoluted, and broken into sections that don't really make sense. Apparently, you think Drmies has engaged in some kind of admin abuse. If so, I suggest you take this up with Arbcom via email. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, madam,

It saddens me that different views are not welcomed within certain categories of our community. I believe this appeal has been judged unfairly and that the report, as submitted by mister Doug Weller, does not reveal the context in which my actions have been made.

For quite a while I have considered creating an account to improve the quality of the information provided by Wikipedia. The reputation Wikipedia currently has in regard to academic credibility sadly isn't what we would like it to be. It saddens me because this website and the community that is active on here has the potential to elevate itself to that next level. I wanted to be a part of that proces and today I decided to actually contribute to this cause.

I do believe I have made a mistake in my adjustment to Kerma culture. As I was writing the article something unexpected came up and I thought it would be acceptable if I finished the final remarks to the edit the following day. However, I also believe it to be disproportional to suspend my account over this first day error. I would like to add to this matter that although it doesn't make it right, I did add the following edit summary to my proposal: "In order to decrease the chances of this article being viewed as partisan I have added remarks to provide a more diverse view upon. Unfortunately I have run out of time now, but worry not soon I will add the proper sources for the published changes."

In regard to the disagreement with mister Khruner, as you can see in the history, I have tried my very best to meet his criteria so that we could find common ground. I understand mister Khruner and mister Dough Weller are valued and contributing members of this community and have been for a while now allowing them to have established strong relationships within this community. However, it doesn't mean they haven't contributed to this situation that has now unfolded. There's a high degree of exclusiveness and disdain that I have experienced when submitting the knowledge and information I have obtained to certain topics on Wikipedia.

I fully understand that we have to find common ground and make a publishment that doesn't solely appeal to one side of the case. In particular in regard to topics that go 5000 years back in time it is extremely important not to be ignorant and solely protrude a narrative that is not even shared among the adherers of the subject at hand.

I also find it very insulting, and not in line with the professionality one would expect from Wikipedia, when an administrator would rather contribute to the aforementioned bullying/harassment by concluding his verdict reducing me to "edit warrior", while here I have been on the other side trying my best to contribute to a subject that is very dear to my heart.

As a law student I aspire to one day be a judge. As mentioned before I understand the warning I received and I am fully aware of the policy that is upheld within this community. It has never been my intention to violate the rules or disrespect the community in any way sort or form. Justice is something that is very important to me and I hope you will find the time to carefully analyse everything that has occurred today so that no relevant aspects are left out of the conclusion. I strongly believe that in "warring", the actions of all parties involved should be reviewed and not just one party. ‪The comments provided by the administrator‬ have me worried about the principles by which his judgement seems clouded. I recommend reminding him what conduct is expected from Wikipedia administrators, considering the important exemplary role they maintain within our community.

If you require additional information, please let me know. Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,

Arcanery (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Arcanery[reply]

You discuss a lot in your very lengthy request, but don't seem to concede that you engaged in edit warring. You were blocked for what you did, not for what others did, and what you did is the only thing that is considered in an unblock request. Only you can control what you do, and if others are edit warring with you, there are proper procedures to address it; it does not give you license to edit war or demand that "I am not going to let this unfounded statement remain on this page". I am declining your request; if you make another, please attempt to keep it to a paragraph or less. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely shameful how you protect your peers and refuse to take all matters into consideration. Here you are accusing me of warring while you refuse to look into the specifics of what happened. Not only that, you're also telling me to share less about what occurred. You haven't shown interest in divulging what occurred and merely point a colored finger at me. Allow me to elaborate.

You point out the moment where I try to uphold Wikipedia regulations. Such as "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".

Aside from this. The discussion, either on my or his talk page, caused me to bring adjustments to my edit so that it would meet his demands. Because I was trying to meet his demands everytime, it caused me to apply extra edits. As you can see, in the end the person who this regards told me exactly what to do to find common ground. I did exactly what he asked (which is in line with the underlying principles against warring) and here I am getting blocked without elaborate arguments being given aside from a congregated front.

