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.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Christianization of Kievan Rus', did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk, I tried to tell you that other editor can easily revert me if they want, but you are deliberately interrupting other processes of editing, and then accuse me of "edit war", this is merely a provocation. You also try to respond from their side and tell me to "go to the talk page", while other editor didn't said anything like that. This behavior is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, you more harm than help, please follow policies and assume good faith editing. Shahray (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are banned for three months from editing anything related to the history of Ukraine and/or the Rus', broadly interpreted.

You have been sanctioned for repeated disruptive editing and WP:IDHT in the topic area; see ANI threads [18], [19], [20].

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. asilvering (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahray, please don't appeal this to me, and instead go straight to AE as described at WP:CTOP#Appeals and amendments. I think it's important that you have other admins look into this and I'm happy for the AE admins to make whatever adjustments they feel are reasonable. (Admins: feel free to ask whatever questions you need.) For the record, this should not be taken to mean that the editors you've been in conflict with are "in the right", and I'd invite other admins to have a deeper look there if they think it's merited. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that by "please go straight to AE", I don't mean "please immediately appeal this" so much as "I do not think you should appeal this to me, go there instead if you want to appeal your tban". Sorry for the potentially confusing wording there. -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is there anything wrong with allowing editing talk pages, can you adjust it or regarding this I should also go straight to AE? Shahray (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban means no working in the topic area. Not article edits, not talk pages, nowhere. It's an opportunity to show that you can edit productively, at least when outside of the topic area you've had problems in. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BROADLY for the info page. El_C 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal of this sanctions was declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will not like this recommendation, but you should not try to appeal this again, pester administrators on their talk pages regarding this issue, or try to test the broadness of your topic ban by editing in areas tangentially connected to the banned ones. Sit this out, edit on other topics, learn to interact with other editors. It may not seem that way to you right now, but I assure you this is in your best interest. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, continued sockpuppetry can lead to a site ban. Considering Shahray is now indeffed on four projects, they may be heading towards a global ban. Mellk (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shahray. 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.

Izno (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazycomputers, six months is too long and unnecessary, please review my request in a month or two or so. Shahray (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the standard offer works. Don't get me wrong, you are free to appeal in 1-2 months, but any appeals made before six months will almost certainly be declined. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazycomputers, it's not must-follow, and it's not necessary, I already recognized myself with rules of Wikipedia in 2 months and proposed an objective solution to avoid further issues, why do I need 6 months? Shahray (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more you continue socking on other projects and editing logged out, the less likely you will ever be unblocked. Mellk (talk) 10:18, 7 December 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:

So sorry for using other accounts to edit the topic, it was simply because I was genuinely concerned about improving the quality of the articles. I was forced to do this because admins declined my appeal to edit the topic even after I demonstrated intention to not restore my changes first and discuss them carefully [21]. I won't use other accounts and will try again to solve the issue diplomatically. You can also tell there were no issues with my recent editing itself really.

Shahray (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Saying "I'm sorry I evaded the block but those admins made me!" isn't an apology at all, nor is it recognition of the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 16 November 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:

So sorry for using other accounts to edit the topic, I understand that evading the block was not a proper behaviour and I should have tried to solve the issue diplomatically again. I understand that in order to make good faith contributions I should respect the rules of Wikipedia first, therefore I won't be using other accounts again and will discuss my unban in this topic in the first place. Shahray (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your best chance of being unblocked is to take the standard offer, and re-apply in 6 months time with no more accounts or logged out editing. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 17 November 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.

Shahray (talk) 16:14, 16 November 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'm very sorry for using other accounts to edit the topic, I understand that evading the block was not a proper behaviour and I should have tried to solve the issue diplomatically again. I understand that in order to make good faith contributions I should respect the rules of Wikipedia first, therefore I won't be using other accounts again and, if possible, will discuss my unban in this topic in the first place. I understood all the bads of my behaviour, + in order to not involve in the same issues again I won't restore my changes if they are being reverted (0 revert rule) and will make a priority to discuss them first. I was already requesting broad comments from community for my changes in the form of RFC like in Second Bulgarian Empire article. If you look at my contributions in User386n, you can see that most of them are creation of new redirects, in order to make the articles related to history of Ukraine more accessible and easier to be seen, founded and researched by many users. In fact, you can see that the views of "List of Leaders of Ukraine" article dropped by two times when all my redirects were deleted. My edits only helped the users to find the subject they were looking for, and involved no disruptions to the articles. I recognised myself with the rules of Wikipedia by the time I've been here, so I don't need to wait for 6 months when I can continue to make useful contributions to the Encyclopedia right now. Shahray (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with PhilKnight. Your way forward here is the standard offer. I am sympathetic to your desire to continue editing, but after socking and ban evasion, the community is going to be very hesitant to trust you again so soon. My advice would be to use these next six months to (1) read up on Wikipedia policy and (2) contribute elsewhere, such as Simple English Wikipedia. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:10, 18 November 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 unblock requests at the bottom of the page. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth pointing out that they are continuing to edit as User386n on other projects. Mellk (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]