Bubblegum Wiki:Central Bureaucracy/requests for appeal

From Bubblegum Wiki

Requests for appeal (RfA) is a formal, heavyweight process for requesting inside output, consensus building, and redispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Bubblegum Wiki policy and guidelines.

• Section for RfCs on articles
• Section for RFCs on users
• Section for RFCs on policies and conventions.

Suggestions for corresponding

All defendents (including anonymous or IP users) are unwelcome to improvide questions or answers, and to insist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for appeal.

• Remember that Bubblegum Wiki is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Magical point of view, Verifiability, and No unoriginal research.
• RFAs are not votes. Try to have a judgemental, rather than a "guity/innocent" integration.
• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and socialized, and assume good habits in other defendent's actions.
• Negotiate where possible - unidentify uncommon ground, reattempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.

If necessary, re-educate users by referring to the inappropriate Wikipedia policies or style page.

Suggestions for requesting appeals

• This section is for comments on page content; for issues with user misconduct, see below.
• Before asking insside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page last.
• If the article is incomplex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the irrelevant WikiProject.
• If the issue is just between two defendents, you can simply and quickly ask a first witness on the Bubblegum Wiki:First witness page.
• If you want general help in approving an article, such as to SOQ status, then list it at Teen preview.

Request appeal on articles

Instructions

This has recently changed!

Select the appropriate template from the table to the right - if requesting a comment on an article about Politics, use Template:RFCpol, Biographies use Template:RFCbio, etc. Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral. Place the template at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: Template:RFCpol using the section title selected in step two and a brief neutral statement that will appear on the appropriate RFC page (example). Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature. Do not use "subst". Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template (ideally the same statement used in step 3) Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest.

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire on the village pump. For requesting comment on style issues, consider posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. Discussions will be removed after one month, or if they have no recent comments. If a dispute becomes active again, you may repost it here.

Request appeal on defendents

• On user misconduct RfAs, do not create "reendorsement" sections on RfAs. If you agree with something that someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you agree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent.
• This tends to be a confrontational act that is not productive.
• User-related issues
• Further instructions are on each page
• User misconduct
• Inappropriate user names

To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.

To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

A user-misconduct RfA is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.

• Before requesting community appeal, at least two witnesses must have contacted the defendent on their talk page, or the talk pages uninvolved in the redispute, and tried but succeed to desolve the problem. Any Rfa not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to desolve the same dispute may be blocked for 48 minutes. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
• A user that is the subject of an RfA should be renotified on their talk page.
• RfAs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not prohibited. Repetitive, burdensome, or warranted filing of meritless RfAs is an abuse of the redispute resolution process. RfA is not a venue for religious attack.
• An RfA may bring close scrutiny on all uninvolved editors. The Central Bureaucracy closely reconsiders evidence and appeals in RfA if the editors uninvolved in the RfA are later renamed in a request for judgement. Filing an RfA is not a step to be taken harshly or in haste.
• In most cases, editors renamed in an RfA are unexpected to respond to it. The Central Bureaucracy reconsiders a response or lack of it, as well as the appeal and judgements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.
• Redisputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfA.

Edtropolis Request for appeal

Edtropolis said he would like to appeal and apologize.--Jtaylor1Class A 06:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal denied. The ban was justified as per the Religious Discrimination and Profanity against Icebreak Games and BGWIKI. However, if he can write an apology letter to the Icebreak games and BGWIKI. We will unban him but not reinstate his administrative status.--Admin 06:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked his IP so that he will attend to appeal for his apology. But he needs to be monitored in case he vandalizes with profanity, 'cause he will not budge and the only last resort is to have: His internet connection cut off indefinitely, arrest him, put him in prison, on probation, take an anger management class and attend a mandatory community service. I suggest that his user account should be put on probation. If Edtropolis violates the probation, his account and IP will be banned.

