User talk:Vgaiyfi

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mr.weedle (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible to create a subsection called "Question"? They exist in the article 2014 Donbas status referendums. Vgaiyfi (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vgaiyfi! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope we don't get to something like an edit war; but certainly a unilateral action like the one you are performing (removing the article's content and claiming that there is consensus about it at the same time, when there isn't) is not tolerable. I have expanded my answer on the article's Talk page, which is the correct place to talk about infoboxes. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

In the absence of consensus on a proposal that was discussed (the non-inclusion of infoboxes), the use of infoboxes should not be restricted. There was no consensus for not adding them. Therefore, if you consider that it is necessary to remove them, it would be necessary to reach consensus to support your proposal. So, please don't claim that I am restoring the article to my "preferred version", since there have been many users who have made modifications to the article after the infoboxes were added (and re-added) who have not removed them (one user, for example, added the title to the first two infoboxes, which I had not done). I think you are the one who is acting unilaterally and trying to keep the article in your "preferred version". Vgaiyfi (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vgaiyfi reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request the unblocking of my user, as I believe it is not properly justified. Also, if user Rsk6400 had also been blocked for 24 hours, then I would consider it excessive for both of us, but at least we would have been treated equally. In this case, I have reverted content removals such as this one, where user Rsk6400 claimed that "There was no consensus on the discussion page for the inclusion of the infoboxes", as if that meant that consensus had been reached not to add the infoboxes (which is not true). If my block is due to the number of reverts made by me, what happens with the several reverts made by the user Rsk6400? Apart from that, the last revert performed by me (see here) following a content removal (see here) took place when a RfC about this matter had already been opened on the article's Talk page (please, note that the RfC was opened before Volunteer Marek deleted the content). All I did was to restore the status quo in order to wait for the RfC to complete its mission. At this time, there is no consensus in the RfC to remove the infoboxes from the article. However, user Rsk6400 has again removed the infoboxes (see here) trying to make it look like there was a consensus before September 27 not to add them. This is not true; so the RfC should be about Keep or Remove the infoboxes, not about adding them or not, since they were added because there was no previous consensus restricting it. I think the situation is being manipulated and the opinion of other users, such as those who are participating in the RfC, that do want the article to contain infoboxes, is not being taken into account. Vgaiyfi (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The main reason for the block is that you continued to revert after an RFC- which you endorsed- was created. You seem to misunderstand "status quo" or at least disagree with its interpretation. There were no infoboxes until you added them- so the status quo would be a lack of infoboxes. It's up to you to gain consensus, or show an existing consensus, to include them. Your reversion after the commencement of an RFC certainly suggested that you would continue to edit war, thus the block was correctly made to prevent that disruption.

Not that it's relevant to your block, but I see no such disruption from the user you named. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There are only a few hours left until the end of the block of my user, so I am not going to ask you to change your decision. But I would like you to solve a doubt I have. You state "The main reason for the block is that you continued to revert after an RFC- which you endorsed- was created". I made a revert (see here) when the RfC was already open because there was a user who removed the infoboxes after the RfC was opened (see here). That user changed the article's content without waiting for the RfC to complete its mission. It was not me who changed the content after the RfC was opened (I only reverted a content removal, in order that nothing changed while the RfC was active). Did I not act correctly?

Apart from that, and the possibility of discussing 'status quo' as a concept, you state that "There were no infoboxes until you added them". With all due respect, that is not true. The first edit I made to the article is this one on September 23. And, as you can see here, the infoboxes were already included in the article on September 20. Then, a user removed them from the article (see here), and started a discussion on the Talk page to propose not to add the infoboxes again to the article. No consensus was reached in that discussion, and therefore the use of infoboxes should not be restricted. Taking all of the aforementioned into account, I believe that this matter is not being adequately handled. Vgaiyfi (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2022 (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.

I never claimed that there was consensus to remove the infoboxes. I only stated WP rules which say that in the absense of consensus we keep the status quo.[1] You even stated that you knew the relevant guidelines[2]. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there is no consensus to remove the infoboxes, then why did you remove them? In this case, respecting the status quo means keeping the infoboxes until consensus is reached to eliminate them (see the RfC about it). Vgaiyfi (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Status quo" means "the state as it was before" the conflict began. And the conflict clearly began when you added the first infobox although you had achieved no consensus at the talk page. To put it simple: There were no infoboxes before you added them. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that "the conflict clearly began when you added the first infobox". No, the conflict began when you deleted the infoboxes that were added as part of the development of the article. They were re-added because, although there was a discussion about it, there was no consensus not to add them. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were no infoboxes from Sept 20 to Sept 27, i.e. for (some hours more than) a week. This time also includes the time of the first discussion on the talk page, and the time of the "referendums" being conducted. Given the huge amount of edits during that week, I think we really can call the version without infoboxes the "stable version", i.e. the status quo. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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:

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.

Drmies (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request my unblocking because I do not know what the reason is. I would like to receive an explanation. I think that my block is not correct. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You admitted this was false, below. Yamla (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that I understand the reason because the message from Drmies contained a date that made me realize he was talking about my main account. For years I have only had one account. I recently opened this account because of privacy reasons; but I have not incurred in any abuse as I have not participated in discussions using both accounts nor have I edited articles using both accounts. In fact, I stopped using my main account when I was cretaed this one. That is why I request the unblock of my user. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2022 (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.

• Don't be silly. You've been here since 2014-09-03. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okey, I understand the reason. But I have not incurred in abuse since I have not used both accounts in the same discussions, nor have I edited the same articles. The only reason why I created this account is because of privacy. As far as I know it is allowed to have a secondary account for such a reason. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your edits overlap on one important article, and you have not met the requirements of
      WP:ALTACCN. "Because of privacy" sounds nice, but you'll have to come up with something better than that. And to make sure that you will reconsider your disruption (that is, non-neutral edits that seem to support Russian propaganda), I'll post a template below with some information on arbitration on Ukraine-related edits. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What is the article where my edits overlap? As far as I know, since I created this user, I have not used the other account at any time. Regarding the content about Russia and Ukraine, we can talk about that as much as necessary. But what matters more to me are the accounts, as I don't think I have incurred in any abuse proper to the use of multiple accounts. Vgaiyfi (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.