User talk:Valentinianus I

Note

Hi, please note that due to WP:RUSUKR, editors who are not extended confirmed are unable to make edits about the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. This includes initiating requested moves and voting. Editors who are not extended confirmed may still submit edit requests. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a request: Byzantine bureaucracy

~ Valentinianus I (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This includes any edits about the war, such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BROADLY. This would include edits such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be such a Prussian. If an edit is in good faith, it shouldn't matter. ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It very clearly says: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. I am afraid that the restriction includes all edits in the topic area, whether they were made in good faith or not. If you have any queries about this, then you can create a new topic at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Block lifted

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Unfam per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unfam. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 23:15, 22 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).

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

Request reason:

I got blocked for no reason and wasn't even notified to be able to defend myself when the case was still pending.

EducatedRedneck's claims are false. I found Unfam's case by checking out the user talk page of Alexis Coutinho (which references this user getting temp blocked, whose reason links to Unfam's case).

My first edit was on a vote because I saw the rename request when I did not have an account and wanted to participate. I then thought it was allowed for anyone (because there are accountless "IP users" voting all the time).

Finally, the admin (Izno) himself stated (see last comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unfam) that he just blocked me because he disliked my behaviour, not because of the alleged sock-puppetry case, which he nonetheless chose as the block reason.

Unblock me please.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 14:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You misunderstand. The blocking admin blocked "on behavior" not because they "disliked" your behavior, but found it compelling enough to support the SPI without checkuser evidence. In examining this matter, I can't say that I disagree with them. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 24 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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thanks for explaining Izno's comment, that makes more sense. - - - - - But what can I do to convince you otherwise? I already refuted the accusations of EducatedRedneck. And as previously stated, I didn't get a chance to participate in the sock-puppetry discussion, due to me not getting notified by neither EducatedRedneck nor an admin till I was already blocked. WP:CheckUser was also declined by admin PhilKnight. So what else (behaviour-wise) points to me being an alt/sock-puppet of Unfam? That we both are interested in editing WP:RUSUKR articles and care about Wikipedia articles being neutral? That should be too little to get someone banned. - - - - - To help with investigations: Edit logs: mine / Unfam Global accounts: mine / Unfam - - - - - I noticed that between your decline edit and your previous edit, only 5 minutes passed. Even if I trust you actually spending those 5 minutes on reviewing my appeal, that is not nearly enough time to read through Unfam's and my edit history and comments and compare our behaviour. If you don't have the time; maybe another admin, who doesn't just procedurally close every unblock appeal that isn't a simple rename, can review this one? - - - - - @EducatedRedneck: I'm also pinging the accuser, so he might explain himself. - - - - - PS: What can I do if my account doesn't get reinstated? If I create a new account, I would actually commit sock-puppetry! ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 9:52 am, 24 October 2024, Thursday (1 month, 25 days ago) (UTC−8)

Accept reason:

The socking issue, the logged reason for the block, has been adressed and it seems reviewing admins were accepting of the explanation. Content issues were brought up, and valid concerns were expressed, but he only logged reason for the block was socking, the user jumped through the desired hoops demanded by the reviewing admins, and then they stopped responding and this has sat open for nearly a month. That leads me to believe they aren't interested in continuing this side conversation not actually related to the reasona block was issued, and therefore I am unblocking. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you found Unfam's talk page and why you chose to post there ~~as your 4th edit?~~ _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first checked out Alexiscoutinho's talk page. (I found his user signature on a WP:RUSUKR article since he's a frequent editor there.) His talk page stated that he was blocked in May which surprised me. So I checked out the diff the blocking admin had linked. The cause was that Alexis was rude to another user (Manyareasexpert) on the ANI regarding Unfam. Then I just read the case and in my opinion the block was unjust. So I went to Unfam's talk page since the ANI was already archived and called out the admin.

Retrospectively, a dumb decision since Wikipedia isn't a social media platform. But I'm still baffled how this made you think I was Unfam.

It was btw my 23rd edit if you count talk pages, and 6th if not.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 18:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the numbering error, I got that mixed up while cross-referencing with Unfam's own edits. I find the edit explanation plausible, but given the concerns raised around WP:GSRUSUKR violations, before unblocking I would like you to confirm that you've read and understand Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#Remedies by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read it.

I've made 4 edits in violation:

1. I voted in a requested move as my 1st edit.

2. I filed a rename/move request to Battle of Toretsk as my 4th edit that was closed immediately.

3. The two edits Mellk warned me about which were adding a sentence to Malaya Loknya and a minor clarification edit to Kursk Oblast.

Since learning that voting¹ in and filing of requested moves isn't allowed I haven't done it any more.

Same with related edits in unprotected articles (which is why I only made a talk page edit on Dragon drone to include Russian dragon drones and didn't edit the article).

¹Are comments in rename discussions (such as [1]) ok to do?

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 09:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to make such comments. RUSUKR says: non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions. Therefore, making comments in a RM related to the topic area still counts. Mellk (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valentinianus I, knowing this, can you answer the last part of Rosguill's question, how you will observe it going forward? -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only make talk page edits in Russia or Ukraine related articles and no longer participate in their rename discussions.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct answer. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]