User talk:Cagwinn

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine work on all things Celtic. Askatuga (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 1

Hello, Cagwinn. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Less than two months after a block for edit-warring, you've made four reverts, against two different users, in the space of 5 hours. I have therefore blocked you for two weeks (and some might consider that lenient). If you do not work on being less trigger-happy, you are likely to end up indeffed sooner rather than later. Vanamonde (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one edit warring and my reverts were entirely justified. Cagwinn (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not engaging in an edit war

Decline reason:

I looked at your edits, and agree with Vanamonde93 that you were edit warring. Being correct- if you are- is not a defense to edit warring. If you are in an editing dispute, you need to discuss the matter on the article talk page with the other editors involved. As you do not believe you were edit warring, I must decline your request. I advise you to heed Vanamonde93's advice above. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

User talk:331dot - did you even bother looking at the talk page of one of the articles on which I am accused of "edit warring", where other editors agree that is the other party who is in fact engaging in an edit war?? That other party even reverted my edit YET AGAIN!! Where is his/her ban?? Cagwinn (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth block for edit warring. You really need to read up on the subject and what to do instead. You're saying the same things you said when I declined your appeal a short time ago. Please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if you people purposely want Wikipedia to suck! I restrict my editing here to subjects on which I have very specialized knowledge - frankly, Wikipedia is lucky to have someone like me, as few others who specialize in Celtic historical linguistics and Arthurian studies are interested in doing so, precisely because of petty little bureaucrats such as you. Why should I even bother? Let Wikipedia rot. Cagwinn (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment combined with your poor attitude and lack of acceptance of the fact you were edit warring has now earned you an indef block with talk page access removed. You will need to use UTRS to request unblock, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if he's right? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

are never acceptable. This user had a clear pathway to being unblocked, but they chose to not take it. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23476 was submitted on Dec 05, 2018 00:33:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]