User talk:Roqui15

Welcome!

Hello, Roqui15! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Signing comments on talk pages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks

Hi. Please refrain from making personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, including on talk pages and in edit summaries. Regards, TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not making any personal attacks. Also you are in no place to threat anyone Roqui15

This edit summary is what I'm mainly referring to. Perhaps WP:CIVIL would be a more pertinent policy to refer to. This should in no way be construed as a threat, merely as a request to abide by Wikipedia's WP:CONDUCT policies. TompaDompa (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's no personal attack. I just assume you were trolling, as many do. I still think you are, as is a fact that portuguese empire in the early 19 century was one of the biggest ever. Roqui15 (talk)

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of largest empires. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done it. I told them the real facts with real sources. Yet they continue to delete the right information. This is a act of vandalism. You should take a look on what they are doing.

Roqui15 (talk)

If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. You shouldn't edit war with someone, whether or not you believe that you are right and they are wrong. Breaking the three-revert rule will likely result in you being blocked - we take it quite seriously when someone does, as it's disruptive to the project. The right way to proceed is to continue discussing the issue on the talk page, without saying things like I reckon you are brazilian and don't like Portugal which could be considered personal attacks. Thank you, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why I'm the bad guy here? English wikipedia is the only one which doesn't incude the portuguese empire, It's honestly a shame. I'm trying to help. And I'm speaking like that because they keep trolling, they are doing that because they have nothing else to do. Also I don't appreciate those threats. I hope you talk to me as a human being, not as some kind of wikipedia bot.

Roqui15 (talk)

Roqui15, I can assure you I'm very much a human being I don't read on that page anyone trying to troll you, but rather people trying to discuss the change you're making with you. I'm sorry if you feel threatened, I don't mean to threaten you; rather, I'm trying to explain our policy, and why it is the way that it is. I've offered you options on how to resolve disputes, although I will note that you can't cite another Wikipedia page on Wikipedia; you need to cite the specific sources that are relevant. If there's anything more I can do to help, please let me know. Finally, please sign your name with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ This produces a timestamp, as well as your name, which is useful for tracking comment times. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I will do my best to find english sources (I have plenty of portuguese ones, I doubt they will aceppt tho).

Roqui15 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Roqui15: Portuguese sources are explicitly allowed. Sources on English Wikipedia do not have to be in English; they only have to be reliable. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

List of largest empires already has one Portuguese-language source, the one for the Empire of Brazil. TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of largest empires

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Haha alright, great job! Roqui15 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's stop being robots here ok? I'm asking you as person to person to unblock me. You know I could just create another account and do the same? And I have 5 pcs at home. I need to talk in the talk page list of largest empires. I can't not even write there. Just stop with this nonsense, there is no reason for this. Roqui15 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A few words of advice from a fellow editor: This block is only for 24 hours, of which 10 hours have already passed. I suggest you use the remainder to cool off a bit before re-joining the discussion at Talk:List of largest empires. Creating another account could get you banned indefinitely for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, and that seems like an extremely unnecessary escalation of the situation. As a sidenote, this could be construed as WP:CANVASSING, which is generally frowned upon (in this case it's more about how you said it rather than the fact that you asked editors elsewhere to join the discussion). TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am making a call to unblock me. The person who blocked me lied and said that I did things that I didn't actually do, said that I didn't wrote on the talk page, but I discussed the situation there and in the end I changed the page according to the conversation we had. But okay, I'll wait for the block to end. Roqui15 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Roqui5, it looks like you reverted five times on 12 June at List of largest empires. This breaks WP:3RR and is enough reason for a block. When there is a dispute, you are supposed to wait for agreement and not just keep pounding your own version back in. In your edit summaries, you accused other people of being childish and assumed they had bad intentions. And, in case that is not sufficient, you are proposing to start socking. This could be enough reason for an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is true that I edited it 5 times. But for you to understand what really happened you should see the story on the talk page. First, we practically reached a consensus, so I edited it again.

Second, yes it is true that I said that people had bad intentions and were being childish, I thought it was because the situation is so obvious (that Brazil belonged to Portugal) that I thought that these users were just there to vandalize. But apparently they think that it didn't happen. And thirdly, I'm just defending my point of view and why I shouldn't be blocked. We all should get along. Roqui15 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If we had indeed reached consensus I would actually agree with you that you should not have been blocked (because there would have been no point in a block over a content dispute that had already been resolved). However, your declaration of consensus was definitely premature. In my experience, with these kinds of content disputes consensus is usually not reached until after several days or even longer (except in the rare cases when it takes only three comments or so).