Yes I have spent a lot of time in writing a review so that all relevant aspects are taken into considering in this case. It is preposterous how you dismissed half of what I said and finish your review with "please attempt to keep it to a paragraph or less". It just goes to show how little you care about what actually occurred.

Edits:

Removed: "No Egyptian presence occurs by the Sixth Dynasty." Edit summary: "removed because it dilutes the content. What does 'No Egyptian presence occurs by the Sixth Dynasty.' mean? Doesn't seem like a correct sentence to me. Furthermore no source is provided for this information. If so please refer to the exact source of that information in a correction." Grounds: "If the content is nonsense or is unlikely to be true, be bold and delete it!" - Wikipedia. Also no source was given nor found.

The other edit regards: Removed: "Thus, by the second millennium BC, Kerma was the center of a large kingdom, probably the first in Sub-Saharan Africa. vs Edit: "Thus, by the second millennium BC, there isn't truly any reason to doubt that Kerma was the centre of a substantial kingdom, almost certainly the earliest known in sub-Saharan Africa, and one which came to be a major rival to Egypt."

I added to this sentence so that it would be more accurate. I used the original source material so that I would be certain not to prolong the disagreement I had with Kruger. I used his own source in accordance with his conditions: "You'll do. If you are unhappy with that, all you have to do is finding another reliably sourced claim countering this one, or writing to David Edwards for further explanations." After that Doug Weller commented that I need to paraphrase my edit more so that there's no risk of plagiarism. Agreeing with his view I once again amended the text so that there wouldn't be any disagreements left on this regard.

Me trying to meet their demands everytime and adjusting my text so that it did, caused me to have multiple edits in the history. These edits were made in the light of trying to SOLVE this issue, by meeting their demands, rather than letting it get out of hand like it has now. IF there are no justifications in this regard then I would like to ask if you see merit in filing a report about Kruger and Doug Weller their same violation of the three-revert rule.

In my conclusion I would firstly like to mention that the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. IT was way out of proportion given the situation at hand and the direction it was already heading on (see history). Also the block is no longer necessary because I fully understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again (such as correcting edit mistakes) and I will continue to make productive contributions instead (as elaborated in my first appeal).

My demands are clear and I wish for justice to be brought to this case. If you do not feel like reviewing this case, or feel that it is too long for you to read or too complicated, please refer the case to a colleague of yours who does care and want to resolve this matter appropiately (and independently). If this isn't the right place for lenghty appeals please do let me know so that I will initiate the arbritation procedure.

Thank you for your time. Arcanery (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were unambiguously edit warring. Please read our guide to appealing blocks if you wish to request unblock again. It really doesn't matter at all if your edits were correct or incorrect; you are not blocked for the content you were posting, but rather for your behavior in doing so. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur your finding of me exceeding the '3 edits limit', but I disagree with your conclusion not to uplift the block.

"It really doesn't matter at all if your edits were correct or incorrect; you are not blocked for the content you were posting, but rather for your behavior in doing so."

You are stating that my behavior was out of line. The behavior you refer to is 'providing more than three edits on the same publishment within 24 hours'. Although I have behaved in good faith at all times, in accordance with your ruling, there appears to be no excemption for this behavior. I now fully understand and accept this. In my behavior you will find commitment to contribute to publishments in accordance with Wikipedia policy, undoubtedly more thoroughly thanks to this epxerience.

In accordance to this jurisprudence I have broken the three-revert rule and I apologize for that. I see no further reason to uphold this (notably extensive) block, other than keeping me from filing a report about the misconduct of the other parties involved.

The following persons will be reported for violating this three-revert rule, c.q. unambiguously edit warring: User:Khruner and User:Doug Weller. Arcanery (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is battleground mentality and still a limited understanding of policy. You can rest assured that when someone files a report for edit warring, the admin who reviews the report looks at both parties' behaviour. And in this case, neither Khruner nor Doug Weller reverted more than thrice. If I unblocked you merely to let you file a spurious report against the people who disagreed with your edits, I wouldn't be doing you any favor. Huon (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Huon his opinion and therefor, unfortunately, once more feel obliged to make an appeal. Huon has made his intentions abundantly clear, in that the statements he has made are false and suggestive. Allow me to clarify:

• Huon: "If I unblocked you merely to let you file a spurious report against the people who disagreed with your edits, I wouldn't be doing you any favor."

