TripWire
Clear violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_3. 48 hour block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 13 February 2018 (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 TripWire
[1][2] indicates that he is aware of the editing sanctions placed on Kashmir conflict related articles.
This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this disruption only account. His first revert[3] was totally inappropriate and unwarranted because I had linked to the SPI casepage in my edit-summary. And again, after I reverted him, he went ahead and restored the edits of a disruptive paid editing sock, which, as WP:PROXYING says, means that he took complete responsibility of the sock edits. His edit[4] clearly violated WP:LEADSENTENCE, which specifically states that the first sentence should generally match the page title, not to mention that he replaced the phrase "
Notified here
Discussion concerning TripWireStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TripWireStatement by Kautilya3Indeed, this topic seems to have brought out the good old brashness of this editor. He has also edit-warred about a "See also" entry at 2016 Uri attack [5], [6]. The statutory talk page discussion had this gem: Statement by (username)Result concerning TripWire
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bachcell
Appeal unanimously declined. Sandstein 18:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by BachcellWhy was I blocked I only informed an editor about an article without actually adding any content. So I can't even add comments on another page about a woman whose article was deleted but is now facing terrorist charges? I could understand extending the topic block, but why is it so harmful that it justifies a complete block? How can there be any harm in just mentioning the existence of an article title? Statement by NeilNThe topic ban was actually a fairly narrow one, a "three month topic ban from all BLP edits on subjects related to terrorism". This edit violated it. Given they've done no other editing since the topic ban was imposed, I think a 48 hour block and extension of the topic ban is rather lenient. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BachcellResult of the appeal by Bachcell
|