EVS-VR
Introduction to contentious topics
editYou 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.
Russians at War documentary
editI like what you have written better than the previous version. You have been much more careful in documentation.Complexity1 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I compared two versions, your is a good version for a fresh start. It has a proper structure and many more sources than the current version. Other editors can add their comments using the new version. The new version should should just add information about Windsor festival that the film was shown there despite of protests. I also advise contacting the senior editor who protected this page, to discuss the current standoff between editors. I agree with editors who think that the page is outdated and doesn't include reception by journalists who watched the film and published their opinions. 64.229.151.157 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Notification of ANI discussion
edit There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
editNote 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.
EVS-VR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here
Guess who are sockpuppets here? Stoptheprop, of course!
The sockpuppet of User:Manyareasexpert, the Stoptheprop (there is not even a user page with this name!) applied to block me as a user, and received an immediate approval for that without any time for me to review, respond or discuss. These users implied that User:Complexity1 is my sockpuppet. However, simply from the history of that user's edits it is clearly not true. That user was editing Wikipedia long before the film was made. That user wasn't me, and I am not them. If that user also has the anti-war attitudes and also saw the film, they might be willing to edit the page when hearing that there is a revert war going on around its page. It is not the reason to block either me or them. Meanwhile none of those who applied to block me saw the film. So, dear administrators, is it according to the policy of Wikipedia, to block occasional editors who know the matter and spent time verifying sources by the request of editors who don't know the matter of the page and delete proposed information from sources? The argument about sockpuppeting is ungrounded and is used simply to shut me down as an editor. Please check where the other editor was editing from, when and what pages.
Moreover, my version of the Russians at War film cited many sources - why the administrators didn't consider that some of these sources have supporting Wikipedia editors, like Complexity1? The reasons for denial of my appeal wasn't given, but should be given.
The main argument of those who initially wanted to block me was that other editors’ text is similar to mine. Of course it is similar: when I offered my version of the page on the Talk page of the film, that was the idea - that other editors, who have a right to edit the page, will use my text. Then, by suggestion of other editor, I posted the updated text on my own page, because I couldn't post it myself. And so other editors did use my text. This is not sockpuppeting, this is cooperation and respect to other editors' contribution.
For those who don't know what this is about:
There is a revert war going on at the page of the anti-war documentary Russians at War, in which User:stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert suppress postings of the opinion of Western journalists. These editors have a history of pro-Ukrainian edits so clearly shouldn't be in charge of the edit of this page due to WP:RUSUKR. To object their numerous reverts of edits I reached out to the senior editor Daniel Case, who blocked the Russians at War page, for assistance. However, before Daniel had a chance to intervene, the User:stoptheprop submitted this block request, immediately granted by User:Izno FYI: As a critic from Roger Ebert described it, the film "became … the subject of mass protests outside the venue (of the festivals) by supporters of Ukraine believing it to be mere propaganda (none of whom had seen the film), and even members of Trudeau’s government excoriating the festival for playing the film at all [1]. The film was screened only in Venice, twice at TIFF under strict security and in Winsor but Ukrainian protests suppressed its public screening at other festivals. None of the Wikipedia editors who call it "propaganda" (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) have seen it – they don’t deny it.
I was one of the few lucky people who watched this anti-war film. As a person with strong attitudes anti war, I decided to assist this page. After reviewing the film's reception in media, I compiled a comprehensive and well-structured page for this film (with 87 sources and with sections according to other Wiki pages on films). Since the page was blocked, I couldn’t post my version but asked other editors to review sources and use my text if they agreed with it. I am an occasional editor, and so are many other Wikipedia editors, who have a job and don't sit on Wikipedia editing 24 hours. So timing of edits were probably different - this shouldn't be the basis of blocking me or other editors. Meanwhile the page that was kept by User:Manyareasexpert’s dominance was outdated, didn't include recent festivals-related events and had only 47 sources.