Editor retention is kind of a problem on Wikipedia, and it would be a shame if you stopped editing out of frustration with how things are done here (or if you were blocked indefinitely). I don't mean to come off as condescending, but it seems that since you are relatively new to editing Wikipedia, you have yet to learn how things are done here. That's as it relates to conduct (I suggest reading WP:Assume good faith, WP:Edit warring, and WP:Civility to begin with), content (including how sources are used – I'd suggest reading WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Identifying reliable sources), and the inner workings/"behind the scenes" of Wikipedia (such as the WP:Blocking policy and the roles of administrators). TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

What? Rafl is my friend! He writes better than I do, so he sometimes sends me messages and I copy past them. I swear this is true, this is a complet case of mistaken. I told him about this case so he joined here. I swear I'm not lying, how can an error like this happened?

Unblock

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Me and Rafl are two different persons. We are friends in real life and I conviced him to join this discussion. He writes better than I do, so sometimes to answer TompaDompa he sends me a constructed message and I copy them, that's why the gramatical errors I did are his errors. This is rare tho, in his case every message he wrote was all of him. Also you can see that two of our replies were both answered at the same time. How could I reply at the same time in two different accounts? I'm not lying, I give you my word I'm telling the truth. Roqui15 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying you were indeed violating WP:SOCK; specifically, the WP:MEAT part of that. On that basis, I find the block to be appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (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.

Yamla(talk) Check my 2nd appeal, this can't be like that. I can't be blocked this way, it's fair when I was blocked when I did 5 edits in a row without a consensus, but this time I didn't do nothing wrong. Please as fellow adults here, trust my words, we are not the same person. I swear we are not, I'm being honest here. Please unblock us, or if you want to block us anyway at least shorten the time period and make Ralf block period finite.Roqui15 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I want a checkuser here to solve this problem

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser Roqui15 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability (talk) I saw you saying that you almost sent this case to a CU, yes please do it. I want a CheckUser to solve this. Roqui15 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock 2

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I did recommed him to check the page, he is not some kind of robot. He came here by choice, he would anyway if he found the mistake in The list of largest empires page. He knows more about this topic than I do. Also I never directly asked him to create an account (I didn't meant that in the first unblock request), only just to check our discussion. How can we be blocked this way? The reason I was blocked was because the "use of multiple accounts" which is not true. We are two different people, yet friends who are working together to solve this problem. This is not a good time to be blocked as I told TompaDompa that we were both working on an edit that will be proposed and will benefit all of us. Please unblock us Roqui15 (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are describing a violation of WP:MEAT, so the block is appropriate. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2020 (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.

Not exactly, but even if that was the case I was blocked for other reason, for "multiple accounts" which is not true! Also why would my friend be blocked forever just because I recommend him to check the talk page? He told me he was enjoying the wikipedia and would continue editing in the future after the list of largest empires problem is solved. Roqui15 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roqui15

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Roqui15 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

I was unfairly blocked, it's untrue that I and user Ralf302 are the same person. I won't give up on this, because there is no way I will be blocked for something I didn't do. I have this account for almost a year, I know the risks of creating another account for own benefit, I would never do that.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Roqui15 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Roqui15

As explaining above I didn't do anything wrong and I'm currently blocked for something I didn't do. I want a CheckUser to see our IP adress in order to prove we are both different people.

Result of the appeal by Roqui15

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Unblock 3

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for having "multiple accounts", I want my block to be revised and to be shorthen the period of time and above all make Ralf302 block finite. I was accused of having multiple accounts which is not true! Obviously having multiple accounts for own benefit is worse than recommending someone to join the discussion. And as I said I want a CheckUser to prove we are both different people.Roqui15 (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Let me quote what you said earlier "You know I could just create another account and do the same? And I have 5 pcs at home." A 2 week block is generous to be honest. This was clear meatpuppetry (and I'd say flat out socking). Wait the 2 weeks and come back to edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2020 (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.

