User:Santasa99/sandbox20
for AN (ANI maybe, or AN Closing Review, or some other review of admins' overreach, etc.)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091 - Wikipedia
I want to ask the community to reconsider my indef TBAN reduced at the last moment to ABAN on LGBT in Islam (yes, actually, it was supposed to be full TBAN, but thanks to my big mouth it was reduced to ABAN, although El_C left an unequivocal warning that "(...) Any further problems in the topic area are likely to lead into a full topic ban (WP:TBAN)", as if evidences have shown my propensity towards GENSEX excesses, which is hardly the case, as I am going to try to show, and not a weird situation in which I had to remind El-C that he is getting ahead of himself a little bit), imposed by the administrator, El_C , and based on WP:CIR (Six Month Referral Appeal). And since my ban is based on this pretty ambiguous rationale (honestly, I never met anyone who is banned on this), which competence certainly is - I have successfully navigated through the pitfalls of the Balkan scope for nearly 15 years, with maybe barely a dozen AN/DRR board visits - so I'll be honest and say that even now I can't say that I'm able to pinpoint the exact reason for my ban, except to tell you that I feel as competent today as I did a year ago.
Now, the following detail may or may not be relevant to the rest of this statement and indeed review, but it's still a fact: I made a one-word edit and only one, not only in the entire article, but in the entire GENSEX scope with this diff . I admit being involved in edit-war over this one word, but 3RR report was filed and it was concluded with a warning, after which I never put a single letter into the article page.
However, I know very well where and how many times I took a wrong turn in this particular case, but even today, after a detailed examination of my ANI report, I do not understand how the indef TBAN could be assigned with such ease, given all the circumstances, some of which are obvious from the report itself. After all, an editor who is not competent should get an explanation that he will understand, although El_C claimed that we discussed this before - there are at least several possibilities, which should be discussed in my ANI report. I think El_C judged too harshly.
Am I banned because, without thinking much, I chose DNR of all DRR? If that is the reason, can it be excused as incompetence so easily. Or the reason is that I wrote how with "abendoned" editing on article, but then decided to go to DNR, although El_C himself suggested that the resolution should be sought at some DRR. Or did it prevail that the editor involved suggested DISENGAGEMENT, which El_C seems to have interpreted as meaning that editor decided he was the only one to quit instead of suggesting we should both quit, so that I would disengage from trying to influence what he incorporated into the article.
I mean, I could WP:ABAN you from the page rather than WP:TBAN you from the topic area, but if you don't edit the topic area, anyway, I don't see how it'd make any difference. But sure, I guess. You keep mentioning 'fairness,' which can become a pretty subjective thing. But your actions, not knowing when to drop the WP:STICK, that's an objective fact.
I made three mistakes: one in an attempt to edit an article, involving myself in breaking 3RR, but I was warned about it by the resident 3RR admin, after which all edits stopped; the second would be in the process of me filing an ANI report against the opposing editor involved, El_C, as a resident admin there, noticed that I had pulled down my first post (because it was long) and the opposing editor's first even longer reply, but after El_C left a comment that the report was unreadable at the time and that he would not engage. It occurred to me to take those posts down (the header above the reply was not neutral), but El_C accepted this official, I guess because it was really the only way forward in the discussion. Noting that it's not appropriate (or even allowed?), El_C was unhappy with the report itself that it contained too many differences; and the third mistake was that after this ANI was closed, but not formally closed, I went back to solving the content on the advice of El_C to try to look for DRR, and already emotionally exhausted I admitted DRN for RSN, which apparently
++++++++++++++++++
Želim da zamolim zajednicu da preispita moj indef-ABAN (jeste, ustvari, trebao je biti TopicBAN, but thanks to my big mouth it was reduced to ArticleBAN, although El_C left an unequivocal warning: "Santasa99 is indefinitely article-banned (WP:ABAN) from LGBT in Islam and Talk:LGBT in Islam as a WP:GENSEX discretionary sanction. Any further problems in the topic area are likely to lead into a full topic ban (WP:TBAN)." as if evidences have shown my proness prema ekscesima, which is hardly the case, as I am going to try to show, and not wierd situation in which I had to note to El-C that he is getting ahead of himself) na LGBT u islamu, nametnut od strane administratora, El_C, i zasnovan na WP:CIR (žalba za šest mjeseci preporuke). And since my ban is based on this prety ambigous rational (honestly, I never met anyone who is banned on this), which competnece certainly is - ja uspješno navigavam kroz pitfals of Balkan scope for nearly 15 godina, sa možda jedva tuce AN/DRR board visits - pa ću biti iskren i reči da ja ni sada ne mogu reči da sam u stanju da pinpoint tačan razlog za moj ban, osim da vam poručim da se osječam kompetentnim danas kao što sam se osječao prije godinu dana.
Sad, slijedeći detalj bi mogao a ne mora biti od značaj za ostatak ove izjave and indeed review, ali je svejedno fakt: ja sam napravio one-word edit i samo jedan, ne samo u cijelom članku, nego u cijelom GENSEX skoupu sa ovim diff. I admit being involved in edit-war over this one word, but 3RR report was filed and it was concluded with a warning, after which I never put a one letter into the article page.