I invited anybody to use my text, and so some people did, especially after verifying its sources. Naturally, there is similarity between pieces submitted by various editors if they used my text. The User:UrbanVillager made several attempts to post my version of the page but User:Manyareasexpert, who mainly edited the matter related to Ukraine and so does not have neutrality in WP:RUSUKR, constantly reverts the changes made by User:UrbanVillager. So I saw at least 4 loops of posting texts taken from my version by User:UrbanVillager and reverting the changes by User:Manyareasexpert. To underline: all my sources are Western media specialists and Western journalists, so they are neutral in terms of WP:RUSUKR, whereas all three editors (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) vandalizing the proposed edits show a pro-Ukrainian uninformed (haven't seen the film) bias. Anti-war films shouldn’t be edited by the sides that are involved in the war, as both sides will scream “propaganda”. I believe there are no grounds to block me or other editors, and the bias in this matter by Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert should be investigated instead. The grounds of blocking me and the grounds of the denial of the appeal should be given. I thought Wikipedia doesn't allow pages to be highjacked by biased editors - but here is the example of it. Plus my ability to edit now is blocked. I have been donating to Wikipedia every year but now I am reconsidering it. At the very least, if this continues, I am going to write directly to the Wikipedia owners. It is a disgrace what is happening here: suppression of good sources of information and blocking several well-minded editors by a frankly delusional and politically motivated thinking of Stoptheprop and User:ManyareasexpertEVS-VR (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've verified the checkuser evidence; it is quite unambiguous. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:43, 17 November 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.
You support bad actors
edit@User:jpgordon, the evidence for bias of those who submitted the request for blocking me on the issue WP:RUSUKR is very unambiguous - please block User:Manyareasexpert and User:stoptheprop from editing the Russians at War. Their history of edits evidently relates to pages on Ukraine so they can't be neutral. They even didn't watch the film, unlike me. If you are neutral on this matter and follow the Wiki's rules why don't you do review this evidence and block them as you support blocking me? Do the right thing in this case. And if you don't block them, you shouldn't block me either.
The story of Russians at War and this blocking of my editing should be known to the public: a brave girl in Russia tried to make an anti-war film with the risk of going to jail (there is a law against it in Russia), sneaked it to the frontline and spent 7 months in severe discomfort staying with Russian solders, filming whatever she could. She wasn't even hoping to get alive being also a citizen of a NATO country and cooperating with a Canadian film company. Then Canadians and French helped her to finalize this anti-war film, but Ukrainians, without seeing the film, did everything possible, including high level politicians to press the festivals to cancel it - read the page at Talk to see the sources. The financing of the film was cancelled by Canadians. Then the Russian media, seeing just a teaser, also put the film down as much as they could: they don't want anything anti-war. Plus Trofimova faces at least two sentences in Russia, plus Ukraine already put her on the list of threats to the country's defense. The high price to the life of documentalists in war should be respected, and the matter of war journalism should be handled with great care, which is not the case here. That was the consensus in Venice Film Festival, when I saw the film, and other anti-war people at the festival felt that we have to help her. Why it is so hard to believe that several editors can be involved then, copying each other's text to submit the edits?
Now the girl feels betrayed by both sides, feeling that 2 years of her life and risks for her and for the solders that she filmed were for nothing. Grounds to feel suicidal... All this only because Ukrainians somehow think that prohibiting mentioning anything Russian helps Russian isolation in the world and what - helps them win the war? They didn't even allow each other to go to see the film when it was screened at TIFF, buying tickets but not going, to make sure that the theater has empty seats. Their screams about "Putin's propaganda" comes from people who didn't watch the film - please read comments of Western journalists who watched the film, they all say that the film portrait Russian Army not in a very favorite view. So, dear administrators, you are on the side of editors who violate WP:RUSUKR and simple moral values, as as anti-war and pro-human life. If you want to keep me blocked for no reason - do your worst in public, but also block pro-Ukrainian editors from editing the film's page, according to WP:RUSUKR.EVS-VR (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Earlier comments about the block, before Nov 24-2024
editI ask for the removal of the block from my editing. The fact that other editors supported my text is not sockpuppeting, it is called cooperation in editing (one editor makes a draft, another editor verifies sources, and whatever is verified, is submitted again). This matter is exceptional, being not readily accessible to the public. This film was seen only by a small number of journalists, specialists and members of the public (maybe a few hundred around the world), and limited only to special locations (Venice, the Toronto area, plus a small city in Nova Scotia). Most importantly for me was to make sure that the page has truthful information. Please compare the version of the page on Talk and the existing Russians at War page.EVS-VR (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi!Stoptheprop and 0lida0 are already indefinitely blocked. Regarding your block appeal, you point that
The fact that other editors supported my text is not sockpuppeting, it is called cooperation in editing
. This is not the reason why you were blocked. A CheckUser technically confirmed that your account was related to Stoptheprop and Complexity1, and likely related to Volunt.Since the block was placed by a CheckUser based on technical information only they can access, only them or another CheckUser can remove your block – of the four people you pinged, only Jpgordon and Izno are CheckUsers. But, as a very first step, you'll have to be honest about whether you are indeed connected to the other accounts that were technically linked.More generally, if you wish for your block appeal to be seen, I recommend you to use the template {{unblock}} so that administrators (and, in this case, CheckUsers) will be more likely to see it. This is more likely to be fruitful than repeatedly pinging the same users, who might not be disposed to reply to you after that many pings. (See also WP:NOTTHEM about a less-than-successful unblock strategy) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)- Thank you very much, @Chaotic Enby, you are probably most helpful editor in this mess explaining to me what is going on :) Indeed, I see that the StoptheProp and 0Olida0 are blocked. Just a couple of notes: I think you made a typo saying that the CheckUser linked me to Stoptheprop, it can't be as that editor was the one who submitted the request to block me, and overall was critical to all my edits. I am also skeptical about my link to Volunt, so far I can't recall how it could happen and with whom. Complexity1, on the other hand I've met, and so do many of his students, children and grandchildren passing through his office. He is the least person to break any law, a reliable and accurate scientist, probably still thinking that Wikipedia runs like regular encyclopedia. I bet blocking of his account and public humiliation of him doing something bad came as a shock to him. However, he or I are not anybody's or each other's puppets, we found almost by accident that we watched the same film and I didn't like the page that other editors offered. There was no conspiracy, or fake accounts. The world of academia simply is not that big, and if we work in the same disciplines, inevitably we meet one day, especially during politico-cultural events. I didn't expect him to be involved at all in editing Russians at War, and I didn't expect this page would take that much efforts from me either.
