User talk:Mocca20

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mocca20. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Tomasz Misiak, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is no conflict of interest in this situation Mocca20 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your recent edits to Tomasz Misiak could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're also deeply wrong about the purpose of Wikipedia, which is merely to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia does not guarantee reliability or accuracy. Policy requires that all statements about living people be properly sourced. If the sources in the article are not accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors on the article talk page. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you will need to take that up with the sources, or offer your own sources with more current information. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Tomasz Misiak) for being unresponsive to questions about your conflict of interest.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason = I want to clarify that I have no conflict of interest. My only intention was to provide accurate and up-to-date information based on credible sources. I apologize if my edits or lack of response caused any misunderstanding. As I stated I’m committed to Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and verifiability. I am also willing to discuss my proposed changes on the article’s talk page and receive feedback from other editors to ensure that the information aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Please let me know if there is a specific step you would like me to take to address this situation. I would appreciate any guidance you can provide to help me contribute effectively and in line with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you again for your time and consideration.~~~~}} Mocca20 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason = I want to clarify that I have no conflict of interest. My only intention was to provide accurate and up-to-date information based on credible sources. I apologize if my edits or lack of response caused any misunderstanding. As I stated I’m committed to Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and verifiability. I am also willing to discuss my proposed changes on the article’s talk page and receive feedback from other editors to ensure that the information aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.~~~~}} Mocca20 (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is no conflict of interest in this situation,

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).

Mocca20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the conflict of interest response was provided, the block reason is incorrect and not applicable to my conduct. The desire to make changes results from the need to present the most current, adequate and credible image of Mr. Tomasz Misiak. Current article concerning Tomasz Misiak does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources and is not supported by up-to-date information - presenting false, </nowiki>libellous, poorly sourced<nowiki>, and opinion-manipulating information. The proposed changes are based on high quality reliable and up-to-date sources which allows for the most up-to-date information for users about about T.Misiak. Mocca20 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please show where you obtained consensus for your changes. I see no such consensus at Talk:Tomasz Misiak. Additionally, if there's no significant coverage in reliable sources, you should not be adding the information. You need to clearly demonstrate you understand this. Yamla (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (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.

Make sure the "nowiki" tags are removed when you post a request; they suppress proper display. I fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's quite obvious that you have a strong personal investment in this topic, which can only be explained by you having a conflict of interest. Be careful in tossing around the word "libelous" and "unlawful" as doing it constantly could be interpreted as a legal threat. Using that language also suggests a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your concerns. I apologize if any of my previous comments gave the impression of a conflict of interest or seemed confrontational. As I stated „there is npt conflict of interest”. My primary goal is to contribute constructively and to ensure that the information presented is accurate and meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and neutrality. As explained earlier, much of the information currently available is not up to date and the proposed changes to the most up to date information have not been taken into account by you. I understand that the words "libelous" and "unlawful" may have come across as overly strong or as an attempt at a legal threat - that was also not my intention. My intention was only to emphasize the importance of accuracy and to avoid potentially misleading or harmful information being included. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintaining a respectful and collaborative environment. I am respectfully requesting an unblock for my account. I understand that the account was blocked due to lack of response regarding conflict of interest - but the response was already presented to you. I apologize for any actions that led to this decision. Mocca20 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new request for someone else to review, please see the last decline message by Yamla. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just duplicated your above statement, you didn't make an unblock request. Please follow the instructions and place your request below; this may be easier to do if you click "edit" at the top or in the section header, and not "reply" which does not work well in some situations. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. Do not edit this page until you have read and thoroughly understood that article. At the moment, you are clearly demonstrating you lack the ability to understand directions given to you. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, frankly there's no need to lift this block. You are free to suggest edits on the article's talk page. Why aren't you doing this? --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I understand that suggesting edits on the article's talk page is a good way to proceed. However, I’m concerned that my suggestions may not be fully understood or considered by others reviewing the talk page, which is why I was hoping for the opportunity to make these changes directly. As I stated I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s policies and working collaboratively and my intention is simply to contribute constructively and ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your guidance. Mocca20 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I assure you that I have read the relevant policies carefully, and my intention is to ensure that my contributions comply fully with Wikipedia's standards. If there’s a specific area where I may have misunderstood or misapplied a guideline, I would appreciate any clarification you could provide. My goal is to make edits that add value to the encyclopedia, and I am committed to following Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing, neutrality, and verifiability. Mocca20 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't believe in "only I can fix it". If your proposals are clear and in keeping with guidelines, they will be accepted. It shouldn't require special understanding. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and respect Wikipedia’s collaborative approach. I certainly don’t believe that "only I can fix it." As I stated several Times my intention has always been to ensure that the article reflects the most accurate and up-to-date information available, sourced from reliable and verifiable references. However, I’m concerned that all my recent suggestions have been rejected without clear feedback on what might be improved. If there’s a particular way I could present my proposals to better align with Wikipedia's standards or if there are specific concerns about the sources or content I provided, I would appreciate any guidance. My goal is to make constructive contributions in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you again for your time and assistance in helping me navigate this process. Mocca20 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will first say that the best way that you can show us that you deserve to be able to access the article directly is to make edit requests on the talk page and have them accepted, first. You may use the edit request wizard to facilitate this.