However, ja vrlo dobro znam gdje i koliko puta sam pogrešno skrenuo u ovom konkretnom slučaju, ali evo i danas nakon podrobnog examination mog ANI reporta nerazumijem kako je indef TBAN mogao da se dodjeli s takvom lakoćom, uz sve okolnosti, od kojih su neke očigledne iz samog izvještaja. Uostalom, editor koji nije kompetentan bi trebalo da dobije objašnjenje koje će razumjeti, iako je El_C tvrdio da smo o tome ranije raspravljali - postoji bar nekoliko mogućnosti, koje bi trebalo da stoje u diskusiji u mom ANI reportu. Smatram da je El_C sudio prestrogo.
Jesam li banovan zato što sam, ne razmišljajući mnogo, odabarao DNR od svih DRR? Ako je to razlog, zar se to može opravdati nekompetencijom tako lako. Ili je razlog to što sam napisao kako sa "abendoned" editing on article, but then decided to go to DNR, iako je sam El_C sugerirao da se rezolucija traži na nekom DRR. Ili je prevagnulo to što je involved editor predlođio DISENGAGEMENT, što je El_C izgleda protumaćio kao da je taj editor odlućio da samo on odustaje umjesto što je predložio da bi trebali da obojica odustanemo, kako bi se ja isključio iz pokušaja da utičem na ono što je on ugradio u članak.
Napravio sam tri greške: jednu u pokušaju uređivanja u članku, uključivši sebe u razbijanje 3RR-a, ali me je na to upozorio stalni 3RR administrator nakon čega su sva uređivanja prestala; drugi bi bio u procesu mog podnošenja ANI izvještaja protiv suprotstavljenog uključenog urednika, El_C, kao tamošnji stalni administrator, primijetio je da sam srušio svoj prvi post (jer je bio dugačak) i prvi još duži odgovor suprotstavljenog urednika, ali nakon El_C ostavio komentar da je izvještaj u tom trenutku bio nečitljiv i da se neće angažirati. Palo mi je na pamet da srušim te postove (zaglavlje iznad odgovora nije bilo neutralno), ali El_C je prihvatio ovog službenika, pretpostavljam zato što je to zaista bio jedini put naprijed u diskusiji. Uz napomenu da nije prikladno (ili čak dozvoljeno?), El_C je bio nezadovoljan samim izvještajem da sadrži previše razlika; i treća greška je bila da sam se nakon što je ovaj ANI zaključen, ali ne i formalno zatvoren, vratio na rješavanje sadržaja na savjet El_C-a da pokušam tražiti DRR, i već sam emocionalno iscrpljen priznao DRN za RSN, što je naizgled
==============================================================================
[edit]for AN (ANI maybe, or AN Closing Review, or some other review of admins' overreach, etc.)
Request for review (?) - how my ANI was handled by admin.
I want to ask community to reconsider my indef-ABAN at LGBT in Islam, imposed by the admin, El_C, and based on WP:CIR. I was indef WP:ABAN-ed, by El_C from LGBT in Islam with cited WP:CIA reasons (appeal in six month recommendation). I was unable to understand this rational, although El_C argued that we have discussed it earlier. I am not sure that we have, however. I feel that this decision is havyhanded even if it could be found warranted by looking at the case's individual parts in a vacuum, but I am not sure anymore. I have committed three errors: one in attempt to edit in the article, involving myself in breaking 3RR, but I was warned for that by resident 3RR admin after which all edits ceased; second would be in the process of my filing ANI report against opposing involved editor, El_C, as a resident admin there, observed it that I collapsed my first post (because it was lengthy), and opposing editor's first even longer response, but after El_C left the comment that report at that point was unreadable and that they won't engage. It occurred to me to collapse those posts (header above responding was not neutral) but El_C accepted this clerking, I suppose because it was really only way forward in discussion. With a remark that it was not appropriate (or even allowed?), El_C was dissatisfied with a report itself it contained too many diffs; and third error was that after this ANI was concluded, but not formally closed, I returned to content resolution on the El_C's advice to try and seek DRR, and being already emotionally exhausted I confzsed DRN for RSN, which seemingly/maybe was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Earlier I said to El_C that I am inexperienced in dispute resolution processes despite my significant editing experience, because I chose to avoid to reach that point in which AN is necessary, and I am certain that I was never frequent participant in them weather as reporter of reported). My main topic area is Balkans' history and politics, usually synonymous with problematic scope, which I succeeded to participate in unscathed for 14 years, except just few 3RR warnings at most, so, if I say that there was no ill-will behind these three errors, that statement has some merit. In fact TP evidence can show there was genuine good will to work with involved editors on article's TP, until it simply came to the point that I felt it was the time to attempt to draw attention to behavioral concerns via ANI (not for content concerns), This ANI was at the end used for my ABAN based on this rational, to me truly surprising development. If there was something which I did to the TP or article it falls under this unexpected WP:CRI rational, which I studied to see how can I apply it on both my editing and behavior. If it boils down to my errors in ill-formatting ANI and choosing DRI instead DR as suggested by El_C, it nevertheless still feels to be to be heavyhanded decision with indef ABAN. By the way, if I didn't react on ANI, where El_C reviled his intention, I would now be WP:GENSEX TBAN-ed not ABAN-ed, but I told the admin that it would make no sense as my edit on that article has nothing to do with particular topic area, and that I never edited on the topic in the first place.
The strangest thing is that not even my edit actually concerned topic are WP.GENSEX, as it was a single edit concerning issue that just simply happened to be part of the article lead section - it was edit-removal of the word "Islamic" from phrase created as "Islamic death penalty" without reference.
The attempt to apply broad GENSEX TBAN signals arbitrariness of such decision, having in mind my almost absolute absence from that topic area.
Although admin expressed willingness to see what are my grievances, I felt irritation on every step