- I thought I would add references to publications about the film, and that would be the end of it. I didn't believe that Ukrainians would go on with protests for every single festival where film was scheduled to be shown, so the film's history was expanding and expanding. For me it was like a heavy suitcase without the handle - pity to drop as I invested some initial time, but getting heavier and heavier to handle. Speaking about Complexity1 - we were not in contact when he suddenly emerged with the check of the references. Perhaps he was monitoring the page and, as a supervisor of what youth is doing, decided to verify my claims.
- Motivation to engage in editing this page is simple. The reaction to police blocking of demonstrators, and enhanced securing during TIFF's screening of Russians at War was universal among the audience and in a striking contrast to protestors' attidudes "I am not going to watch this film, I prevent others, and I know what it is without watching it". I bet anybody would react to such contrast, wanting to get involved in fixing this misunderstanding, and they don't need to be anybody's sockpuppets. Thank you for your recommendations regarding unblock. Today is the end of my working week, and I hope to write something to administrators and use that template either tonight or tomorrow. Thank you so much again! EVS-VR (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi!Regarding the connection to Complexity1, Izno was the one who made the technical findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Complexity1/Archive (he was already pinged, so I'm not pinging him again here). If you have met Complexity1 regularly, and were in the same office, it might be that you used similar IP addresses on the same network, which might explain the situation. It could be good to note this in the unblock template, as it will be processed by a CheckUser who can access the technical data. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Chaotic Enby, this explains the buzz, thank you so much. Yes, I was in his office a few times, as did other people, not "regularly", for sure. I didn't know it was a big deal. I am still drafting the appeal, so your comment is very helpful, thank you. EVS-VR (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, that might be what happened if you edited from the same/similar IP addresses. Did you ever edit from a computer he used, or just from devices in the same office? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's a good question. I remember being in his office, and the conversation started about that film's page being stuck and editors in charge not allowing the facts that I've collected to be published. Someone didn't believe that it was that bad, we logged into the page, but the question is what name was logged in then. At that point I only offered my version on the Talk page of the film itself, and it was hard to read as it was hidden with the subtitle. So I probably had to log in to show it, to have two screens: existing page and my version. Then someone recommended posting my version on my own Talk page, so for other editors it would be easier to compare two versions. I don't think I edited anything then, not sure (maybe I did while chatting, as the discussion on the film's Talk page was looping around the same stuck points). So if it was an edit, it was likely nothing new, just a repetition of the same argument that other editors refused to take into consideration. The episode of this computer use was brief, mainly for an illustration of the technical issue, as it was during a social gathering, and the discussions covered many other topics. There were several people around, not just Complexity1, who knew about Wikipedia editing because they briefly mentioned what could be done next but none of them were regular/extended editors. I expected that they would post at least one comment or edit the film's page, but they seemingly didn't get involved, only Complexity1 did, I believe. EVS-VR (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, that might be what happened if you edited from the same/similar IP addresses. Did you ever edit from a computer he used, or just from devices in the same office? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Chaotic Enby, this explains the buzz, thank you so much. Yes, I was in his office a few times, as did other people, not "regularly", for sure. I didn't know it was a big deal. I am still drafting the appeal, so your comment is very helpful, thank you. EVS-VR (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi!Regarding the connection to Complexity1, Izno was the one who made the technical findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Complexity1/Archive (he was already pinged, so I'm not pinging him again here). If you have met Complexity1 regularly, and were in the same office, it might be that you used similar IP addresses on the same network, which might explain the situation. It could be good to note this in the unblock template, as it will be processed by a CheckUser who can access the technical data. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Apology to Complexity 1
editDear @Complexity, I just read your reaction to the block on your Talk page. I was wondering why you didn't react earlier but you've mentioned that you did not receive notifications. Perhaps you can check your email again and the spam mailbox? Regardless, I want to apologise for the likely stress caused by this block to you, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your participation in editing Russians at War page. I wanted to post it on your Talk page but I am blocked myself and can only post it here. I believe you did nothing wrong, and you had only the best intentions. Thank you again for everything. EVS-VR (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
EVS-VR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Administrators, my apologies for the previous emotional reaction to this block. The assistance of Chaotic Enby and --jpgordon were very useful in identifying the problems leading to this block. It was an intense learning experience even though it came with negative emotions, as any learning from one's own mistakes :( I ask you to take into consideration the following:
1) I am a beginner editor, so I ask for assistance from people who have edited at least something in the past. In doing that, I was not paying attention while using other's computers, such as maybe in offices, and letting people use my computer when I wanted them to explain something technical to me. Even those who helped me were not experienced editors. So if any violation of a technical rule was committed, it was not intentional.