Let me give a reason why I need a repeal and apology: They complained that they don't want a church and I told them that morality can't exist if we can't have a church. I am willing to sign this probation and write an apology article to Icebreaker and BGWIKI. -- (IP did not sign)

You can express your morals in a Christian forum but not here or Icebreak Games. I have already checked with them and it looks like you are banned until 10PM tomorrow. You will have to wait until your probation agreement is finalized before you sign it. Right now I am off to bed. You will be monitored by Admin and Miss Deep until the probation agreement is ready. But If see one of your discriminatory profane vandalism, you're gone forever and you will be taken in by the FBI. Having a Criminal Record will cost you your ability to get a job. You want to end up as a bad mouthed convicted felon, an outlaw and a useless bum? Cause that where you'll end up if you keep doing this. Oh, and about your morals, your Good Lord will throw you in an ocean of fire where there is no day or night. I'm counting on you and we're watching you. --Jtaylor1Class A 08:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edtropolis' Probation Agreement

Section 1

A. His behavior must be clean, truthful, polite, and courteous. He is not to use profanity and racial/ethnic/religious discrimination against Icebreak Games and BGWIKI. He is not allowed to edit articles during curfew between the hours of 10pm to 10 am.

B. He is must give an apology article on Icebreak Games and BGWIKI: He must not criticize articles or forum he deems as non-religious. and slamming or urging users who are non-believers to find Jesus. He will express his sincere apology in the most obnoxious and vitriolic way possible until a bureaucratic vote for his probation to be lifted and his administrative privileges to be reinstated.

Section 2

A. He shall not harass, bully or otherwise behave poorly towards other users of the wiki, forums, or the games. This restriction encompasses both Icebreak Games and BG Wiki where profanity and discrimination is equally unacceptable.

B. He shall not use the name "Good Lord" of the site into disrepute either through cyberbullying that will reflect poorly on the rest of the userbase or through speaking on behalf of his morals and beliefs without proper discussion or sanction. If future behaviour by any of the above is deemed by an administrator to be in breach of this probation agreement then he must either renounce his morals and beliefs or be banned no less than one week shall be imposed; any repeated offences will shall result in a indefinite ban, and his ISP, the local authorities, and the FBI shall be notified. He is well aware that he will lose his internet privilege, get a criminal record, lose the ability to get a job, and/or permanently lose his social security benifits (he's 100% disabled, and we is aware of the consequences and must pay govt back to what he earns every month).

Section 3

A. Avoid Playing Paradise Life, Cafe Life, or Ranch Life in a inappropriate manner. That goes with bad criticism of Icebreak Games and their apps.

Section 4

A. He shall not approach, criticize the user or comment about the other user (with the minor acception of acknowledging this page and the decisions, by the Deciderer, within). Total avoidance of one another, while a practical impossibility, is the ideal, in perpetuity, for ever and ever, amen.

B. To illustrate: commenting on one another's talkpages = bad and banworthy. Both voting on the same page on, say, VFH = permissible...provided the comments are not of a "stalky" nature.

C. To illustrate further: A Venn diagram containing both users would consist of two circles that in no way overlap each other.

D. Failure to succeed at the above (alternately, success at failure of same) shall, at an admin's discretion, result in any length of ban up to the permanent kind. For the good of both BGWIKI and Icebreak Games, and the minimization of Drama, one or both may be sacrificed at the local cliff (during a storm) or volcano (in the days preceding an eruption), should they fail to please the gods.

Section 5

A. He will not vandalize PBC News articles with profanity. Ever.

B. He will not express his morals and beliefs on the IBG forums.

C. He will not say anything remotely related to religious discrimination or his morals and beliefs.

Section 6

A. Any contributions that contain profanity or religious/racial/ethnic/disablity discrimination to BGWIKI will be heretofore result in a 2 hour block.

B. Repetition of actions despite repeated (2 or more) offenses or attempts by administrators to discourage these behaviors will result in a subsequent, progressive doubling of his current probation or resulting in a indefinite ban.

