User talk:Kakzinski

March 2019

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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was editing through proxies. I was told to create an account and the proxy I was using was blocked. I have now created an account as was suggested to me. Now I am blocked for ban evasion for creating the account I was told to create. I am very confused right now.Kakzinski (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

per Berean Hunter below. GoldenRing (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2019 (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.

@Berean Hunter: Could you please comment on the plausibility or otherwise of the request above, and consider unblocking? GoldenRing (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, they have been editing through open proxies only, engaged in edit wars and then attempted to use their new account to continue edit warring. The open proxy that they used above to make this request (different than what is visible on wiki) was hardblocked by ProcseeBot on March 6. As they are attempting to enter contentious areas with ongoing problems using only open proxies, I believe they are someone's sockpuppet. When advice was given by a non-admin that they should create an account, the reply was "You don't get to tell me what to do" and then that open proxy was blocked. This is not someone who was using a VPN that experienced difficulties.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPCW power to assign blame

'In June 2018 82 states voted in favour of a resolution giving the OPCW the mandate to place blame, 24 states voted against. This is a list of OPCW member states which voted against giving OPCW mandate to assign blame to the party responsible for using chemical warfare: Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam.' [1] In February 2019 Russia stated it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism. Russia staed it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism

Following the Decision on “Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use”, adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at its Special Session in June 2018, the Technical Secretariat is putting in place arrangements to identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. opcw march 2019 issues report 78.144.92.69 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]