User talk:Integrist
Welcome!
|
Discretionary Sanctions alert about Eastern Europe
[edit]Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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.I see your contributions on Georgia for Georgians; I figured that DS may apply to the article. You may read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe at your own will. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
[edit]This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
Integrist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Which Wikipedia policy did I violate? Is the creation of the AfD nomination against Wikipedia policy? Is the review of the contributions and behaviors of other editors a violation of Wikipedia policy? Why was I blocked as sock? I don't edit Wikipedia with any other account. I don't have any past blocked account. I completely dismiss any accusations of this kind. Is every new editor blocked as sock? I don't think that my knowledge of some Wikipedia policies is suspicious. Before my registration, I had seen the discussions, where the same policies were used. I intend to respond to Sandstein on his talk page. I intend to explain my position better. I intend to contribute to Wikipedia from time to time. Integrist (talk) 11:52 am, Today (UTC+1)
Accept reason:
Accepted per below. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: Can you clarify? Who is the master of this sock? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Don't know and don't care. See [1]: this account is very obviously not a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: Not so obvious to me. You blocked this user without any evidence just because he knows too much. I am going to unblock. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I blocked the user because it shows obvious signs of a pre-existing dispute with another user, and its first edit was an obviously retaliatory tagging. This is a topic area plagued by topic banned and otherwise restricted nbationalist editors, the likelihood of these actions being anything other than abuse is, in my view, tiny. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: Not so obvious to me. You blocked this user without any evidence just because he knows too much. I am going to unblock. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Don't know and don't care. See [1]: this account is very obviously not a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)