User talk:Vgrinberg
Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanction Notification
[edit]Though the template below says otherwise, this notification is indeed because of your tendentious editing.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Vgrinberg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I recognize that I was in denial and rude and would wish to get one more chance. Thank you.Vgrinberg (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 12 April 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.
Vgrinberg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Vgrinberg (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Repeating talking points back to us is not reason to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 22 September 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.
It all started with me trying to argue that using sources with alternative opinions is more beneficial for public to know. I understand that I was blocked for being a little over the top when arguing under the Talk section, but I never actually made any disruptive changes to the original article. Under Wikipedia:Guide to appealing block it says "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism." Am I being punished? If not please advice what else would you like me to do. To stop asking for unblock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgrinberg (talk • contribs)
- You should make an unblock request where you specifically speak to the reason for the block, not just repeat talking points back to us. How were you disruptive? What will you do differently? What edits will you make? Be specific, not general. The block is not a punishment, but in order for it to be removed you must demonstrate that you understand the reasons for it and will not repeat them. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I am still learning Wikipedia, so don't have anything specific in mind yet. Not planning to do any major edits as of yet, just learning. As far as I understand whoever blocked me wrongly perceived my intent to be disruptive even though the only argument that we had was on the Talk page without me interfering with any actually content. I understand and agree to conform to Wikipedia standards of what reliable source is and won't challenge this standard anymore. I hope this works. Otherwise, please guide me with more details on how to properly request the unblock without being rejected again. I don't want to lose access for too many unblock requests.