Requests for comment/"What adminship is not" does not work in the Portuguese Wiktionary

The following request for comments is closed. The case is closed and the conflict is resolved internally.

Comments in English and Portuguese

"What adminship is not" does not work in the Portuguese Wiktionary! I was insulted twice by a bureaucrat and other administrators do not want to block it. According to local politics: In case of direct insults, with the use of pejorative adjectives like "idiot", "stupid" or other more responsible for the User must be notified, preferably by an administrator. In case of recidivism, the User must be blocked for a day. It should be double the length of each block to relapse after the end of the first block. That is what is written in the section "policy of blockade and sanctions", the second topic.

However, the other active sysops (Valdir Jorge, who is also a bureaucrat, and Jesiel) do not want to block it. The first states: I will not stick because it would have to be looking at who is right, who's wrong, who did it, who did it. I have more to do than fight departed. The other did not want to apply the lock, because the bureaucrat who insulted me (Eustáquio Barbosa) could easily unlock. However, we know very well that if that happened, he would once again breaking the rules and policies of the Portuguese Wiktionary, so your desysoping would be fatal, since abused administrative tools.

See what the Esplanade reported what had happened to me, the insults I have received [1]. The first insult I received was because the bureaucrat has validated a vote invalid, after much work and I have been verbally assaulted, he finally realized his mistake. Later I was attacked again during a discussion on the outcome of a vote. After that, I request for block it on March 3. On March 18, the lock has not been applied, I asked if they would not apply it, but I had a negative response. On the "claims administrators" did again request of block, but I received negative responses.

Because of that, I have been reporting this serious problem here on Meta. I do not want that to happen to others, that the excesses of sysops and bureaucrats also prevail or are masters, elite, authority, chiefs. And since the sysops there do not want to block the tube, I ask that steward to make a block of 1 (one) day of the bureaucrat.

Luan 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "What adminship is not" is an en.wikipedia essay, and not a pt.wiktionary policy, nor a global policy (it's not even a policy on en.wikipedia). Laaknor 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laaknor, this is a essay on all portuguese wikis, see this page section "O que os administradores não são". --- @lestaty ^discuţie 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just this page that I said. I know that "What adminship is not" is not a global policy, but in the Portuguese Wiktionary is something very similar, if not equal (O que os administradores não são). Only talked about "What adminship is not", because it is the title given to the policy of English Wikipedia, whose policies you are probably most familiar. Sorry for any inaccuracies in grammar, but my level in English is not advanced. Luan 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that a kind of subject like this has come to take your attention. My comments are: I am editing in this project since 2005 and never saw something so stupid like this. This person and me have had a misunderstanding about one valid/unvalid vote, which is usual to happen in wikis communities, as you know. It was a question if some user had or not more than 200 or 201 editions before voting but at the end we found out the user was a sock-puppet and then I admitted my mistake trying to preserve his vote. The problem is that the user Luan just canceled the vote without opening any discussion with the community and I said he could not do this in an election, or else it can be considered as a vandalism. He understood then that I was insulting him and after this he is obsessed in getting to block me, asking the other sysops and bureaucrats to do it, what they obviously refused to do. Even if I had effectively insulted him, what I did not, our local policy says: if somebody insults any other person, he/she must be warned for the first time and if he/she repeats the insult after being warned he/she must be blocked for one day. As I said I am sorry that this question has been calling your attention, but unfortunately I can't avoid. Best regards. Eusbarbosa 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw, the User makes use of "his years of dedication to the project," and that's all the time. I only scratched (<s> </s>) a vote invalid according to local regulations. This enchergar bureaucrat did not want it done ("the so blind as those who will not see" as the popular saying goes) and then put the blame on Special:Contributions. The "obligation" to open a topic of discussion on the vote was invalidated it, since the scratch, put the justification. After he undid what I did I talked to him, but he heard me. I had to go on the Esplanade to hear it, wanted to see. For now, I ask the lock of a day for him, so says the local policy. He was told yes, he learned through the Esplanade, so much that he made comments on the topic that I opened to expose the abuse. Luan 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that there was very little discussion locally, having examined the block requests made by Luan and the way the matter was handled, I think a better discussion should occur locally. If dont there are more questions or issues, this request will be closed in a week. Regards -- @lestaty ^discuţie 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators simply do not want to block the user Eustáquio. They are not obeying the local rules. There is no longer much to discuss: the insults were made, then the offender should be locked, regardless of the status he has. Luan (discussão) 00:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]