2) My main goal was to collect the facts, sources, dates etc related to the film Russians at War after seeing the mistreatment of the Director by Canadian authorities. That girl risked her life then and, considering what the team said during Q&A after the screening of this anti-war film, she is guaranteed to go to Russian jail after that. So, talking to Ukrainian protestors, and hearing pro-Ukrainian MPs who submitted petitions for criminal investigation of this girl, motivated many members of the audience to support the Director and the film. One person even noticed a massive posting of 1-star votes on all IMDb pages of all other films of this Director within 3-4 days after the premier of Russians at War, and the stats show that the majority of votes can be from Ukraine. I checked - it was true. Thus, my motivation to edit the page was transient. I didn't expect this task to take more than a weekend. I thought if I collect related sources, add it to the page, it would be the end of the story. I am not involved in this industry or in any side of this war; I am a Canadian citizen. My involvement was prolonged for months now when I discovered that it is not easy to publish collected, well-sourced facts on the page due to resistance from other editors. Every time I edited and added comments to the Talk page, I hoped it would be my last edit on that page, but the matter was going on and on. I observed a revert war between extended editors (the page Russians at War is protected and only extended editors can edit it).
3) Re: involvement of other people. As I mentioned, there was a discussion within the audience about the anti-war nature of the film after its screening and the absence of this perspective on the Wikipedia page of the film. I saw several familiar faces during the screening, including Complexity1, whom I knew before from my activities in academia. We also discussed a potential common professional project, unrelated to the film. We didn't discuss Wikipedia page of the film them. After screening of the film, I noticed a number of prominent sources mentioning this film and praising it for its anti-war content. That was relevant for Reception section. Plus I looked at the Wikipedia page and discovered that it is poorly structured, with the text blending the topics that belong to different sections. So, instead of suggesting small comments here and there, I decided to do my civil duty and prepare a different version of the page, that is structured in line with Wikipedia's pages regarding films. In October, we also had several meetings with Complexity1, his colleagues and students to discuss our potential project. When the discussion touched on the matter of wars in Palestine and Ukraine, and I mentioned my submission of the alternative text to the Talk page, Complexity1 mentioned that the reason why my contribution was not accepted maybe because it was not factual. I objected and wanted to show my edit but the whole text of my proposed edit was hidden, only a title and a few lines was shown (on the Talk page of the film). I thought it was hidden maybe because I wasn't logged in, so I logged in. When I struggled, several other people showed their knowledge of editing Wikipedia during these meetings, but none of them had the privilege of editing protected pages. I don't think anybody else edited Russians at War who were at those meetings except Complexity1, but I can't guarantee it. Meanwhile, Complexity1 surprised me when I learned that he reviewed the most important part of the text (I think it was Reception and Controversy), checked all my references and citations and submitted this part for inclusion to the page. When his edit was ignored, I observed his several attempts to attract attention to it. I know how busy he is with his academic and clinical work, so I wish Wikipedia would take into consideration his wish to help.
