User talk:RaRaRasputin

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hatla chemical attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hatla chemical attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You must not edit a Afd that has been closed. This is clearly stated on the page. Thank you Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. A quick review of your edits gives the clear impression that you are making no attempt to edit within the requirements of WP:NPOV and exercise the due care required by the letter and spirit of general sanctions on this subject area. VQuakr (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh? I would argue quite the opposite and your warning is evidence of POV-pushing and such. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sarmin chemical attack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to White Helmets

White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to White Helmets

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR rule

Sorry, but you have breached the 1RR rule with your edits here and here. You will need to undo this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, have done. Thanks for highlighting this. I assumed after creating an article on Shajul Islam that it would not qualify under 1RR as a breach. Would you be so kind to explain where I am going wrong? Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an 1RR breach regardless of the changes. There are certain exceptions, such as obvious vandalism or the enforcement of overriding WP policies, but even then it's still an 1RR breach and people may challenge it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. That is clear. Thanks. Perhaps you would be so kind to replace the text for me? In whatever position or manner you see fit, I would be even more grateful. If it is not in your interests however, don't worry. :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously when I wrote "certain exceptions", I meant that you can get away with violating the rule in those cases. I'll have a look at your changes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't make the changes, actually, because I have already used my 1RR today. It's best to take it to the talk first anyway, since it will likely be removed within hours of it being restored. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for general non-neutral editing and BLP violations in an area covered by general sanctions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RaRaRasputin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what I have been blocked for. Please would you be so kind to provide evidence in order that I may either be unblocked or correct alleged non-neutral editing and BLP violations in future? Thanks! :)

Decline reason:

I have pointed out some of the BLP issues here. Huon (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The edits which actually caused this block were the ones that created this atrocious WP:BLP: [1] If you still wish to appeal, I will copy your appeal to the appropriate noticeboard and recommend you be given a longer topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of appealing a block that may cause a longer block. That wouldn't be very constructive at all. Your reply has been and I have analyzed the differences between your reference and the current revision. The problem seems to be my use of the words propagandist and actor to describe Shajul Islam, which I admit may not seem neutral to describe him from certain viewpoints, upon reflection. I hope you can understand the circumstances however, after reviewing similar videos of the Sarmin chemical attack, why I would be inclined to use such language to describe him and you might think not so "atrocious" at all if you watch them. I will try to remain more brief in future to avoid such words which could appear non-neutral after the block expires. Unless we can forget all about it and unblock me anyway? :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This was what triggered the block, not the sole cause of it. For example, this shows you have clear difficulty in understanding how to edit in this area. You can take these three days to read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as otherwise, a topic ban is likely in your future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh come now Neil, I was encouraged to do that by User:Exemplo347! Exemplo urged me on to do that and told me I was free to without impunity in this edit - [2] I am a new editor and can hardly help it if these more senior comrades are giving me bad advice (although I have spotted some other naughty ones out there). You should block User:Exemplo347 too if you're serious about this, or it's not fair! Can't we negotiate it down to 24 or 48 hours? I am really sorry and have re-assessed the consensus POV since that incident. I have also read and re-read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP five times over, especially for you. ;-) RaRaRasputin (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, Shajul Islam goes free and I get blocked for 72 hours. Typical. Happy Easter comrades! [3] :) RaRaRasputin (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Shajul Islam has now been turned into a redirect here [4] by someone else (Redacted). There is also a highly dubious WP:BLP1E that can be resolved with this article and various others regarding charitable donations from organizations to this man outside the Khan Shaykoun incident. [5] I would be very grateful if anyone reading this can restore it while I am blocked. (Redacted) RaRaRasputin (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As you have again violated the BLP policy and engaged in incivil commentary in your most recent comment you are now subject to the following sanction for six months:

Topic ban from making any edit about the use of chemical weapons related to the Syrian Civil War, both broadly construed.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) in no less than three months, however you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)