User talk:Arabiapowaa

February 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

this is orwellian. I do constructive suggestions on a discussion page of a page that has been clearly weaponized and the message is erased. How a contribution to a discussion page could justify this behavior ? From what I see several accounts and numerous contributions have been dealt with the same way although it was established they were not Sockpuppets. Have you even tried to check the sources and understant what is actually contentious on the page before savagely intervening ? Arabiapowaa (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=this is orwellian. I do constructive  suggestions on a discussion page of a page that has been clearly weaponized and the message is erased. How a contribution to a discussion page could justify this behavior ? From what I see several accounts and numerous contributions have been dealt with the same way although it was established they were not Sockpuppets. Have you even tried to check the sources and understant  what is actually contentious on the page before savagely intervening ? [[User:Arabiapowaa|Arabiapowaa]] ([[User talk:Arabiapowaa#top|talk]]) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=this is orwellian. I do constructive  suggestions on a discussion page of a page that has been clearly weaponized and the message is erased. How a contribution to a discussion page could justify this behavior ? From what I see several accounts and numerous contributions have been dealt with the same way although it was established they were not Sockpuppets. Have you even tried to check the sources and understant  what is actually contentious on the page before savagely intervening ? [[User:Arabiapowaa|Arabiapowaa]] ([[User talk:Arabiapowaa#top|talk]]) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=this is orwellian. I do constructive  suggestions on a discussion page of a page that has been clearly weaponized and the message is erased. How a contribution to a discussion page could justify this behavior ? From what I see several accounts and numerous contributions have been dealt with the same way although it was established they were not Sockpuppets. Have you even tried to check the sources and understant  what is actually contentious on the page before savagely intervening ? [[User:Arabiapowaa|Arabiapowaa]] ([[User talk:Arabiapowaa#top|talk]]) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

PS: rhe discussion page mentioned is the one of [Juan Branco]. Arabiapowaa (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the posted message thzt was litterally censored (erased + blocked). Good luck to find any wp violation (if not on the original page Arabiapowaa (talk)Bbb23)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Juan Branco. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

First, crucial elements were willingfully withdraw. Many sources state Branco was visiting researcher at yale law school ans lecturer at the french department. Why was it deleted? Why was it deleted that he was senior research fellow at max planck institute for same reasons ? Why his position as adviser to the french foreign affairs minister was deleted, when it was also largely covered ? As well as his diplomas from Sorbonne, Sciencespo, etc ? That he was lawyer of LaLiga, victims of terrorist Nice Attacks? That he represented clients on important trials and won them, for example against Macron ? Why was it deleted that he was fully discharged, after a long investigation, on the Griveaux case and that none of what has been said to target him after the action of his client ? Why the mention of him authoring a communication to the International Criminal Court on EU migratory policies, which was covered by The Guardian, Le Monde, AP, El Pais, was deleted ? All these info have big sources (main french newspapers, books, etc) Why more broadly everything is presented to give a dreadful experience of him? And why these fake news : 1.« Branco has previously claimed that he worked as a "special assistant" to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Asked for a clarification by the French journal GQ France, the Court responded that Branco ""claims to have been the assistant of the Prosecutor (..) while in reality he was an intern (...) and then worked at the OTP Public Information Unit".[31] » ===there is no source for this. The article was deleted after Branco provided with a letter of the ICC Prosecutor confirming he held that position 2Bar exam ====there are two exams to become lawyer in france. you pass CRFPA (unless you are doctor) to get knto the bar school and CAPA to exit it and exert your functions. He had to pass CAPA, so he passed the exam 3Auditeur libre==branco was « étudiant normalien », and not « auditeur libre », which requieres to pass an exam in the most prestigious french universitary institution 4 « his former running-mate stated that Branco "wanted to win a parliamentary seat and abandoned the party after the loss".[3] ===the source does not state that, does not quote a former running mate nor says he abandoned the party (he actually became the lawyer of the head of the party Jean Luc Melenchon right after) 5In 2018, L'Express stated that Branco was making false statements on his CV and elsewhere. After Branco defended himself from this accusation, L'Express provided additional information to prove their claims. Branco claimed to have been a lecturer at the École normale supérieure, but the school told L'Express that it refers to an exercise for students that every student of the school had to do. He also claimed "never having created a Skyblog", but L'Express provided captures of the blog he co-administered during his high-school years. The blog invited the pupils to rate the girls in the school according to their physique and use the word "blondasse" ("blondie").[18] ===same issue. The accusations of l’express were debunked. He never lied on his CV, as he did animate a seminaire d’eleve at l’ens, which is what he had put on his cv. This is grossly deffamatory. We could go on. This page is full of mistakes and wrong personal information. It is a shame for wikipedia and an insult for the ideas and causes this guys defends