User talk:EVS-VR

Introduction to contentious topics

You 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.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russians at War documentary

I 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)[reply]

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 I agree with editors who think that the page is outdated and doesn't include reception by journalists who watched the film and published their opinions. 64.229.151.157 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ANI discussion

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)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Complexity1 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanVillager. 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: 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.

Izno (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2024 (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).

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:Manyareasexpert EVS-VR (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've verified the checkuser evidence; it is quite unambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:43, 17 November 2024 (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.

Please describe the evidence

@User:jpgordon, you wrote that you reviewed the evidence. Can you please list the evidence that was that "quite unambiguous" here, for others to judge? As I wrote, the similarity of the texts in postings is not the evidence: my text meant to be used by others. Similarity of comments is not the evidence as the issue was looping around the same few arguments. In fact, please look at the postings and comments of editors who asked for blocking me: they looped around the same few arguments as well, repeating each other. Thus, if you consider this similarity as evidence - sorry, you miss the whole point of cooperative nature of Wikipedia. Something was said about times of our edits - I personally have two jobs and edit only occasionally, when I see something important should be changed, like what happened to this film. I believe the majority of Wikipedia editors do only occasional edits. So times of edits is a laughable argument.EVS-VR (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin with WP:CHECKUSER privileges can verify the findings in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanVillager as I did. I didn't need to look at all at times of edits or anything of the sort, nor at the contents of edits. It doesn't matter at all who first called you out for abusing multiple accounts, since you were indeed abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:jpgordon This answer does not transparently present reasons for blocking my account. It only says “we, administrators, know”. Somehow if I am not an administrator (like the majority of the public), we can’t see the reasons. EVS-VR (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:jpgordon Why is this evidence hidden from the public? If Wikipedia is an open site, then any debates about the page should be available to anyone concerned. EVS-VR (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because of privacy issues; we generally do not publicly link IP addresses to user accounts, which would be a necessary part of exposing the evidence. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And most admins don't get to see the evidence either. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You support bad actors

@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)[reply]

^ "TIFF 2024: A Canadian Perspective on This Year's Festival-of-festivals". Roger Ebert.

[1] "TIFF 2024: A Canadian Perspective on This Year's Festival-of-festivals". Roger Ebert.

[1]