User talk:BaSoroka

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jorge Erdely Graham". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of AbuRuud (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Someguy1221. I would like to be unblocked. I am not a sucketpuppet and do not know the other user you mention. I am not tech savvy but I am sure that there must be some sort of technical analysis that can prove that there is a mistake and that we are two distinct and unrelated individuals. My understanding of your reason to block me is that we behaved the same in relation to one new topic. This is what I have to say: 1- The Wikipedia a BLP article on Jorge Erdely is fairly new and it caught my attention while googling for an article in his academic journal ( http://www.revistaacademica.com/inicio.asp) 2- I noticed some inaccuracies but what caught my attention most was a libelous statement (allegation of criminality.) 3- Erdely is a well read Hispanic author and many people read his books so I thought it was important to correct that. I became a user and reverted a libel by Ajaxfiore which clearly violated BLP rules. My position was validated by an Administrator and by the user AbuRuud after Ajaxfiore (the creator of the Erdely article) engaged in editing warring and insisted on re-inserting the libel. 4- I am new to Wikipedia and are learning the rules as I go, but I am not unfamiliar with concepts like burden of proof and rules of evidence. I have a working knowledge of Spanish and I read a lot. I think that I can make a useful contribution to the article on Erdely if given a fair chance. 5- Other than having had a coincidence with another user who is not me, and pursuing my edits with enthusiasm, I don't understand how is my behavior identical to others or what would I need to do to avoid having a coincidence. When writers and authors are controversial, people tend to polarize around them. That's the case with Erdely. As the new BLP article develops it will be inevitable to have people agreeing on some points and disagreeing on others. Coincidences for and against Erdely will be inevitable, especially if claims are exceptional or BLP violations happen again and again. That's all I have to say. BaSoroka (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on my own review of the accounts, I agree with the block. The early edits do not seem like those of a new editor finding his feet. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I respectfully request a second review of this block. Preferably by a Wikipedia editor that can look beyond first impressions and evaluate the internal evidence of my posts to ascertain my identity. A quick look of the syntax, grammar and other distinctive features will correct this mistake. Having a coincidence with another editor on a topic that polarizes people cannot be enough to be summarily accused of being someone else and irrevocably prevent me from participating in Wikipedia. With all due respect, that is draconian and harsh and not welcoming at all to new participants. It surely doesn't assume good faith in me. Is there any harm in digging a little deeper in my case? I am confident that a few short minutes will show that I am not AbuRuud and cannot be that person. Please compare syntax, punctuation, style. The reasons for blocking me forever are this: 1- That I had a similar behavior than another user.(Namely, removing libelous vandalism on the same topic.) 2- Daniel Case's reason to confirm the block is that I don't edit like a new user. I guess there is a range in the quality of new editors. The fact that I am new to Wikipedia does not mean that I don't read the rules, understand them as much as possible, and try to do the best I can. Also, I am not uneducated or unfamiliar with editing stuff, like graduate student newsletters, websites and articles. Internal evidence has to count in a matter like mine. My formatting style, grammar and syntax have to say something objective. I really hope that someone takes a deeper look at my case. BaSoroka (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on both behavioural and technical evidence I find it much more likely than not that you are the same editor as AbuRuud, and therefore your unblock request is declined.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:44, 18 October 2013 (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.