Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244) (bot |
→Infoman182: closing |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
==Infoman182== |
==Infoman182== |
||
{{hat|Banned from all Poland-related articles for six months. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 08:30, 29 December 2018 (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 133: | Line 134: | ||
*I agree with a Poland-related topic ban. The "Esterka" matter is mainly a content dispute, but an editor with all of 34 edits who engages in this kind of aggressive, uncollegial conduct is clearly a net negative for Wikipedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC) |
*I agree with a Poland-related topic ban. The "Esterka" matter is mainly a content dispute, but an editor with all of 34 edits who engages in this kind of aggressive, uncollegial conduct is clearly a net negative for Wikipedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
*I would be inclined to a ban from all Poland-related topics until this user reaches the EC threshold. Go do some other stuff and show you can get on with people. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC) |
*I would be inclined to a ban from all Poland-related topics until this user reaches the EC threshold. Go do some other stuff and show you can get on with people. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==FkpCascais== |
==FkpCascais== |
Revision as of 08:30, 29 December 2018
Ivar the Boneful
No action. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:20, 22 December 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 Ivar the Boneful
User:Ivar the Boneful Where did I said that you continued to edit the article? I only said that you continued your edits in Wikipedia and ignored the warning.Are you willing to self revert or not? --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ivar the BonefulStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ivar the Boneful
I've got no idea why an article about an American Jewish organisation falls under special Israel/Palestine rules, but if that's the case I'm happy to abide by them ... as demonstrated by the fact that I haven't made edits to the page since receiving a notice that it was under 1RR. User:Shrike's timestamps above clearly demonstrate this. Shrike should withdraw this request for a block as groundless. Shrike also claimed I was asked to self-revert and ignored it, which no one has asked me to do until now. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Shrike Self-reverting to your preferred side of the content dispute would vindicate your decision to file a vexatious ARBCOM request, so no I won't do that. You still haven't addressed why you falsely claimed that I continued editing after being warned about 1RRR. I don't care if it's a deliberate lie or you just misread the edit times, it should still be withdrawn. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephSuggest no action, article is not under ARBPIA, and talk page discussions are ongoing, Ivar should not have reverted while discussions are ongoing.
Statement by (username)Result concerning Ivar the Boneful
|
Infoman182
Banned from all Poland-related articles for six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:30, 29 December 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 Infoman182
References
I restricted contents of this complaint to edits made after the user was alerted to discretionary sanctions. This user (created in 2016) has 34 total edits.
Discussion concerning Infoman182Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Infoman182Statement by Sir JosephThe lead of Esterka ends with "The legend of Esterka was a permanent fixture in Polish antisemitic literature.[2] In reality, the anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Jewish privileges granted by Casimir is known to have been started by Jan Długosz, some one hundred years after the supposed events." It's clear that someone here has an agenda to push. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella(Something to note, not a statement) - Heated dialogue took place within user's own talk page space [4], and was opened by a filing editor. [5] GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Infoman182
|
FkpCascais
Blocked for a week. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 28 December 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 FkpCascais
levant sanctions, if any :
FkpCascais is currently topic banned from from everything related to the Balkans [9]. They are trying to have their topic ban modified (in order to be able to edit Balkan football articles) but there is no decision for modification yet [10]. A few days ago he was blocked for the same thing [11]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FkpCascaisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FkpCascaisOK, I really expect the worst now, like being banned forever or similar... Yes, some time ago I found out József Lakatos was a Hungarian footballer who played in Spain as well, and he was not Romanian as initially sugested as some Yugoslav sites. I have a passion for these first sportsman that played in different countries and I love to make them their articles with their complete story. I thought moving him from Romanian to Hungarian list want be a "Balkans issue" and I though no one will find it hurtfull... The first and second edits are just moving him to a right list. The third edit is inside my sandbox (am I banned from editing my sandboxes?). Anyway, it is nothing political or controversial. I really think the admins should start questioning why these few editors are so commited to get me eliminated from Wikipedia? I was recognised as awesome Wikipedian just a couple of month earlier. Now I am finding myself in this extremelly uncomfortable situation just because I was alone asking an unpleasent question in a historical article and I backed my claims with sources (at time I was in process of bringing more RS to the table). Wouldn´t proper Wikipedia protocolo just procede to a kind of RfC and bring a neutral editor to decide it, and we would be moving on? I want touch anything until a decition is made, I promise, cause I see otherwise i will be block and I am currently unabled from contributing to my area of speciallty. FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by 89.164.154.220@Salvio giuliano and Sandstein:. I think that he is still violating TB by posting opinions like this [12]. I had to ping him so other editors can see that I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion. Then he went to put his opinion on the matter by trying to camouflage it as an "I can't respond" post. Were will we come if he will each time he is pinged leave an opinionated comment and say "I shouldn't respond." 89.164.154.220 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FkpCascais
|