User talk:Arkon

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

killjoy

Dingsuntil (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppeting notice

Alerting editors on a talk page of WP:Sockpuppetry that has been going on at the article of that talk page, as I did here, is perfectly acceptable. And, unless, you give me a valid reason for not alerting editors of the article to that matter, I will re-alert them of it...without pointing a finger at that editor who is yet to be WP:Blocked.

If you reply to me on this matter, it should be here at your talk page to keep the discussion centralized; see WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's poisoning the well at best, and will only serve to inflame the situation. You specifically called out another editor, without evidence, without posting a SPI for that editor (unless I've missed that). Don't repost. Arkon (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This bit (an alert without calling out that other editor) is not poisoning the well; like I stated, it is letting editors know of a problematic editor who revisits that article to WP:Sockpuppet. The editors of that article should absolutely be notified of this, and notifying them of this at the article's talk page is acceptable. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides that editor, I am certain that other WP:Sockpuppeting has been going on at that article. And editors should be alert to looking out for that mess, but I decided to mainly focus on the known WP:Sockpuppeteer. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The reposted version is fine, the original was not. That's the only point I wanted to make. Arkon (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

AN/I

Keep up the good fight my friend. Especially against that pathetic Wikidemon loser. Seriously, who dedicates their useless life to defending a terrorist.171.221.247.94 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You have edit warred across two articles now, [1][2][3][4][5] one flagged as a potential BLP issue. This continued after you read my caution on the subject.[6] The dismissive tone in the edit summary suggests that you will not engage in productive discussion on the matter. Under the circumstance I am preparing an AN/I report in hopes of restoring some stability. If before I hit save on the AN/I report you either self-revert or assure me that you will refrain from edit warring once I or other editors restore the status quo versions, and discuss any proposed change civilly on the talk page, we can resume normal collaborative editing. Otherwise, please consider this a notice that the matter is being discussed on AN/I. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hit save, cause unless you present a better argument on the Ayers article, it will be reverted to the accurate version at some point. For the WU article, everything you just said about the Ayers article applies to your actions, also, well sourced. Well sourced. Well sourced, and supported. Should I say well sourced and supported by the body again? Arkon (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Template:Z33 Alerting you of the sanctions in view of a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3 (permanent link). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

HC restore

Thanks for your restore on the HC NDA material. BTW, the exact same issue is at hand on the Hillary Clinton email controversy article, you may wish to weigh in on the discussion there as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Edit-warring with admins on the admin noticeboards is not the smartest thing ever done on Wikipedia. You might want to stop before the WP:BOOMERANG flies back. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI you can fuck right off, trying to close a discussion about BLP violations with yet another, not to mention a personal attack, is disgusting. The boomerang is certainly flying, good luck. Arkon (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)