I will not accept or decline this since I performed the original block, but as two other administrators have pointed out, asking a friend to support you in a discussion is textbook meatpuppetry. Additionally, by your own admission, he sometimes sends me messages and I copy past them - also meatpuppetry. I recommend you wait out your block, then your friend can appeal his block separately. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't knew that, but is it as bad as creating another account? 2 weeks is definitely too much time for a case like this. I think I wouldn't be blocked anyway if you sent this to a CU as you almost did. And I didn't asked my friend directly, as I said he came here by choice, he would if he saw the error in the wikipedia page, with or without me. Roqui15 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Roqui5 is not blocked per Arbcom authority so there is no need to structure this as an AE appeal. Your actions appear to be plain old meatpuppetry and a two week duration is not unusual. You seem to have little grasp of how serious this is. I recommend this unblock be declined. If there any more unpersuasive unblock requests I suggest disabling the talk page. (There have been two previous declines, by Yamla and by 331dot). EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There has been already two previous declines, however both of them still act like I have multiple accounts. The thing is that I was blocked because of "multiple accounts". How many times I have to say that I only have this account? I already told them, sent a CU here. You can block me the times you want but you can't block me for a thing I didn't do, this is my right, I don't have multiple accounts, therefore I can't be blocked due to this and I have the right to defend myself. Roqui15 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." -Direct quote from WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is also something that CU is largely irrelevant for as it's based almost solely on behaviour, not technical evidence (which would be the only reason to call in a Checkuser). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 11:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Like I said the new user Ralf302 has free will, he came here by choice, actually he told me he was enjoying wikipedia and would definitely keep editing after the list of largest empires problem was solved.. Until he was blocked unfairly. Roqui15 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Also, as I said many times and I will say it again, I was blocked because of "multiple accounts". This is not true, you can block me forever if you want but this can't be the reason. The real reason is: "Blocked because the user recommended a friend to use wikipedia" Roqui15 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore I said that yes, but I would do it ONLY if I was banned from the wikipedia. You read what you want to read. I have to say it again, THIS IS MY ONLY ACCOUNT. Why a CheckUser doesn't come here and prove that this my only account? Roqui15 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Cabayi (talk) I just contacted real CheckUsers (not clerks) by email to solve this. You can't just do this. If you have a personal problem with me talk to me in my talk page, instead of blocking me by "evidence". Did you compare my ID with the others users? Did you? Roqui15 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What's hapenning here??????????

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can't believe this, this is something personal, I HAVE ONLY THIS ACCOUNT. Why I was accused again of having multiple accounts? What is wrong with you people? This is unbelievable Roqui15 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You keep going on an on about being a single editor, but you are completely ignoring the fact that multiple editors on this page have explained that bringing people on to Wikipedia in an attempt to sway a discussion is also an abuse of multiple accounts. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 3 July 2020 (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.

Do not use email to contact people about your block, it's a very easy way to have it revoked. That said, these are not checkuser blocks, and no one has said that you were "CU confirmed" at least as far as I can see. Therefore any admin can look them over. Also, just because the IP isn't a 100% match, doesn't mean that you are not socking. You and Ralf302 edit from the same city, with the same UA, the only difference is one of you edits from a mobile network (like for phones), the other from what looks to be a residental range. Ygglow & EloctPT edit from a different ISP, which (correctly or incorrectly) geolocates 3 hours away. The same UA is used. That's why I gave the results I did. I will now allow other administrators to review the situation, as again, this is NOT a checkuser block. Courtesy ping: @Cabayi: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This can't be. Ralf302 is my friend, he is almost my neighbour, he lives not even 1km away from me and I recommended him to check the problem in the list of largest empires. The other users I have no idea who they are, I assume they are portuguese as well. Yes I can see why this is not a checkuser block, that's why I'm still blocked. I have the right to defend myself, like i said dozens of times, I want a checkuser to prove we are all different people. Please, read my words. I swear this is my only (ONLY) account. Roqui15 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser is only a technical tool. It can't prove a negative (aka that you are not the same person). All it does is provide the IP address and user agent data. Please see m:Help:CheckUser for examples of the output it gives. I have already told you the data that comes up in checkuser, and if you want to refute that...I don't know what to tell you. Those are facts. You can't just say no that is not my useragent or not my IP, because it's exactly what it is. The connections between them you can dispute of course, but Checkuser can only aid in providing basic information. It never determines guilt. A human has to do that, otherwise a computer program would be blocking you instead. I am absolutely reading your words - it's just not possible what you ask of me - to prove that you are or are not a sock. That you need to take up with the person who decided it and the reviewing admins. I also have not disputed that you can defend yourself, but it's also not a right. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what exactly what that data proves, but one thing is certain, it doesn't prove I have multiple accounts because I know I have only this account. Do you think I would waste all this time defending a supposed lie? I'll say it one more time, Roqui15 it's my only account, I don't know what else to say in order for you to believe it, but yes this is my only account, this is the only fact I see here. There is any way that proves that this is my only account? I thought a checkuser would prove it, but it looks like not. Roqui15 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Also I'm afraid the person who blocked me doesn't have an email in his/her page, and because I'm blocked I cannot write in the talk page. Roqui15 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The blocking admin has already been pinged to this discussion by Amanda above. I'll echo Amanda's words when I say don't email people about your block, like you did with me and you seemingly tried with the blocking admin. I'm not going to review this block as to whether or not it is appropriate, I'll leave that to other admins to discuss. As Amanda said, there's no way to prove a negative with the CheckUser, hence there's no way to prove that you don't have multiple accounts. CheckUsers can only assess the likelihood of accounts being related. stwalkerster (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

