User talk:Valentinianus I
Note
[edit]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)
- A request for a request: Byzantine bureaucracy
- ~ Valentinianus I (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- This includes any edits about the war, such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BROADLY. This would include edits such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- It very clearly says:
- 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)
- Please see WP:BROADLY. This would include edits such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- This includes any edits about the war, such as this. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]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)
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. 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) 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) Could you please explain how you found Unfam's talk page and why you chose to post there
Thank you for unblocking me, El Beeblerino. |
Edits to the RUSUKR ctop
[edit]Not only you are not allowed to to make edits to this CTOP except for edit requests, your edits have shown a battleground mentality (see this example). I'll ask you stop editing the talk page for Russian invasion of Ukraine or I'll have to topic ban you. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 11:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Asking for a rename and a subsequent rename vote (in which I won't participate) is an edit request.
- ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- Hello, Valentinianus I,
- Just to make this clear, if after this brief block is over, if you simply return to editing articles in the WP:RUSUKR area, you will probably be indefinitely blocked and that is not the kind of block you can negotiate yourself out of. This matter is not an issue of determining whether or not you are a sockpuppet but your continued persistence in editing in an area that is off-limits to you as an editor who is not extended-confirmed. This "500 edits" rule is a policy on Wikipedia and it's a bright red line that you seem to just be ignoring.
- This 1 week-long block is giving you a second chance when it is over to start editing in other areas of the project but you should know that if you return to ignoring the ECR guidelines, your ability to edit will likely be taken away for a long, long time. If you want to stay around long enough to actually become extended confirmed, you need to abide by the rules until you have made 500 legitimate edits. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't editing WP:RUSUKR articles, I was commenting on their talk pages. I'm not allowed to do anything, am I? Like I get not being allowed to edit related articles and voting in RfCs and rename discussions, but why shouldn't I be allowed to write comments on talk pages?
- If that's forbidden why are IP users allowed to write comments all the time? Why is this restriction only applied to registered users?
- And what do you mean by
start editing in other areas of the project
- ? I'm not allowed to edit WP:RUSUKR articles, which is why I'm sticking to the talk pages.
- ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 01:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only edits to talk pages that are allowed for non-XC editors in ECR topics (like RUSUKR) are extremely straightforward, uncontroversial improvements like spelling fixes, updating numbers and statistics using already-cited sources, etc. Anything that requires discussion or for which a plausible objection could be anticipated is something that should be avoided until XC is reached. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)