4) Another help I had from one more user, also without privileges in editing protected pages, advising me to post my version of the Russians at War on my Talk page to facilitate a comparison of two versions if other editors will do it. So I did. I don't know the login name of this user, and I doubt that this user was involved in editing of the film's page. However, when trying the technical features of Wikipedia, we were likely logged in. More help came from a friend-journalist who sent me two links to publications that I was not aware of but which were relevant to my version of the film's page. I am not sure if all this help can be viewed as sock puppets, but I was advised to mention it. Otherwise, the film was widely discussed in newspapers, in news channels and online, so it wasn't hard to gather the sources. In other words, there were several people involved in assisting me, and when I asked for technical assistance, I didn't care much about which computer I used or who used my computer as long as these were all respectful people.
5) I now have read the sock-puppets policy of Wikipedia and appreciate its importance for this site. As a scientist, I thought that for any encyclopedia, the reliability of the knowledge is the main focus, and so I tried to make sure that I gathered only reliable knowledge about actual facts. I was wrong in not paying attention to the specifics of Wikipedia, namely, that it is an online, publicly accessible platform that is vulnerable to bad actors, and so administrators have to develop additional rules (not known for common encyclopedias). I came from a generation that mainly used computers, not cell phones, to show something to colleagues. It is still very common in my generation to learn from each other by showing the functions of computer programs directly from the screen. I haven't noticed if someone used my email to make additional fake names of editors, but if it happened, I am truly sorry. I don't believe that I logged into my email in any of the offices where I discussed the editing of this film's page, so if something like this happened, I was not involved, and it happened outside these offices.
Once more, I am sorry for causing any disruption to Wikipedia's process. From now on, I will make sure that I use only my computer while editing, and if asking for someone's help, I will make sure that they are not logged in under their names. Also, I will avoid logging into my email account on other computers if there is a possibility of creating fake user accounts in Wikipedia.
EVS-VR (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here Dear Administrators, my apologies for the previous emotional reaction to this block. The assistance of [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] and [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]] were very useful in identifying the problems leading to this block. It was an intense learning experience even though it came with negative emotions, as any learning from one's own mistakes :( I ask you to take into consideration the following: 1) I am a beginner editor, so I ask for assistance from people who have edited at least something in the past. In doing that, I was not paying attention while using other's computers, such as maybe in offices, and letting people use my computer when I wanted them to explain something technical to me. Even those who helped me were not experienced editors. So if any violation of a technical rule was committed, it was not intentional. 2) My main goal was to collect the facts, sources, dates etc related to the film [[Russians at War]] after seeing the mistreatment of the Director by Canadian authorities. That girl risked her life then and, considering what the team said during Q&A after the screening of this anti-war film, she is guaranteed to go to Russian jail after that. So, talking to Ukrainian protestors, and hearing pro-Ukrainian MPs who submitted petitions for criminal investigation of this girl, motivated many members of the audience to support the Director and the film. One person even noticed a massive posting of 1-star votes on all IMDb pages of all other films of this Director within 3-4 days after the premier of [[Russians at War]], and the stats show that the majority of votes can be from Ukraine. I checked - it was true. Thus, my motivation to edit the page was transient. I didn't expect this task to take more than a weekend. I thought if I collect related sources, add it to the page, it would be the end of the story. I am not involved in this industry or in any side of this war; I am a Canadian citizen. My involvement was prolonged for months now when I discovered that it is not easy to publish collected, well-sourced facts on the page due to resistance from other editors. Every time I edited and added comments to the Talk page, I hoped it would be my last edit on that page, but the matter was going on and on. I observed a revert war between extended editors (the page [[Russians at War]] is protected and only extended editors can edit it). 3) Re: involvement of other people. As I mentioned, there was a discussion within the audience about the anti-war nature of the film after its screening and the absence of this perspective on the Wikipedia page of the film. I saw several familiar faces during the screening, including Complexity1, whom I knew before from my activities in academia. We also discussed a potential common professional project, unrelated to the film. We didn't discuss Wikipedia page of the film them. After screening of the film, I noticed a number of prominent sources mentioning this film and praising it for its anti-war content. That was relevant for Reception section. Plus I looked at the Wikipedia page and discovered that it is poorly structured, with the text blending the topics that belong to different sections. So, instead of suggesting small comments here and there, I decided to do my civil duty and prepare a different version of the page, that is structured in line with Wikipedia's pages regarding films. In October, we also had several meetings with Complexity1, his colleagues and students to discuss our potential project. When the discussion touched on the matter of wars in Palestine and Ukraine, and I mentioned my submission of the alternative text to the Talk page, Complexity1 