I only recommended one user to this and was my friend Ralf302, so I get blocked forever because I recommended a friend to come here? This is completly unfair, first I'm trying to correct a big mistake in the list of largest empires and second I'm blocked because I supposedly I have multiple accounts, which is completly untrue (I'm tired of conving you all that this is my only account, believe on what you want). Wikipedia is full of toxic people, I have met only a couple of good people here. And okay if this the way so be it, I will make sure many people will know that wikipedia is not worth it and me and 3 other users were blocked because something I didn't do, which is a complete SHAME. What I see here is that wikipedia must improve A LOT. Good work guys, the creators of wikipedia must be proud! Roqui15 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My re-block was based on the CU findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15 and Ygglow's return after a 9 month break to edit Talk:List of largest empires - Special:Diff/965544254 - just hours after Roqui15's initial block had been imposed. Roqui15 accuses an "opponent" of being Brazilian Special:Diff/962154296, as does EloctPT Special:Diff/928084132. The more I read of their edits the more I see editors who view the article as a Brazil v Portugal pissing contest, consistent with meatpuppetry. I'm content with the block. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi (talk) This is a big case of coincidence, I swear I don't know who those 2 users are.

One thing that we have in common is that they are almost certainly portuguese as well. The mistake in the list of largest empires about the portuguese empire is crazy, that's why we all have similar arguments. You shouldn't block anyone just because you have "evidence" and not proof. Roqui15 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be 3 coincidences:

• The shared interest of all 4 accounts in List of largest empires.
• Your acknowledged relationship to Ralf302, and the CU check linking Ygglow to EloctPT.
• The trait you share with EloctPT of stating that other editors are Brazilian as if it disqualifies them from editing.

If any other admin (pinging those who have shown an interest - Ponyo, AmandaNP, Stwalkerster) sees it differently I won't throw a tantrum at being reversed, but I really wouldn't want to see you able to edit List of largest empires or its talk page again.

Thanks for the pointer about my email, the link shows up for me. I'll try to figure out what's going on. Had you emailed me, I'd just have posted it here - User:Cabayi/Emailnotice. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Like I said every portuguese or a knowledgeable person that came across the page List of largest empires will automatically see a big mistake in the portuguese empire size, you can see in the talk page that there has been similar attempts of changing this before. Yes Ralf302 is indeed my friend, but Tgglow and EloctPT I don't know who they are. And why the CU showed that they are my accounts, what did the CU really did prove? Did it prove that they are my accounts without a doubt? I'm 100% sure that it didn't because this is my only account. Also why you don't want me to edit the List of largest empires or the talk page if I'm there to correct a big mistake? Roqui15 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock note

In this dif, Ralf302 admits to WP:MEAT. @Roqui15:, please read about WP:PROXYING. Please reread the other relevant portions of the WP:GAB --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing new here, I said already that Ralf is my friend. I just read what he wrote and he is completly right, he only wrote in the talk page and stated that "and I believe that in not a "meat puppet" as well since I didn't directly partake on Roqui15 discussion, instead I took a different approach to the same topic trying to learn more about Taagepera's work". Infinity block here for us sounds more like a personal attack than a way to "protect" wikipedia. Roqui15 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

