User talk:Shahray

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please contact me or ask at the Arbitration Committee Clerks Noticeboard. Mellk (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this includes repeated edit warring, which is disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hi Shahray! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Rus' people that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still marking major edits as minor. Please refrain from doing this. Mellk (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Shahray, POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian Hetmanate. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me @asilvering, I won't revert Mellk again if you want, I can always just ask other editor to do it instead. But please unblock me for now, I wasn't even undoing their last revert afterwards, so why would you even block me? I was just about to reply to the other editor. Here's how his revert looks for example, it actually explains the reason why the content was reverted, unlike Mellk, who in their "explanations" just constantly unreasonably accuses in POV-pushing. That's my problem with them.

Decline reason:

No, you don't get to continue your edit war by recruiting others to edit war on your behalf. Yamla (talk) 17:29, 13 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.

Block 2

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for returning to similar edit warring mere days after a block for edit warring; WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. El_C 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I did not return to an edit warring and didn't revert Mellk where I was warned [1], [2], and I didn't bothered to have any personal conflicts with them like there [3]. I only undid their revert of the revision by Alaexis, which didn't overreach 3 revert rule and can't be considered WP:Edit-warring or edit-warring done by me. Via WP:Blocking policy:"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". I haven't done any damage or disruption, your block simply violates the policy. Please undo your block.

Decline reason:

You are confused. WP:EW doesn't require a WP:3RR violation. Yamla (talk) 15:11, 18 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't done edit warring and I'm not confused, WP:3RR is regarded as bright line, "A bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation". I simply reverted them one time because they reverted other editor [4], this is not disruptive editing by any mean. What actions of mine do you even see as disruptive at this point, and if a simple revert is considered disruptive, what am I even allowed to do? This is response to @Yamla, and responding to @El C, yes, I meant they took that quote and thought of it as personal affront in their side. Request for unblock. Shahray (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your interpretation is incorrect. Let's see, between Yamla, El C, and myself, we have over 60 years experience on Wikipedia, most of that as administrators. You might consider that we understand policy a bit better than you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:48, 18 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.

You joined the project barely a month ago. I joined in 2004 and became and admin in 2005, and Yamla also joined in 2004 and became an admin in 2006 — which of us do you think is confused here? Maybe there's a language barrier, still, but you misread that policy (which I helped draft btw). El_C 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is the bright-line rule. That means if you violate 3RR you will be blocked without discussion. It doesn't mean "it's not edit warring until 3RR is violated". The way to edit without being disruptive is to engage with other editors in good faith. Editing in this kind of haggling way, where you make a big change and then allow parts of it to be reverted and take everything no one had the energy to specifically argue against to have "consensus", is not really engaging in good faith. Collaborate with other editors, please. -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, okay, well I read the WP:Edit-warring, and saw that 3RR is regarded as bright line for when Edit warring is evident. Can you just explain what my actions did you marked as disruptive, because even if small revert is considered disruptive, what am I even allowed to do then, and how am I supposed to know what to do to prevent this situation in future?

Responding to @Asilvering, bruh, I was collaborating perfectly fine with Alaexis and Jähmefyysikko [5], [6], and had no issues with them, so you definitely can't accuse me in that. It's just Mellk who responds and reverts everything in an unreasonable aggressive manner. Shahray (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding

@El_C, okay, well I read the WP:Edit-warring, and saw that 3RR is regarded as bright line for when Edit warring is evident. Can you just explain what my actions did you marked as disruptive, because even if small revert is considered disruptive, what am I even allowed to do then, and how am I supposed to know what to do to prevent this situation in future? Responding to @Asilvering, bruh, I was collaborating perfectly fine with Alaexis and Jähmefyysikko [7], [8], and had no issues with them, so you definitely can't accuse me in that. It's just Mellk who responds and reverts everything in an unreasonable aggressive manner. Shahray (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahray, you are really misunderstanding other editors' comments. Jähmefyysikko outright states Frankly, I don't think we are making a lot of progress here. This is not an endorsement of your editing or discussion style. -- asilvering (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that supposed to mean that I'm disruptive editor? Discussing and reaching consensus takes time, your point is that I do not collaborate with others, which is clearly untrue. Shahray (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that your intent is to collaborate. The issue with your past behavior has been you reverting people when they revert you: that can constitute edit-warring even if not in violation of the "three revert rule"! The "three revert rule" is a bright-line in the sense that reverting more than three times in a short period of time in a typical content dispute is always unacceptable. However, making any number of reverts (even a single one can still be problematic depending on the situation.