mentioned that the reason why my contribution was not accepted maybe because it was not factual. I objected and wanted to show my edit but the whole text of my proposed edit was hidden, only a title and a few lines was shown (on the Talk page of the film). I thought it was hidden maybe because I wasn't logged in, so I logged in. When I struggled, several other people showed their knowledge of editing Wikipedia during these meetings, but none of them had the privilege of editing protected pages. I don't think anybody else edited [[Russians at War]] who were at those meetings except Complexity1, but I can't guarantee it. Meanwhile, Complexity1 surprised me when I learned that he reviewed the most important part of the text (I think it was Reception and Controversy), checked all my references and citations and submitted this part for inclusion to the page. When his edit was ignored, I observed his several attempts to attract attention to it. I know how busy he is with his academic and clinical work, so I wish Wikipedia would take into consideration his wish to help. 4) Another help I had from one more user, also without privileges in editing protected pages, advising me to post my version of the [[Russians at War]] on my Talk page to facilitate a comparison of two versions if other editors will do it. So I did. I don't know the login name of this user, and I doubt that this user was involved in editing of the film's page. However, when trying the technical features of Wikipedia, we were likely logged in. More help came from a friend-journalist who sent me two links to publications that I was not aware of but which were relevant to my version of the film's page. I am not sure if all this help can be viewed as sock puppets, but I was advised to mention it. Otherwise, the film was widely discussed in newspapers, in news channels and online, so it wasn't hard to gather the sources. In other words, there were several people involved in assisting me, and when I asked for technical assistance, I didn't care much about which computer I used or who used my computer as long as these were all respectful people. 5) I now have read the sock-puppets policy of Wikipedia and appreciate its importance for this site. As a scientist, I thought that for any encyclopedia, the reliability of the knowledge is the main focus, and so I tried to make sure that I gathered only reliable knowledge about actual facts. I was wrong in not paying attention to the specifics of Wikipedia, namely, that it is an online, publicly accessible platform that is vulnerable to bad actors, and so administrators have to develop additional rules (not known for common encyclopedias). I came from a generation that mainly used computers, not cell phones, to show something to colleagues. It is still very common in my generation to learn from each other by showing the functions of computer programs directly from the screen. I haven't noticed if someone used my email to make additional fake names of editors, but if it happened, I am truly sorry. I don't believe that I logged into my email in any of the offices where I discussed the editing of this film's page, so if something like this happened, I was not involved, and it happened outside these offices. Once more, I am sorry for causing any disruption to Wikipedia's process. From now on, I will make sure that I use only my computer while editing, and if asking for someone's help, I will make sure that they are not logged in under their names. Also, I will avoid logging into my email account on other computers if there is a possibility of creating fake user accounts in Wikipedia. [[User:EVS-VR|EVS-VR]] ([[User talk:EVS-VR#top|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here Dear Administrators, my apologies for the previous emotional reaction to this block. The assistance of [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] and [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]] were very useful in identifying the problems leading to this block. It was an intense learning experience even though it came with negative emotions, as any learning from one's own mistakes :( I ask you to take into consideration the following: 1) I am a beginner editor, so I ask for assistance from people who have edited at least something in the past. In doing that, I was not paying attention while using other's computers, such as maybe in offices, and letting people use my computer when I wanted them to explain something technical to me. Even those who helped me were not experienced editors. So if any violation of a technical rule was committed, it was not intentional. 2) My main goal was to collect the facts, sources, dates etc related to the film [[Russians at War]] after seeing the mistreatment of the Director by Canadian authorities. That girl risked her life then and, considering what the team said during Q&A after the screening of this anti-war film, she is guaranteed to go to Russian jail after that. So, talking to Ukrainian protestors, and hearing pro-Ukrainian MPs who submitted petitions for criminal investigation of this girl, motivated many members of the audience to support the Director and the film. One person even noticed a massive posting of 1-star votes on all IMDb pages of all other films of this Director within 3-4 days after the premier of [[Russians at War]], and the stats show that the majority of votes can be from Ukraine. I checked - it was true. Thus, my motivation to edit the page was transient. I didn't expect this task to take more than a weekend. I thought if I collect related sources, add it to the page, it would be the end of the story. I am not involved in this industry or in any side of this war; I am a Canadian citizen. My involvement was prolonged for months now when I discovered that it is not easy to publish collected, well-sourced facts on the page due to resistance from other editors. Every time I edited and added comments to the Talk page, I hoped it would be my last edit on that page, but the matter was going on and on. I observed a revert war between extended editors (the page [[Russians at War]] is protected and only extended editors can edit it). 