So this is it? Is this the way I go? Banned because of something I didn't do? Also I saw your new post on the talk page in list of largest empires saying to people who got "recruited" to don't request an edit. Be rested, Ralf is the only one I spoke about the mistake there. Roqui15 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to believe a page like this exists https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Roqui15 Simply no words... Roqui15 (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, due to several socks being suspected of being yours, this category is available. --46.6.185.32 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My last request

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So this will be my last request. My reasons have already been stated here: 1- I only have this account and being blocked for having "multiple accounts" in my possession is ridiculous, simply because I only have this account, like I said many many times. Also you can't just block an editor because of "evidence" and no proof.

2- Many here think that I have bad intentions and that I am only in the wikipedia to disturb, but this is actually the opposite, because I am trying to correct a huge and obvious error in the list of largest empires page, also you can see my older edits, never to disturb.

3- Talking to a personal friend about the situation should not be penalized in this way. My friend, as he already said on his talk page is not there with the solo purpose of just help me, he has a different point of view. Also either way, if he saw the error on the page he would also argue with or without me. And besides that he is only discussing on the talk page, he didn't edit anything and the talk page is precisely for users to discuss.

4- My friend and I told the user TompaDompa that we were deciding an option that would not harm the study of Rein Taagepera. Well this is my last try, everything I told here is 100% true. Roqui15 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sock puppetry via RoquePedro (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2020 (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.

I hope this ignoring is a bad joke, since I am here not for games like this. I made a request and I am waiting for a reply, as I said this is my last request, so I would like to know if I will be able to participate in the wikipedia again or if I will be blocked forever in one of the most unfair ways that one can have. Roqui15 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad joke? It appears you do not understand the seriousness of your use of sock/meatpuppets to violate Wikipedia policy. That is sufficient reason to not unblock you. Your continued disruption and block evasion and socking will eventually result in your you being banned by the community. Please stop. No. This is not a joke. It is far more serious than you seem to realize. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RoquePedro was indeed my account, my old account which I was about to use again. It was my older account which I never used to own benefit. You people simply don't understand. "Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not". Where did I use that account for illegitimate reasons? I never went to wikipedia largest empires talk page. It seems yes it's a joke, because like I said I was blocked for using some accounts which are not mine. My account is only this one, I didn't use RoquePedro for 2 years. Now I know this is a personal attack because you guys did find out that was my older account just because I edited something on a completly different page but you guys can't find out that Ralf and the other 2 users are not my account. This is a shame really. Roqui15 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC) My situation justifies the use of my older account at a certain point

This account was blocked on 2020-07-03, as you can see in the block log. You violated WP:EVADE with RoquePedro by using that account to evade your block, as you can see from the contribution list. Specifically, this edit and this edit and this edit violated WP:EVADE. I don't know how many more times and how many different ways I can explain this to you, so this is the last time I will do so. --Yamla (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"My situation justifies the use of my older account at a certain point" No. Categorically not. No. It does count toward your indefinite ban under WP:3X, though. --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does. My situation if justificable because 1- I was blocked for something I never did, 2- I was not gonna be unblocked no matter what and 3- I kept being ignored.

While in quora trying to find solutions to this, I came across something a person said which represents what wikipedia really is. "The majority of Wikipedia editors are male, who seek value, honor and prestige among their peers for their assumed editing prowess. Wikipedians (those who seek to edit Wikipedia) are notorious for engaging in what has been referred to as “edit warring,” creating a competitive, conflicts-based editing culture, generally created by male editors. Wikipedia editors create edit wars to advance their own political, cultural and religious interests. Wikipedia editors compete with each other for higher levels of “stewardship,” beginning with “administrators.” In effect, these higher levels form a secular “priesthood” of authority, which allows mostly men to dominate and control other editors and the ultimate content of Wikipedia, according to the priesthood holder’s limited world view. Ultimately, those in authority over Wikipedia create a “cult-like” hierarchy that controls and dominates the public, based on learned knowledge that is not Real Truth." Roqui15 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We are done here. Talk page access revoked. You clearly have not paid attention to anything said to you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 13:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Due to extensive sockpuppetry and block evasion, this user is now banned by the community under WP:3X. No admin is permitted to lift the ban unilaterally. --Yamla (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

