| Revision as of 22:44, 7 January 2015 view sourceKrano (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,241 edits →Statement by (username): out comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:47, 7 January 2015 view source Tarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Statement by TarcNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | ||
| ====Statement by Tarc==== | ====Statement by Tarc==== | ||
| ] are a plague upon this topic area, this has been well-noted and well-documented in the Arbcom case. Editors who are only here to advance a narrow point of view must not be allowed to disrupt a topic area rife with BLP violations. | |||
| *Look at ], a SPA returns to heap more abuse, and had to be re-blocked and banned from the topic area. | |||
| *Look at ], a SPA that just shows up to reverty an edit. Account created Dec 3rd, has made minor edits outside of GG< the rest is stuff like this. | |||
| *Look at ], created Dec 8th, minor edits, including soem vandalism to a random article. The a moment ago that Avono had placed an hour earlier. | |||
| These are the kind of games, pov-pushing, and agenda-driven editing we face day in and day out around here. ] (]) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 7 January 2015
Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been superseded by an Arbitration Committee sanctions regime. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For more information about Arbitration Committee sanctions, see this page. For the specific Committee decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see WP:ARBGG.
 Archives |
1, 2 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Tarc
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 Tarc
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Bosstopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Tarc has been engaged in gross incivility against editors he has been edit warring with. While reverting an edit by User:Starke hathaway, Tarc wrote in the edit summary "Single-purpose-accounts are not welcome in this topic area." This is an innaccurate statement, as most of Starke's edits have been to non-GamerGate related topics. Yet even ignoring this, Tarc's comment is an unacceptable attempt to pressure an editor he disagrees with out of the editing process.
Tarc has also accused User:Shii of being in hysterics. Shii's so called "hysterical" actions were merely to revert Tarc's edit to the Draft claiming it to be against consensus, and noting that Tarc had not participating in discussion. How this could be considered hysterical I am not sure.
Per WP:NPA Tarc should not be accusing other edtors of being hysterical. Tarc should definitely also not be trying to pressure editors he disagrees with, out of contributing. Bosstopher (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tarc
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 Tarc
Single purpose accounts are a plague upon this topic area, this has been well-noted and well-documented in the Arbcom case. Editors who are only here to advance a narrow point of view must not be allowed to disrupt a topic area rife with BLP violations.
- Look at Special:Contributions/Xander756, a SPA returns to heap more abuse, and had to be re-blocked and banned from the topic area.
- Look at Special:Contributions/Starke_hathaway, a SPA that just shows up to reverty an edit. Account created Dec 3rd, has made minor edits outside of GG< the rest is stuff like this.
- Look at Special:Contributions/ToonLucas22, created Dec 8th, minor edits, including soem vandalism to a random article. The a moment ago restores a bogus edit-war template that Avono had placed an hour earlier.
These are the kind of games, pov-pushing, and agenda-driven editing we face day in and day out around here. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Statement by Avono
I also want to add that this user has been edit warning on the Draft Article while consensus was still developing in the talk page. . I cant remember there being a consenus against SPA's editing in the Draft Article therefore still this is also WP:BITE. Avono (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Tarc
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Categories: