VaioG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It wasn't my genuine intention to threaten other editor. The other editor have changed the extremely toxic and explosive industrial chemical definition to the medicinal drug. He disregarded my 5 years work on the page and presented the chemical as legal to sell in some countries, removed all warnings as H300 fatal if ingested and UN0076 high explosive. I was shocked to the core. In the heat of the dispute I have wrongly put my explanation, that DNP is a poison and sales must be reported to the police in UK https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/24-dinitrophenol-dnp as a direct threat. I am extremely sorry for my wording which sounded as a threat. I should never write that. For the last 5 years I have researched DNP legality, toxicity, explosivity, etc. It was too much to take, that the other editor (in my opinion) was presenting DNP as a mild diet drug and almost legal to sell. All this happened very quickly and I am extremely sorry for my words. VaioG (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You need to unequvocally withdraw any and all legal threats in order for this block to be removed; I don't see here where you did that. We can't stop you from taking legal action, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor may you edit if you have a legal action underway. I think more generally your discussion in this topic area has been inappropriate, accusing another editor of bias and a financial interest in their edits without direct evidence in violation of Assume Good Faith. You will need to describe what steps you will take to better control your emotions when editing about this topic. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
VaioG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wrote “If I would knew your identity I could report you to the police in UK for promoting DNP as a diet supplement” in the context that FSA in UK states “From 1 October 2023, 2,4 dinitrophenol (DNP) was reclassified as a poison under the Poisons Act 1972.” and “Report anyone selling DNP immediately to your local police force” https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/24-dinitrophenol-dnp , to imply my point of my view that Buidhe is promoting DNP on Wikipedia as an unapproved drug, even as legal to sell in some European countries for human consumption. I never wrote that I will report him to the police in UK. This wasn’t my genuine intention. If I could take my words back, I would withdraw this sentence immediately, as now when I reading it without the context is does sound like a threat. Now let me explain myself why I am saying that Buidhe is biased or made excellent work as a paid Wikipedia editor in my opinion. The current DNP Wikipedia page is benefiting only illegal DNP diet pills sellers or Mitochon Pharmaceutical as it looks better as a “not approved for human use drug”. The DNP is extremely toxic explosive industrial chemical, classified as a poison in UK, as prohibited substance in Australia and Brazil, even banned in Russia. All this information is missing from DNP info box, is listed as “Not approved for human use”. In the US FDA are clearly stated many times in all latest DNP sellers sentencing (Buidhe deliberately deleted all this information from DNP page) that “In 1938, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared DNP to be extremely dangerous and not fit for human consumption. At that time, the FDA announced publicly that it would prosecute those who manufacture and distribute DNP for use as a drug.” Does this sound as “In the United States, DNP is classified as an investigational new drug”? https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/press-releases/texas-woman-sentenced-6-months-federal-prison-selling-deadly-weight-loss-drug-consumers , https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/press-releases/retired-new-jersey-doctor-sentenced-selling-toxic-dnp-online-and-faking-cancer-diagnosis-avoid-trial . One DNP seller in US was sentenced to 7 years in prison as 3 of his customers died during or shortly after their DNP use. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/press-releases/north-carolina-man-sentenced-7-years-federal-prison-selling-deadly-weight-loss-drug-consumers . Buidhe is cherry-picking his sources and twisting the truth from these sources. He is incorrectly stating that “Its legal status in European countries is difficult to ascertain but it may be legally sold, including for human consumption, in some” citing one research paper. I am in the contact with the one of original authors Diana Dias da Silva and I was sent the paper via email where the authors presenting completely different view “The data on the prevalence of 2,4-DNP use are scarce, especially in European countries. In Portugal, the national legislation prohibits its use in cosmetic products but authorizes commercialization as a non-selective bioaccumulating pesticide; the drug is included in the ‘List of pesticide products’ authorized for sale (DGAV 2015).” Does this sound like legal to sell for human consumption? Buidhe deleted the reference to acute poisoning due to non-oral exposure to DNP with 2 fatalities https://doi.org/10.1631%2Fjzus.B1000265 and replaced with the “Contact with skin or inhalation can cause DNP poisoning. Symptoms are typically mild with dermal exposure, but inhalation can lead to systemic effects, the same way as oral exposure.” The DNP info box was changed from chemical to the drug Removing any references to explosivity and toxicity of DNP as classified in UN0076, UN1320, UN1599. The ECHA reclassified Dinitrophenol as H300 Fatal if ingested, but the info box has only reference to the ECHA, not the correct hazard statements, most probably not to scare away potential DNP diet aid buyers. Buidhe deleted Prof Simon Thomas statement read in the court of law “There is no safe dosage for DNP: even small amounts can have devastating consequences. There is no antidote or remedy for DNP once taken. In consequence, DNP has a staggeringly high mortality rate – of those who presented at hospital between 2007 and 2019 with a history of having taken DNP, 18% died. This puts DNP close to cyanide in terms of its toxicity. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/r-v-rebelo-sentencing-remarks.pdf . Instead Buidhe added questionable charts and dosage reported by the online DNP users, most probably to show that DNP is relatively safe to use? Buidhe even implying that DNP is used as suicide method. So, Wikipedia is advocating DNP as a suicide method? UK changed the DNP classification not because DNP is a relatively safe drug, but because DNP is a poison caused minimum 33 deaths in UK alone. Buidhe deleted all the references that DNP may not be detected in the post mortem, as it could make the DNP fatalities number even greater. https://aapcc.org/annual-reports/ , https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1556-4029.14154 . Buidhe deleted references to the case studies when a single dose of few tablets from an online retailer (tablet dose unknown) has proven fatal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329820397 , https://aapcc.org/annual-reports/ . I could go on and on. If you think I am a bad person, do not unblock me. But I am begging all administrators- please stop Buidhe to promoting DNP as not approved drug. DNP page as it’s at the moment will promote the illegal DNP sales and increase DNP related fatalities worldwide… VaioG (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your unblock request needs to do exactly one thing: withdraw the legal threat. that is all. Our volunteer admins are not going plunge through this wall of text, which is not in the least relevant to why you are blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
Declined requests must remain until the block is removed per WP:BLANKING. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
edit
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.