3) Re: involvement of other people. As I mentioned, there was a discussion within the audience about the anti-war nature of the film after its screening and the absence of this perspective on the Wikipedia page of the film. I saw several familiar faces during the screening, including Complexity1, whom I knew before from my activities in academia. We also discussed a potential common professional project, unrelated to the film. We didn't discuss Wikipedia page of the film them. After screening of the film, I noticed a number of prominent sources mentioning this film and praising it for its anti-war content. That was relevant for Reception section. Plus I looked at the Wikipedia page and discovered that it is poorly structured, with the text blending the topics that belong to different sections. So, instead of suggesting small comments here and there, I decided to do my civil duty and prepare a different version of the page, that is structured in line with Wikipedia's pages regarding films. In October, we also had several meetings with Complexity1, his colleagues and students to discuss our potential project. When the discussion touched on the matter of wars in Palestine and Ukraine, and I mentioned my submission of the alternative text to the Talk page, Complexity1 mentioned that the reason why my contribution was not accepted maybe because it was not factual. I objected and wanted to show my edit but the whole text of my proposed edit was hidden, only a title and a few lines was shown (on the Talk page of the film). I thought it was hidden maybe because I wasn't logged in, so I logged in. When I struggled, several other people showed their knowledge of editing Wikipedia during these meetings, but none of them had the privilege of editing protected pages. I don't think anybody else edited [[Russians at War]] who were at those meetings except Complexity1, but I can't guarantee it. Meanwhile, Complexity1 surprised me when I learned that he reviewed the most important part of the text (I think it was Reception and Controversy), checked all my references and citations and submitted this part for inclusion to the page. When his edit was ignored, I observed his several attempts to attract attention to it. I know how busy he is with his academic and clinical work, so I wish Wikipedia would take into consideration his wish to help. 4) Another help I had from one more user, also without privileges in editing protected pages, advising me to post my version of the [[Russians at War]] on my Talk page to facilitate a comparison of two versions if other editors will do it. So I did. I don't know the login name of this user, and I doubt that this user was involved in editing of the film's page. However, when trying the technical features of Wikipedia, we were likely logged in. More help came from a friend-journalist who sent me two links to publications that I was not aware of but which were relevant to my version of the film's page. I am not sure if all this help can be viewed as sock puppets, but I was advised to mention it. Otherwise, the film was widely discussed in newspapers, in news channels and online, so it wasn't hard to gather the sources. In other words, there were several people involved in assisting me, and when I asked for technical assistance, I didn't care much about which computer I used or who used my computer as long as these were all respectful people. 5) I now have read the sock-puppets policy of Wikipedia and appreciate its importance for this site. As a scientist, I thought that for any encyclopedia, the reliability of the knowledge is the main focus, and so I tried to make sure that I gathered only reliable knowledge about actual facts. I was wrong in not paying attention to the specifics of Wikipedia, namely, that it is an online, publicly accessible platform that is vulnerable to bad actors, and so administrators have to develop additional rules (not known for common encyclopedias). I came from a generation that mainly used computers, not cell phones, to show something to colleagues. It is still very common in my generation to learn from each other by showing the functions of computer programs directly from the screen. I haven't noticed if someone used my email to make additional fake names of editors, but if it happened, I am truly sorry. I don't believe that I logged into my email in any of the offices where I discussed the editing of this film's page, so if something like this happened, I was not involved, and it happened outside these offices. Once more, I am sorry for causing any disruption to Wikipedia's process. From now on, I will make sure that I use only my computer while editing, and if asking for someone's help, I will make sure that they are not logged in under their names. Also, I will avoid logging into my email account on other computers if there is a possibility of creating fake user accounts in Wikipedia. [[User:EVS-VR|EVS-VR]] ([[User talk:EVS-VR#top|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here Dear Administrators, my apologies for the previous emotional reaction to this block. The assistance of [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] and [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]] were very useful in identifying the problems leading to this block. It was an intense learning experience even though it came with negative emotions, as any learning from one's own mistakes :( I ask you to take into consideration the following: 1) I am a beginner editor, so I ask for assistance from people who have edited at least something in the past. In doing that, I was not paying attention while using other's computers, such as maybe in offices, and letting people use my computer when I wanted them to explain something technical to me. Even those who helped me were not experienced editors. So if any violation of a technical rule was committed, it was not intentional. 