It would also help to know- though you certainly don't have to tell- the source of your strong personal interest in Senator Misiak. There are nearly 7 million articles to choose from here, and you have chosen that one to be interested in. Your interest is clearly not casual, as you are concerned about him being libeled and opinions being allegedly manipulated.

Your edits removed negative information about Senator Misiak and replaced it with more positive information. This is referred to as "whitewashing". 331dot (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to clarify that my interest in editing the article on Senator Misiak stems from the fact that I came across an article in the press regarding the audit of the political activities of Ziobro's prosecutor's office and the persecution of activists in Europe - https://oko.press/zgromadzenie-parlamentarne-re-audyt-politycznych-dzialan-prokuratury-ziobry - according to the content ""We are pleased that the new government has begun investigations into such cases and that some of the victims, such as (…) and (…), have already been partially rehabilitated" - we read in the declaration. The signatories add that many cases of political background are still waiting for a similar assessment, including those of (…) Tomasz Misiak (…)."

In the English version there is not a word about it, and some of the topics included in the article do not concern Senator Misiak (e.g. the investigation where the accused is a drug dealer) - these are just some examples indicating my intention to edit the article. As stated above the interest stems from a desire to ensure that Wikipedia articles adhere to standards of accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. Any concern I’ve raised regarding potential libel or manipulation has been motivated solely by a commitment to Wikipedia’s principles of presenting well-sourced, reliable information regarding the person whose profile is described in the article.

The edits I proposed were intended to update the article with recent, verifiable information from credible sources, not to remove negative information or "whitewash." I understand that replacing outdated or potentially unbalanced information can sometimes appear biased, which is why I’ve been careful to rely on sources that are both independent and reputable. My only goal here is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in alignment with its policies. Mocca20 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as I said, the best thing you can do right now is make edit requests, once you have some accepted, you can then ask for the partial block to be removed, and have those successful edit requests to point to. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how to "edit requests" when I am blocked? Do I understand correctly that despite extensive explanations you still think there are no grounds to unblock me? Mocca20 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You use the article talk page, Talk:Tomasz Misiak, following the instructions at WP:ER; If you use the edit request wizard as an alternative, it will place your request there automatically.

I have nothing to add about the block beyond what I've already said; I believe your best chance is to have some edit requests accepted. You are free to make a new unblock request for someone else to look at, you would need to convince them, not me. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I used the edit request wizard and I indicated, along with extensive justification, which fragment should be changed and why. When can I expect a decision on whether the proposed change has been accepted? thank you for your help Mocca20 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no timeframe, a volunteer will review it when one decides to. I would submit that your request is very lengthy; a volunteer will be more likely to invest the time in it if it shorter. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my goal was to show my intention and the most detailed justification for the proposed changes so that the volunteer could understand my intention and the justification behind the proposed change as much as possible. Is it possible that volunteers involved in discussions on my profile would verify the proposed change? Mocca20 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other editor can carry out an edit request. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I’m concerned that all my recent suggestions have been rejected" and "The edits I proposed" yet you have not in fact made any proposals or any edits at all on the article's talk page. The only editor who has done so is GrzegorzNews (talk · contribs). Are you connected? Cabayi (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know and I am not in any way related or connected to the person with the nickname „GrzegorzNews”. The proposals I mentioned refer to a suggested translation from the Polish Wikipedia article on T. Misiak, which I believed would enhance the article with current and well-sourced information from credible references. My goal was to provide content that offers a balanced view, in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability, and to ensure that the English article accurately reflects recent developments documented in Polish sources. Mocca20 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]