In general, if you make an addition to an article, and it's reverted, you should discuss it on talk, and only re-add it when a consensus emerges (by coming to an agreement with the reverting editor about how the page should look). If you and the other person can't reach an agreement, you should to go Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead of reverting them.

This is especially important in contentious topic areas, such as Eastern Europe, as administrators are generally much less lenient. Please let me know if you have any questions about this, as I understand that our policies on this can be a bit difficult to understand. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli, the thing is, I only undid Mellk's unreasonable reverts. For example, here is Alaexis' revert [9], clearly explained, and I clearly understood why I was reverted, and discussed this changes with Alaexis on a talk page accordingly [10], at the same time Alaexis didn't revert what was not disputed.

And here's Mellk's revert [11] with a summary "complete nonsense".

In Rus' people article they reverted my changes [12], yet in talk page they only gave explanation for the quote about Novgorod [13], which they could easily partially revert, but they continued to revert all of my changes here without a proper reason.

Their recent revert [14] is not much better, summary is "pointless addition". They did start a new topic on talk page, in which I replied and explained that this is not supposed to be deleted as it was reviewed by two editors [15], and explained why it was kept, yet they didn't even bothered to listen and instead switched to "administrators involving" threats. I reported them for that rather aggressive behaviour.

So I generally don't have issues if I'm getting reverted by constructive editors and discuss this changes with them on a talk page, but this user is a special case. I think Mellk deserves temporary block to calm them down, so they won't make such obnoxious reverts in future. Shahray (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahray, you might have more success with an unblock request if you claim you'll abide by a 1RR (one revert rule) or, even better 0RR (no revert rule). This demonstrates your intention to edit in good faith and not revert edits that have been reverted. You also opened 3 unblock requests and an older one is still open which you should probably remove since you posted additional ones after you posted it.

Also, and I mean this in a good way, lots of editors get blocked every day but I very rarely see 4 or 5 administrators responding to questions of a blocked editor so you are definitely being heard in a way most blocked editors are not and you should really try to listen to the advice that is being offered instead of constantly questioning why you were blocked and whether it was fair or not. Clearly, several admins think the block is valid and I think the more productive line of questioning is when you ask how you can avoid blocks like this in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, okay, I can abide by 1RR, if my small revert is soo damaging.

I already questined how I can avoid this block in future, quote from my current unblock request:"How am I supposed to know how to prevent this in the future, if you don't even explain where the issue is in the first place?"

My previous requests were declined with an explanation like this:"Your interpretation is incorrect. You might consider that we understand policy a bit better than you."

I'm just trying to figure out what actions of mine are considered disruptive, and that's all the explanation I've got. Shahray (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, so, I don't have an answer for unblock request, although I followed your steps. Shahray (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, there are over 100 unblock requests right now and repeatedly asking for updates won't work in your favour. (I'm not saying it will necessarily work against you, though it might - but what it almost certainly won't do is speed things up.) Every declined unblock request is one fewer admin who can deal with the next one. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I will certainly abide by 1RR (one revert rule) like @User:Liz suggested if the damage done by me is serious, so I'm ready to follow this and this block therefore is no longer necessary. But for now, I am also asking for a more clear explanation about why one small revert from me is considered "disruptive", "damaging" or "edit-warring" and requires a block. Response I've got so far is "we understand policies better than you". If you do, please explain what "damage" have I done, and why is it so bad it requires a block, so I won't do it again in present and in the farther future. Otherwise this block is unnecessary following the policy. I'm always ready to collaborate with other constructive editors [16], [17], this isn't a problem for me. So I don't really understand why this block was put on me in the first place, when it doesn't seem that I have done anything so bad to deserve it. Shahray (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just a procedural decline to archive the request as the user's block was for a limited time only and is no longer in effect. asilvering (talk) 01:42, 26 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.

Please place new posts at the bottom so they stay in order. This may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply". 331dot (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @331dot, so when will my request be reviewed or answered?

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Shahray. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]