This is a reaction to a reaction. I was following (up on) advice given by former reviewer 331dot : "(..) if others are edit warring with you, there are proper procedures to address it."

Also, the following statement is blatantly incorrect:

• Huon: "You can rest assured that when someone files a report for edit warring, the admin who reviews the report looks at both parties' behaviour. And in this case, neither User: Khruner nor User: Doug Weller reverted more than thrice"

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. I suggest reading WP:RS and then the following reverts:

1. 12:38, 21 December 2019‎ Khruner talk contribs‎ 24,784 bytes +180‎ rv unexplained removal of sourced content undo
2. 13:15, 21 December 2019‎ Khruner talk contribs‎ 24,784 bytes +180‎ rv, claim is reliably sourced
3. 13:24, 21 December 2019‎ Khruner talk contribs‎ 24,784 bytes +45‎ Undid revision 931822420 by Arcanery (talk) You'll do. If you are unhappy with that, all you have to do is finding another reliably sourced claim countering this one, or writing to David Edwards for further explanations
4. 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ Khruner talk contribs‎ 24,940 bytes +156‎ →‎History: the apparently problematic 6th-Dynasty claim is actually corroborated by the given source, p. 77;

• Huon: "What I see here is battleground mentality (..) and still a limited understanding of policy.(..)"

Bold statements for someone who hasn't backed his claims with proper arguments or reference. All it does is show that his verdict is biased. I have stated my post and prior intentions multiple times. Sone of them being: "For quite a while I have considered creating an account to improve the quality of the information provided by Wikipedia. The reputation Wikipedia currently has in regard to academic credibility sadly isn't what we would like it to be. It saddens me because this website and the community that is active on here has the potential to elevate itself to that next level. I wanted to be a part of that proces and today I decided to actually contribute to this cause." and "I now fully understand and accept this. In my behavior you will find commitment to contribute to publishments in accordance with Wikipedia policy, undoubtedly more thoroughly thanks to this epxerience."

Also, Wikipedia states "Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours." and past verdicts have been far less severe for multiple and worse offenses. To name a few recent blocks from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

• Bizenjooooo, blocked 31 hours, User keeps changing the date of birth of the subject, but refuses to provide any WP:RS to confirm this. I've discussed this on their talkpage, where it's descended to personal attacks by them, and a further revert to the WP:BLP after issuing them a final warning for edit-warring.

• User:2600:1007:B12C:DE74:28A1:30F5:66E2:2CC - Blocked 48 hours, Blanked a section, has been warring over it with multiple people. Possible sock of 136.181.195.23, which from WHOIS/Geolocation, appears to be their place of work.

• Poro789, Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring against multiple users over time

In this case I have been blocked for an astonishing amount of 60 hours, while, I digest; in light of the actions of the aforementioned, my behavior yesterday, whilst not defending it, could be considered in good faith and novice. I have learned from this epxerience and I won't make more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period again, there's no reason to fear I will engage in edit warring, in any form. Also, I will resolve my disagreement with the other parties through the appropriate channels. Indeed I will also have their behavior judged accordingly, as has been adviced earlier throughout this review case and as of course would be just.

Considering the above, by now the rules have been made abundantly clear to me, as they have been repeated many times. I understand it and I no longer see any reason to prolong this blocking, considering its disproportional duration. It serves no further purpose. It should be clear by now that I have a strong intend on committing and dedicating myself to Wikipedia's cause (100th edit in my first day). I think it's more valuable and appreciated if I contribute to publishments, rather than spend more time arguing about other users their misconduct that has been deemed not relevant to this blocking by earlier reviewers. I have improved my understanding of the rules in regard to edit-warring, as I've by now already read them through extensively.

I thank you for investing time and effort taking it upon yourself to properly review this elaborate case. I believe there's little more to add to this shameful event and wish to move forward. I conclude my appeal with the request of your aid in this venture with the uplifting of the block.