User talk:Robben

.

Nomination of 2020 Brazil Judiciary scandal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 Brazil Judiciary scandal 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/2020 Brazil Judiciary scandal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Érico (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. El_C 07:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. El_C 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:El C, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Robben, please refrain from casting aspersions. That is not allowed. You have means of review and appeal, if you choose to avail yourself of these. El_C 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for disruptive and tendentious editing, battleground behaviour and personal attacks. Please note that further misconduct once the block expires is likely to be met by an indefinite block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough proof of that, a clear censure on your part, congratulations! "The stones you throw Will turn back in its path One day you'll shatter like a wall of glass" Robben (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robben, if you continue to make these unsubstantiated accusations against myself, despite being warned against that multiple times, your access to editing this talk page may be revoked. El_C 15:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated exclusively from your point of view, look at what you are doing and reflect for a while. I will no longer exercise the right to freedom of expression, you can rest assured and I'm getting out. Robben (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robben, this is a private website in which I have been mandated to administrate. The right of appeal and review is sacred on Wikipedia. You are free to avail yourself of these at any time. But you cannot contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That isn't something which I am willing to tolerate. El_C 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you based yourself about this, but at no time did I violate Wikipedia's guidelines, including I was open to debate and really reaching consensus. But really partial users like "Érico" were willing to censure me with false accusations using paralogisms and without even debating in the talk page, he generally censored the Portuguese Wikipedia also. Robben (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Robben, I'm limiting this to the English Wikipedia , but being sanctioned on another language-wiki may not be to your credit. You need to let this WP:HOAX pertaining to the deleted article go, because it isn't going to fly. But again, you may appeal for review any action at any time. El_C 16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be at peace, I will not appeal, Wikipedia is complex and confusing, I'm getting out of it. Robben (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for freedom of expression - it's an encyclopedia, and you appear to have been abusing the encyclopedia to express a personal agenda. You're not being censored (censure is something else in English). Stop making accusations. If this continues I will remove your ability to edit this page. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...and you appear to have been abusing the encyclopedia to express a personal agenda..." this is your own point of view, I assembled the article with truthful and impartial sources, just needed to be discussed in on the talk page, which in no way happened, where I was suddenly blocked. As I said before, there are users who practice censorship, mainly on Portuguese Wikipedia and the Portuguese Wikipedia has become extremely partial political to neo-communist side. And that motivated me to show both sides. Robben (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robben, WP:FALSEBALANCE is a problem. You need to represent scholarly and mainstream consensus, while avoiding original research and synthesis. That's how things work here. El_C 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talkpage access for the remainder of your block. If you return to accusations against other editors and partisan editing without consensus, a future block may be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]