2) My main goal was to collect the facts, sources, dates etc related to the film [[Russians at War]] after seeing the mistreatment of the Director by Canadian authorities. That girl risked her life then and, considering what the team said during Q&A after the screening of this anti-war film, she is guaranteed to go to Russian jail after that. So, talking to Ukrainian protestors, and hearing pro-Ukrainian MPs who submitted petitions for criminal investigation of this girl, motivated many members of the audience to support the Director and the film. One person even noticed a massive posting of 1-star votes on all IMDb pages of all other films of this Director within 3-4 days after the premier of [[Russians at War]], and the stats show that the majority of votes can be from Ukraine. I checked - it was true. Thus, my motivation to edit the page was transient. I didn't expect this task to take more than a weekend. I thought if I collect related sources, add it to the page, it would be the end of the story. I am not involved in this industry or in any side of this war; I am a Canadian citizen. My involvement was prolonged for months now when I discovered that it is not easy to publish collected, well-sourced facts on the page due to resistance from other editors. Every time I edited and added comments to the Talk page, I hoped it would be my last edit on that page, but the matter was going on and on. I observed a revert war between extended editors (the page [[Russians at War]] is protected and only extended editors can edit it). 3) Re: involvement of other people. As I mentioned, there was a discussion within the audience about the anti-war nature of the film after its screening and the absence of this perspective on the Wikipedia page of the film. I saw several familiar faces during the screening, including Complexity1, whom I knew before from my activities in academia. We also discussed a potential common professional project, unrelated to the film. We didn't discuss Wikipedia page of the film them. After screening of the film, I noticed a number of prominent sources mentioning this film and praising it for its anti-war content. That was relevant for Reception section. Plus I looked at the Wikipedia page and discovered that it is poorly structured, with the text blending the topics that belong to different sections. So, instead of suggesting small comments here and there, I decided to do my civil duty and prepare a different version of the page, that is structured in line with Wikipedia's pages regarding films. In October, we also had several meetings with Complexity1, his colleagues and students to discuss our potential project. When the discussion touched on the matter of wars in Palestine and Ukraine, and I mentioned my submission of the alternative text to the Talk page, Complexity1 mentioned that the reason why my contribution was not accepted maybe because it was not factual. I objected and wanted to show my edit but the whole text of my proposed edit was hidden, only a title and a few lines was shown (on the Talk page of the film). I thought it was hidden maybe because I wasn't logged in, so I logged in. When I struggled, several other people showed their knowledge of editing Wikipedia during these meetings, but none of them had the privilege of editing protected pages. I don't think anybody else edited [[Russians at War]] who were at those meetings except Complexity1, but I can't guarantee it. Meanwhile, Complexity1 surprised me when I learned that he reviewed the most important part of the text (I think it was Reception and Controversy), checked all my references and citations and submitted this part for inclusion to the page. When his edit was ignored, I observed his several attempts to attract attention to it. I know how busy he is with his academic and clinical work, so I wish Wikipedia would take into consideration his wish to help. 4) Another help I had from one more user, also without privileges in editing protected pages, advising me to post my version of the [[Russians at War]] on my Talk page to facilitate a comparison of two versions if other editors will do it. So I did. I don't know the login name of this user, and I doubt that this user was involved in editing of the film's page. However, when trying the technical features of Wikipedia, we were likely logged in. More help came from a friend-journalist who sent me two links to publications that I was not aware of but which were relevant to my version of the film's page. I am not sure if all this help can be viewed as sock puppets, but I was advised to mention it. Otherwise, the film was widely discussed in newspapers, in news channels and online, so it wasn't hard to gather the sources. In other words, there were several people involved in assisting me, and when I asked for technical assistance, I didn't care much about which computer I used or who used my computer as long as these were all respectful people. 5) I now have read the sock-puppets policy of Wikipedia and appreciate its importance for this site. As a scientist, I thought that for any encyclopedia, the reliability of the knowledge is the main focus, and so I tried to make sure that I gathered only reliable knowledge about actual facts. I was wrong in not paying attention to the specifics of Wikipedia, namely, that it is an online, publicly accessible platform that is vulnerable to bad actors, and so administrators have to develop additional rules (not known for common encyclopedias). I came from a generation that mainly used computers, not cell phones, to show something to colleagues. It is still very common in my generation to learn from each other by showing the functions of computer programs directly from the screen. I haven't noticed if someone used my email to make additional fake names of editors, but if it happened, I am truly sorry. I don't believe that I logged into my email in any of the offices where I discussed the editing of this film's page, so if something like this happened, I was not involved, and it happened outside these offices. Once more, I am sorry for causing any disruption to Wikipedia's process. From now on, I will make sure that I use only my computer while editing, and if asking for someone's help, I will make sure that they are not logged in under their names. Also, I will avoid logging into my email account on other computers if there is a possibility of creating fake user accounts in Wikipedia. [[User:EVS-VR|EVS-VR]] ([[User talk:EVS-VR#top|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- EVS-VR I just did Complexity1's block appeal so I'll leave this one for someone else, but I wanted to let you know that, if this unblock request is denied, my advice would be to take the standard offer (details at WP:SO). If there is no evidence of block evasion six months from now, I think it's likely you can be unblocked. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)