They have been banned for a while per this edit so what is the point of writng this now. --46.6.185.32 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:UTRS requests. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 43991

User requests unblocking at UTRS appeal #43991. A check user has cleared the request. I can support unblocking with WP:TBAN on List of largest empires and on that article's talk page. Admins familiar with this user and his block are invited to opine. We can discuss here if I restore TPA or via UTRS. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am okay with an unblock on that basis. --Yamla (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, RickinBaltimore, Doug Weller, Ponyo, AmandaNP, GeneralNotability, EdJohnston, and Cabayi: Would any be opposed to restoration of talk page access? It'll take a consensus to unblock. Don't know if it can be done here with discussion among admins or if we'd need to take it to AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection to reinstating talk page access. As to unblocking, given the length of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive, we should probably take it to WP:AN. I'd expect Roqui to provide a statement addressing the reason for their block and subsequent extensive block evasion, along with whether or not they'll accept a topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with restoring TPA. I also agree this would need to go to WP:AN for discussion given the sockpuppetry involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am okay with reinstating TPA, but per WP:3X, we do have an extra layer of bureaucracy to go through before we can unblock. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection to restoring TPA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with restoring talk page access. But the editor has been site banned per 3X, so any unblock appeal has to go through the admin boards and get community approval. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What NinjaRobotPirate said, so long as I never have to look at another unsourced Portugal v Brazil argument. Cabayi (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC) This is how the Portugal v Brazil thing comes across... Cabayi (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean to restore talk page access within 24 hours, unless anyone objects. Will then notify appellant via UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

TPA restored for WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed unblock conditions/unblock discussion.

• WP:TBAN, broadly construed, for List of largest empires, including the talk page.
• User, of course, agrees to not use more than one account, even when they think they are justified in doing so. This includes not causing in any way, however you want to phrase it, I'll say, "induce," anyone off-Wiki, friends, acquaintances, anyone at all-- to edit Wikipedia on their behalf or at their behest, whether in an article or in a discussion.
• User will remain civil, courteous, polite, etc in interacting with other editors, via edit summaries, discussions, or any method I forgot. They will refrain from responding in a hostile/defensive/feeling threatened manner when concerns are raised.
• When user is reverted, they will follow the standard process of boldly editing, being reverted, and then discussing. They will seek agreement from other editors or WP:consensus for any edit that is reverted or challenged. When an impasse is reached, they will follow the steps at WP:dispute resolution. This means no edit warring. For now, a one revert rule would be best. If reverted at all, BRD, DR, etc.
• When concerns over sourcing arise, the user will WP:BRD and seek guidance at the reliable sources noticeboard.
• User will need to not WP:CANVASS and will need to maintain a neutral point of view --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions? changes? improvements?

• WP:CANVASS, WP:NPOV. Cabayi (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't object to restoring talk page access for Roqui5. It sounds like you will need to go to the admin boards to get the user fully unblocked, even under the condition of a TBAN as proposed above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the talk page unblock. I'm ok with all of the unblock conditions above. Roqui15 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to post an unblock request. Because you're site banned, Wikipedia administrators can't unblock you. Your unblock request will posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and the community will assess whether you should be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Due to being blocked for over a year now, I wish to be able to edit Wikipedia again and be helpful. I won't harm wikipedia in any way or disrespect it's rules again. Thank you. Roqui15 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; user plans to address the many issues and have their request carried over to the noticeboard. Yamla (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2021 (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.

