User talk:Etruscanman114

Whose crusade?

As I can see, most of your wikipedia-related editorial efforts have been directed towards the single goal of avoiding Terra Lliure to be called a "terrorist" organization, against the criteria of all news agencies, European and Spanish tribunals and all the rest of the wikipedia versions of the same article. So, Whose crusade is this?--Danielhythloday (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Terra Lliure, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediation Committee decision

After the Mediation Committee decision to reject the mediation, how is the article supposed to look like? Does the mediation means that the version of the part deleting the adjective "terrorist" must stand or does it mean that the adjective can stay? And why? --Danielhythloday (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles related notification

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 The Troubles, 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 that 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.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

User:Zzuuzz I plan to appeal your block but first I want to clarify something. You justified your block by citing editing while logged out and "technical matches".

Can you explain what you mean by "technical matches" and which "technical matches" you are referring to? Thanks in advance.Etruscanman114 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunately CheckUser Magic™, and while you're entitled to appeal I'll make a preemptive comment that I think I've explained to you before: hopping around open proxies reduces your credibility to zero. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzzuuzz I am currently residing in a country that limits internet access so unfortunately this is my only means of accessing wikipedia and other sites.Etruscanman114 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see? That doesn't actually appear credible :/ -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed Apollo, know that I and others will track you down; despite your beliefs to the contrary, you are not creative enough to avoid us. Brough87 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were residing in a country with restricted internet access then why are you wasting your time with POV edits and edit-warring? Surely there'd be something more important you can be doing... And in regards to what technical matches, Ibthink that's best left to those who need to know. Wouldn't want socks on the site to try to figure a way around it... Mabuska ^(talk) 11:17, 26 November 2017 (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).

Etruscanman114 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block. I have been informed that by Zzuuzz that using a proxy gives me zero credibility. I explained to Zzuuzz that I currently live in a country with limited internet access and this is my only means of accessing wikipedia and other sites. Zzuuzz has cited WP:OPENPROXY. I had a look at this myself and noticed the following. "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." The above to me suggests that you should not actually ban users for using proxies. Another thing that caught my eye is the following "Additionally, because of the creation of the IP block exemption flag, editors, like those in China, who have a demonstrated need to use proxies or Tor to edit may be given the ability to edit from blocked IPs."Etruscanman114 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for sockpuppetry, but forgot to address this in your unblock request. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2017 (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.

Yamla beat me to responding to your unblock request, so I'll add my response here instead. Your block isn't due to using an open or anonymizing proxy. It's due to the result of a sock puppetry investigation that introduced enough evidence to show that this account was linked or being used by the same person as Apollo The Logician. In order for any of your unblock requests here to be considered, you need to address this situation specifically. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oshwah, User:Yamla The reasons given for believing I am a sockpuppet is using proxies, logged out while editing and "technical matches". I have provided a satisfactory reason for why I am forced to use proxies.

I also am not sure how logged out while editing is evidence of anything. I only made two edits to the same page. Is editing while logged really that uncommon? I always see a lot of IP editors when I click "view history" of pages.

As for "technical matches I am unable to address that because it has not been revealed to me what is meant by it.Etruscanman114 (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and ping Zzuuzz for input, as he was the blocking administrator on your account here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing satisfactory about the 'explanation'. I can be specific about the relevant part of the open proxy policy: Wikipedia:Open_proxies#Checkuser. I have no doubt that this user is attempting to evade a block, I am convinced this is Apollo The Logician, and I'd point to the incredibly similar behaviour of other accounts at the SPI. Just one example:[1][2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with zzuuzz. I can't see whether or not you are using open proxies. However, I can see your edit history and that is enough to convince me you are Apollo The Logician. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]