→Result concerning SeattliteTungsten: blocking |
→SeattliteTungsten: closed |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
==SeattliteTungsten== |
==SeattliteTungsten== |
||
{{hat|1=SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
Line 140: | Line 141: | ||
:*The BBC-related material is definitely a revert (''partial'' revert, but a revert nonetheless). I am a bit more lenient on the other one, as the citation that SeattliteTungsten provided is a little better, although in spirit it is still reintroducing something that was removed. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
:*The BBC-related material is definitely a revert (''partial'' revert, but a revert nonetheless). I am a bit more lenient on the other one, as the citation that SeattliteTungsten provided is a little better, although in spirit it is still reintroducing something that was removed. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
*The request has merit. Both edits are reverts as described at [[WP:3RR]] ("a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material") because both reintroduce texts, or parts of text, that a previous edit removed. Because SeattliteTungsten's long response indicates that they misunderstand or refuse to accept the revert restriction, a block is required to enforce it. SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
*The request has merit. Both edits are reverts as described at [[WP:3RR]] ("a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material") because both reintroduce texts, or parts of text, that a previous edit removed. Because SeattliteTungsten's long response indicates that they misunderstand or refuse to accept the revert restriction, a block is required to enforce it. SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 09:12, 24 September 2014
Ithinkicahn
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Ithinkicahn
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ithinkicahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:AA2
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- The user engages in a relentless effort to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide in Wikipedia. It's a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The user's edit-summaries are almost always misleading. They're often entirely irrelevant to what the user's edit actually entails (i.e. 14 August , March 12, and 31 July edits). It's impossible to detect when and where the user has deleted references of the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, all edits must be examined. These are the only ones I happened to come across:
- 15 September
- 26 August
- 20 August
- 18 August
- 16 August
- 15 August
- 14 August
- 31 July
- 29 July
- 15 July
- 24 May
- 21 May
- 12 March
- 2 March
- 2 March
- 22 February
- The user also assumes an overt WP:BADFAITH towards his "opponents". He has openly exclaimed, even after I told him to stop with the badfaith assumptions, that "I have reason to assume bad faith on your part because of my experience with you in the past" (29 July). In an article where I have made only six constructive and harmless edits ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), the user kept hurling accusations at me by calling me a POV pusher and accused me of historical revisionism (here and here). The user continued doing this even after I kindly told him to stop. Apparently, he was not interested in adhering to basic Wikipedia policy either ([7]). Even with third-party users stating that the article was NPOV and reliably sourced ([8][9][10]), Ithinkicahn continued unilaterally placing the POV tag and had edit-warred to get his way ([11][12]).
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2014
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I've tried to work with the user on countless occasions. In the past, I've granted him a barnstar and was always supportive of his edits in Turkey related articles. However, once the user started editing in Armenian related topics, it turned into an entirely different story. His deletion of massive amounts of information (often times sourced) concerning the Armenian Genocide is highly problematic. Most of his edits regarding the Armenian Genocide are driven by his own personal opinions and fall contrary to the general consensus Wikipedia has instilled regarding the subject. Consequently, the deceptive edit-summaries make it necessary to tend and examine each edit. Furthermore, an uncompromising attitude towards those that don't fall into the user's POV makes it almost impossible to work with him. Hence, for the reasons I have mentioned, I suggest that the user be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ithinkicahn
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Ithinkicahn
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ithinkicahn
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- At a glance, the complaint appears to have merit, and there may be a case for sanctions, but I'd be interested to hear from Ithinkicahn and any other editors involved in the topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Ithinkicahn, would you like to comment here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Editor hasn't edited since September 16, according to contribution. Wouldn't say stale, but revisiting this when editor returns may be the way to go. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
SeattliteTungsten
SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SeattliteTungsten
Note that SeattliteTungsten called both edits "reverts" in his/her edit summary.
I didn't want to submit this case, and over a period of 9 hours twice offered to let SeattliteTungsten avoid it by self-reverting. However, he/she just wants to argue so here we are. As Penwhale has already pointed out, SeattliteTungsten's understanding of the rule is defective. It is also defective in terms of what a revert is. If reverts can be sanitised by making some changes to the reverted text, then we can happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time. The 1RR rule would become inoperative. In each case, some text had just been deleted in toto and SeattliteTungsten put it back with some changes. The changes don't alter the fact that SeattliteTungsten reinserted ideas and their sources that another editor had just completely removed. In each case, SeattliteTungsten correctly used the word "revert" in his/her edit summary so it is puzzling that he/she now wants to argue they weren't reverts after all. Zerotalk 06:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified Zerotalk 11:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SeattliteTungstenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeattliteTungstenThe complaintant's contribution to Wikipedia is overall worthwhile and positive. However, the current complaint is frivolous and wholly without merit.
The complaint should be summarily dismissed. Because the complaintant was informed (generally) that the cited examples do not constitute a 1RR violation for the above reasons prior to filing the complaint, the complaintant should sanctioned with a symbolic 1-hour block and a request to type, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" one hundred times on the defendant's user page as a sanction for wasting time by filing this frivilous complaint. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SeattliteTungstenThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|