Please reread WP:UNBAN and WP:GAB. There's no chance this request would be granted as it does not address the multiple serious issues that lead to your original block and subsequent ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that checkuser evidence shows no evidence of ban evasion. This will count in favour of a future unban request. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please address the many issues, including my condition above of a topic ban. Please describe what constructive edits you would make. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright I will do it when I have time. Roqui15 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roqui15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For this unblock it's ok for me to be banned from participating in the discussion or editing on the List of largest Empires page, including the talk page. And be able to edit everything else. I admit my mistake of using more than one account and I understand why I caused a disturbance. And of course, I agree to don't use more than one account again, even when I think it's justified. I will not "bring" anyone else to help me with my wikipedia edits, whether it's family members or friends, whether is in an article or in a discussion. I will always be civilized, courteous, and polite in any editing or discussion with other editors. I would like to be able to contribute again to Wikipedia in general and I will not get into violent disputes with other editors or disturb Wikipedia in any other way like I did before. And my edits will be always by the support of a trusted source. Thank you Roqui15 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The discussion has concluded with an acceptance of your appeal subject to the conditions set above Special:Permalink/1051763803#Proposed unblock conditions/unblock discussion. While there wasn't consensus for a one-way interaction ban with TompaDompa you should be aware that any interaction may be carefully scrutinised for any sign of harassment. Happy editing. Cabayi (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Your appeal has been placed on the admin noticeboard for consideration - WP:AN#Unban request by Roqui15 (permalink). Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to TompaDompa and the administrators. I don't want any more drama with this person really. The effort I and so many other users did in the list of largest empire pages was very high and exhausting yet it was almost completly in vain due to this person. I practically no longer care about the wrong informations that English Wikipedia is spreading about the Portuguese empire to be honest, I've been acting in a stoicist way. So if you don't want me to be able to edit any page with the word "Portugal" or "Portuguese" I'm fine with that (well not entirely but if it's the only way to be unbanned so be it). I'll mostly stick to the pages that deal with subjects I really like and have passion, animals and nature. Roqui15 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As for the user which was blocked in April due to their edits in list of largest empires it wasn't me or anyone one I know. The last violation I did was summer last year. Since then I've never had made an edition in English Wikipedia again or invited anyone to help me.

I'm very thankful for my unban! Roqui15 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI#WP:Topic ban violation by User:Roqui15

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (List of largest empires and Talk:List of largest empires) because of TBAN violation. (This can be appealed like any other block) in that area.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to David Melgueiro, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. So far as I can see, the statement was sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine! Roqui15 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. PAVLOV (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Yes I know, but since I was writting on my phone I couldn't signate my name. Roqui15 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating an iban and harassing editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

See [1]. You were already blocked on the Portuguese wiki for harassing TompaDompa, you had an interaction ban from TompaDompa here, you've sockpuppeted many times, been indef blocked, then you go and file a baseless ANI report on TompaDompa over two articles where he hasn't edited but three times in two months, one which was reverting a sock. I'm seriously thinking there are some WP:CIR issues here as well. I would oppose unblocking simply because you've been partially blocked for a long time, which was a condition of an unblock appeal from your last indef block, and you simply can't comply with basic rules. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't have an interaction ban with TompaDompa, that din't happened and I cannot find that condition anywhere, just show me please where is that.

But hey I'm really tired of dealing with this and defending myself, I cannot believe that this is actually happened. Too much focus on my troubles in the past and 0 about the topic which was discussed in my post. I'm tired of this humiliation towards me, sometimes enough is enough. An honest question, do you people really feel good about this? Blocking and threating other users without a single remorse? Sometimes putting yourself in the place of others won't cause any harm. This is simply crazy, it's like all my editions and time I lost here doesn't matter, I'm just being threaten like garbage.Roqui15 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm feeling pretty good about it, and several have voice their approval of the block. I linked you the ANI discussion that had the interaction ban already at the recent ANI, and I even quoted the exact passage so there would be no misunderstanding, so I don't know how I could have made it any more clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course you are feeling good about this. Wikipedia administrators are just complete losers in real life, and need to feel good about themselves somehow. They end up here and enjoy doing this kind of stuff like send threats and gosh how they love to block other people! I recommend you people to read the book "The power of Now", you'll see that your ego is slowly destroying you, you might think you enjoy doing this, but deep down the "you" is crying for help, because your mind and thoughs are completely controlling the real you. I'm very sorry but I'm not a little bit sad about being blocked, I know that you would feel powerful, but I'm sorry I won't feed your ego my friend. And I honest do feel sorry for you folks, so easily manipulated. TompaDompa maanipulated all of you guys, the man is as good as Palpatine, a master of manipulation. @Deepfriedokra: How could a man so wise, smart and humorous like yourself be this easily to manipulate? It's "beyond me".Roqui15 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That dinosaur joke really hit me in the chest, damn! My feeling are hurt, you did it! @Cabayi:

OK, that's enough. You disagree with your block, and it's natural to kvetch and lash out. Only it's disruptive, and is not making a credible case for unblocking. Will remove Talk page access. See you at UTRS, but you won't se me, 'cause recuse-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)