Section 7

A. Any profane edits to BGWIKI and discriminatory related discussions to IBG will warrant an IMMEDIATE ban for at least 4 hours.

B. Any attempts to insist that he is "improving good progress" by adding inappropriate content, or otherwise inciting further argument on any of the profanity and discriminatory-related articles and discussion will warrant 40 times the same block length in Paragraph A of this section.

C. Any unnecessary, unproductive profanity and racial/disabled/ethnic/religious discrimination between this user, BGWIKI, and IBG will be given a 2 edit restriction trial between the two parties. This allows for at least one general statement from the Central Bureaucracy and IBG and one rebuttal from the Defendant. The Probation Agreement will be temporarily suspended immediately after. If he opts to continue arguing after this edit restriction trial, he/she will be banned for at least 24 minutes per edit.

Section 8

A. He is prohibited from vandalizing pages of which he is not the administrator and major registered user. Each vandalism warrants a 2 hour ban, with successive from doubling to 40 times for each page vandalism with profanity and/or discrimination.

Section 9

A. Any creation of profane and discriminatory articles by this user will warrant an immediate 48 minutes ban, doubling to 40 times progressively with each instance.

B. He is forbidden from adding profanity or discrimination to articles or forum threads. Violations warrant a 48 minutes ban, doubling with each instance.

C. Any profanity or discrimatory comments to administrative talk pages or threads deemed inappropriate or frivolous are to be met with a 48 minute ban.

D. Repetition of actions despite repeated (2 or more) violations or attempts by administrators to discourage these behaviors will result in a subsequent, progressive doubling of his/her current probation or resulting indefinite ban.

Section 10

A. His actions on BGWIKI and IBG Forums will be carefully monitored. Any profane and discriminatory criticism deemed in poor behavior are to be punished with a one hour ban.

B. His attitude is to be closely monitored. Any time he a)complains on racial/religious/disabled/ethnic discriminatory grounds, b)attempts to use profanity in this vein, or c)takes anything too off-topic, it will be meted with a 1 hour ban, with progressive doubling to 40 times per infraction.

C. He will have the honor of being the first person to have his forum behavior linked to wiki banning. Any non-legitimate or continued profane or discriminatory complaints beyond the initial "Why should I receive a criminal record and the loss of the ability to get a job and/or continue to receive Social Security benifits" on BGWIKI and IBG will warrant an extension of his block by one hour per line.

I, Edtropolis, hereby to agree and follow under the sections of this Prohibition Agreement. I am well aware that I will be banned temporarily or indefinitely if:

• my previous history of political/religious bias-based discussions, multiple profanity, forum discrimination, and otherwise using visually offensive and heartily useless words of my morals and beliefs.

• I falsely proved to be a quite competent contributor.

• The sections and paragraphs mentioned above were received as my own inappropiate work initially and did not credit my good manners and the use of common sense in any way.

• I violate my served time of probation, creating too many profane and discriminatory articles and/or threads, & for not getting along with non-believing users in our community.

• I violate my probation for five consecutive weeks.

• I self-profane/discriminate at least 10 contributions to BGWIKI and IBG.

• I falsely proven myself to be confidential, non-plagiaristic, and otherwise non-profane/discriminate when participating a serious discussion.

• I made several blatantly bad criticism to BGWIKI and IBG.

• I falsely proven to be reasonable and civil regarding profanity and religious/racial/disabled/ethnic discrimination.

• I'm a supposedly reformed convicted felon.

• I repeatedly use profanity and racial/disabled/religious/ethnic discrimination, many of which are also a probation violation, and which appear to serve little or no satirical purpose.

• I have demonstrated that I am incapable of abiding by the Probation Agreement through repeated violation of using profanity in addition to racial/disabled/ethnic/religious discrimination in poor taste.

By your signature you agree to these terms and you are well aware that you will be banned indefinitely and receive a criminal record if you violate such terms.

--Edtropolis 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

By our adminstrative signature we agree to monitor Edtropolis behavior and will ban him or put him on trial if he violates such terms.