User talk:Patriot Donbassa
Warning
[edit]It's clear from your first edit summary on poverty in Poland that your goal of editing there was to revert changes of Voolunteer Marek. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment and if youu continue editing to harass others you will be blocked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- A warning? Read: Последнее китайское предупреждение. Cheers, Donbass Patriot Man
- It seems clear to me that you are are a sock, fighting some prior battles. Please stop disrupting poverty in Poland article with your edit warring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please link a single edit of mine that violated any policies or sanctions. Then we can talk further. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Patriot Donbassa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was permabanned for 'disruptive editing' and being 'here not to build an encyclopedia'. Where is the disruption? Which diff reveals such a thing? I've explained at the resp. talk pages in great detail -[1] - and here - [2] - why some emotionally loaded language had to be replaced with noncontroversial and adequately sourced descriptions per WP:LABEL and WP:BLP (Dugin is not even mentioned in the 'sources' they keep re-adding!). Example diffs: [3], [4]. I was blindly reverted by 2 or 3 disruptive editors with huge block logs who made NO attempts at explaining their view, how unsourced oxymorons such as labelling a recent communist party functionary as 'far-right figure' is better than my neutrally worded versions. Not surprisingly, other editors are now pointing at the same kind of confusion that the current, totally inadequate versions create [5].
editor-in-chief of Russia's extreme-right[1] newspaper "Завтра" (Zavtra - Tomorrow), that combines ultranationalist and communist views - yeah well! Antifascist fascist. Anticommunist commie. Religious atheist. What ever... If revert warring to add such gibberish into the LEDE with no attempt at explaining your views at talk means 'building encyclopedia' and making well-explained attempts at reducing such stupidities and replacing those with neutral (but not censored) language means 'not here to build an encyclopedia' as Bbc23 claims, then I'll better retire indeed. But what kind of credibility does an encyclopedia have that features such nonsense added by some uneducated Eastern European ethnonationalists into its 'articles', is another matter. But you decide of course. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring, sockpuppetry, point of view pushing, misrepresentation, harassment, dishonesty... what more justification for the block do you need? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2014 (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.
Patriot Donbassa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
JamesBWatson failed to address my concerns, so I have to refile the request. Question 1: which of my edits violated 'NPOV', as opposed to returning at least pretense of neutrality? Question 2: which POV did I push? Fascist, communist, Calvinist, liberal and which diff reveals that? Question 3: 'Edit warring' - how many times a day do my opponents have to revert in order to get at least a reprimand? 10 times like yesterday? 20 times? let alone a block. The answers to first 2 questions are essential, because if I don't get a substantiated answer, then this means you just block constructive editors who make the text at least a bit readable. It is of course easy to throw all kinds of Wiki cliches around, but in that manner with no substantiation these are absolutely meaningless.
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:39, 3 June 2014 (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.