Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.


Haberstr[edit]

Nishidani[edit]

Ithinkicahn[edit]

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[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ithinkicahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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:
  1. 15 September
  2. 26 August
  3. 20 August
  4. 18 August
  5. 16 August
  6. 15 August
  7. 14 August
  8. 31 July
  9. 29 July
  10. 15 July
  11. 24 May
  12. 21 May
  13. 12 March
  14. 2 March
  15. 2 March
  16. 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 ([34][35][36][37][38][39]), 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 ([40]). Even with third-party users stating that the article was NPOV and reliably sourced ([41][42][43]), Ithinkicahn continued unilaterally placing the POV tag and had edit-warred to get his way ([44][45]).
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 

[46]


Discussion concerning Ithinkicahn[edit]

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[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ithinkicahn[edit]

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)