User talk:Miska5DT

Miska5DT, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Miska5DT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Swarm ♠ 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's notice board incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Filiprino (talk) 11:39, 23 July 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).

Miska5DT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not using multiple accounts. I have been blocked as a result of pointing out a serious BLP violation.

Decline reason:

(1) You were not "blocked as a result of pointing out a serious BLP violation", and use of such gross misrepresentation of facts casts doubt on whether you can be trusted to edit properly. (2) The combination of behavioural and technical evidence makes it far more likely than not that you have used multiple accounts. (3) Even if you haven't used used multiple accounts, your editing, which has included posting large quantities of text designed to promote a point of view without providing any sources, has been disruptive and unhelpful, and you have said nothing to suggest that you intend to do otherwise in future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 25 July 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.

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).

Miska5DT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Although I have indeed been involved in an edit dispute with user Filiprino regarding what I perceived to be gross violation of BLP in the article Josep Alsina (It turned out it was a violation and the editor in question has undone some of his edits accusing him of being a Nazi) I am not using multiple accounts. I am using one single account called Miska5DT and I never use a VPN. I have not used any other account since I have this account. There is no technical evidence of me pretending to be various people editing at the same time. I do not intend to continue editing articles but simply interact cordially with the editor who accused me of this to get to the bottom of this matter. I request being unblocked so that I can understand, in a civilized way, why I was blocked. therefore humbly request to be unblocked, guaranteeing and giving my word I will not engage in any uncivil behavior contrary to wikipedia rules or etiquette. I will continue to edit only as Miska5DT, as I have done since I created this account. If required, I can also agree not to edit main pages of articles until this issue has been resolved. Miska5DT (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say, "There is no technical evidence of me pretending to be various people editing at the same time." However, the sockpuppet investigation found technical evidence of sockpuppetry. On this basis alone, I am declining your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:06, 28 July 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.