User talk:Théophile de Viau

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Welcome

Hello, Théophile de Viau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

June 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Human rights in Ukraine, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and content is subject to WP:RECENTISM. Your content addition was unnecessarily detailed given the nature of the article. I suggest that you read the WP:NPOV policy carefully and spend a little more time familiarising yourself by editing in less controversial areas before biting off more than you can chew as your first edits. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Théophile de Viau, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Usr lI (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Continued reverting at Human rights in Ukraine

Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#Human rights in Ukraine. You are continuing to revert on an article that's already been protected at WP:AN3 to stop an edit war. At this point, continued warring by any party is blockable. That could mean you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine is covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Context:I made my first edit on Wikipedia on 6 June: [[1]]. I thought it was a good edit, since the sources were The Times, NYT, Newsweek and the UN. I was away a few days and when I came back I saw there had been an edit war going on between Iryna Harpy and Usr II about my edit. she accused him here [[2]] of being my puppet. This is false. I reposted my edit on 13 June, was reverted by Lute 88 and reverted him again the same day. After that I never touched the article again and just made comments on the talk page. Accusations were again made that I was Usr II and then Gnothi Seauton. My very best wishes even took the liberty to redirect Usr II user page to mine [[3]]. This prompted me to ask Usr II to try a way to differentiate us [[4]]. Blocking event: A new edit was made on 16 June by Ymblanter, using the same sources as me. However, I thought he misrepresented the sources and I asked him to revert[[5]]. He replied that he was not interested in talking with sock-puppets [[6]]. Our last exchange was: [[7]], where I told him that he implictly admitted he had misquoted the sources. I understand that I should not have used the word "fabrication", but I was nervous after being treated dismissively. In any case, even though I am not as familiar as I should with Wikipedia rules, I don't think that this can possibly justify an indefinite block "per clear WP:NOTTHERE". In case my unblocking request were to be rejected, I would appreciate a clear explanation of what exactly I did wrong. Thank you. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:50, 17 June 2016 (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.

• @EdJohnston: Hi, I am sorry to bother you again but you are the only person I can turn to. You are the only administrator who knows the situation. As I told you I woud, I have never touched again the article Human rights in Ukraine. Nevertheless, after My very best wishes redirected Usr II user page to mine, Iryna Harpy and Volunteer Marek accused me of being a sock puppet of users Againstidsinformation, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν and Lokalkosmopolit on top of Usr II. I have absolutely nothing to do with these guys. Then, on June 16, another edit was made by Ymblanter, using the same sources as me. However he added that, according to The Times , " both Ukrainian authorities and the authorities of separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics allow torture and run secret jails" . The exact quote from The Times is "Ivan Simonovic, UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, said that in some areas Kiev’s “disregard for human rights” had become entrenched and systemic and needed to be urgently addressed." In the section"Sources to be used for Torture" of the article talk page, I told him I thought he was misrepresenting the source. He answered that he was not interested in the opinion of sock-puppets. I replied that his not answering my straightforward question was tantmount to an admission of having misquoted the source. His reply was " Blocked indef per clear WP:NOTTHERE". I know that, having been blocked indefinitely, I should show remorse but the poblem is that I don't see what I did to deserve this block. I have not breached, at least consciously, any Wikipedia rule. I have a feeling of having been treated unfairly and that hurts. I would be very grateful if you could have a look into this and explain to me why it happened. I have requested an unblock but I have very little hope. I don't think that anyone will disavow the judgement of an administrator for the sake of a newcomer who has been here only for ten days. I sincerely hope that you will have a look into the matter and I apologise for asking you to spend your time on this. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is understandable that people might suspect you are a sock on behavioral grounds. The short tenure, strong opinions and interest in only one topic are distinctive. Beyond that I have no comment. I won't be taking any action on the unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)