User talk:RussianDewey

Talk page access restored

Per my email to you via your UTRS appeal "The change in attitude is certainly refreshing. Given the strength of the arguments for the block and the consensus by multiple admins, and now yourself, that the block was correct, I cannot unblock you unilaterally. What I will do however is restore your talk page access so that you can post a new request there for review." Note that if the use of this page is abused as it was in the past, your access will again be revoked. Good luck with your appeal, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Start and a new beginning after a long vacation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

The title says it all, I have realized by immature behavior and my stupidity in dealing with editors and admins here in Wikipedia. RussianDewey (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblock accepted as per discussion below Optimist on the run (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original blocking admin note: Based on my faith in Ponyo in reviewing the case, I would withdraw my objection to any unblock and simply be neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown and unblock reviewers; note that I'm not endorsing an unblock (or vice versa) - I only restored the talk page access so that a new unblock request could be made based on an appeal made via UTRS. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should have been more clear in that, but the same for me. We both are just standing back and allowing other eyes to review, without endorsement nor comment on the merits. This would probably be a good time for Dewey to explain what they plan to do, what they have learned, and what their goals are, to give the reviewer something to consider. I would expect the reviewer *might* have a question or two as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer

Either I'm feeling in a forgiving mood, or possibly just cynical, but I'm inclined to unblock per WP:ROPE. I was considering going down the {{2nd chance}} route, but that is rather a palaver for both the both the applicant and the reviewer. However I would like to know about RussianDewey's intentions. Therefore I'd like to ask them the following questions:

Are there any particular articles you want to work on?
How do you think these articles can be improved?
Do you accept that your edits will come under greater scrutiny than usual, and any edits that are perceived as not being "good faith" are likely to lead to the block being restored, possibly without warning?

- Optimist on the run (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None, but I would like to get my feet wet on some film articles.
More content and some sources.
Yes I accept that

RussianDewey (talk)

The delay has been so long, it might be helpful to ping Optimist on the run, which I have done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay and thanks for the ping - I saw this last thing last night, but didn't have a chance to do anything about it at the time, and it slipped my mind today. As Dennis Brown has already stated he has no objection to an unblock I'm going to go out on a limb and unblock you - please don't let me down. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will not let you down, is there a way I can change my username? RussianDewey (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username. However this will transfer all your old edits to your new username. You may wish to consider a Clean Start instead. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianDewey. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to get unblocked because I want to apologize for me severe reaction to a petty edit war that I have participated in, I would like to be in some form of probation under the guidance of leading editors of my field, I can still participate and have abundance of valuable information that I can contribute. I can prove this, if given the opportunity. RussianDewey (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem I have with this is that you were knowingly practicing in sockpuppetry for 2 years, seeing as the confirmed sock was created in June of 2015. This makes your initial unblock disingenuous, and blatantly violated the rules of our standard offer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I think my punishment is too severe, I expected a rejection, I would like to receive a definite ban or a long probation, since I didn't use my account for illegitimate reasons, you can check my history this account was used solely for sandbox material. RussianDewey (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not the case that this account was used solely for sandbox material. You have lots of edits to articles in 2015. Now, maybe you mean to restrict this to only after February, 2016. But, see, the problem is you were explicitly given a second chance and pointed to WP:ROPE. I'm afraid it looks like you hanged yourself. I don't see a compelling justification for unblocking you at this time. Yamla (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (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.

@Yamla: But there have never been conflict of interest where I intentionally edit the article knowing of a past edit. You can check the records, I'm going back all the way to mid June 2015, when I stopped editing from here. I'm just asking for a definite block with a time frame at the minimum with some probational period. RussianDewey (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deliberately engaged in block evasion. Yes, just to edit your sandbox, but it's still a violation of WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. It is simply not accurate to say there's been no "illegitimate reasons" here. And it's not like it only happened once. It's a pattern of behaviour. And that's on top of your edit-warring and personal attacks and concerns around WP:HERE. At this point, I think you are done. I don't see any admin being willing to unblock you. You had your second chance and blew it. In fact, even your second chance was made in bad faith. You are certainly welcome to request another admin review your situation, but I urge you not to get too hopeful. I think you've worked hard to show you shouldn't ever be unblocked again. --Yamla (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Fair enough, I fully deserve it. How about I contribute without editing articles, giving out suggestion on things to improve upon on, here on my talk page. RussianDewey (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:,

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).

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

Request reason:

Can I have the ability to have my default User talk page unblocked with a notice of my unblock request, I don't have the ability to use the talk page after an incident with an admin. I'm not trying to game the system where I request unblock in that territory but, the other User is where all my work is done, where my login for various journals is established, and the place where all the trouble started and where most people know me from. if it requires killing this account I will gladly do it. RussianDewey (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, if you are indefinitely blocked, you don't get to use your talk page(s) for contributions, suggestions, etc. I have now revoked your ability to edit this talk page, and I wish you well in finding an alternative outlet for your interests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2017 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25599 was submitted on Jun 15, 2019 09:00:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked. I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet. I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. Your unblock request to the community failed, so I am closing this request. More information is presented below. Yamla (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (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.

unblock discussion

{{Checkuser needed}} Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this going to AN, now. Just Chilling (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it there: WP:AN#Unblock request by RussianDewey. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an discussion replies WP:AN#Unblock request by RussianDewey

I have expressed some misgivings. Please reply here and your response can be carried over there. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sorry for the late reply RussianDewey (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Carried over Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector has voiced some concerns, if you'd care to address them. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done carried over. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a little confusion with the Brown Haired Girl, majority of my work was not under this name rather the other one. Contributions and also unfinished researches Subpages. I also made contributions to non-English Wikipedia by the way. RussianDewey (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "Beyond My Ken", I disagree, Socks will always get caught especially the amount of detailed articles I work with, I want to start in a legal manner and work my way up to gain the community to trust. I agree that socking is "is a danger to the project and an affront to the community" that's the whole point of this. RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "CorbieV", you say ""passionate" sockmasters" I think you paint me in a negative light, I'm not passionate about being a sockpuppet, I'm passionate about contributing to Wikipedia that's very different. Also I think you got my reasoning wrong, I recommend you read it again, I have two reasoning, one moral and one legality/punishment, the moral one is I want to do things the right way and the legality one is that sockpuppets at the end will always get caught and punished. I also never said my passion for Wikipedia comes before my respect for the WP Policy. I clearly stated "I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians" that includes following the Five pillars,Policies and guidelines and the Ethical Codes RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request discussion closed

Unfortunately there was no consensus at AN to unblock your account, and I closed the discussion [1]. This means that the block now becomes the community ban, and you may appeal to the community, not to individual administrators, to unban you. It is unreasonable to do it for the next half a year, but I leave you the talk page access, feel free to request an unblock in half a year or later if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you appeal to the community ? RussianDewey (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as before, you can post here an unblock request, and someone will move it to WP:AN. Just have in mind that you will be posting for community evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that, as pointed out, it is unreasonable to appeal before six months are up. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sock, and come back in six months. Don't give up RussianDewey! starship .paint (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA, I won't but thanks for the support. RussianDewey (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have waited for more than 6 months in order to request another unblock, per previous post, I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. To put things in perspective I have been banned for a full 3 years, January 2017 was my last "free" edit RussianDewey (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are banned by the community, not just blocked. Therefore, no admin is free to lift the block. You must appeal as per WP:UNBAN. And let me tell you, a request like this has zero chance of succeeding. Yamla (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2020 (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.

Got it, I'm too rusty at the moment, thanks for the info RussianDewey (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administration, I write in solicitation of unblocking my account with the realization that this follows an activity that led to my blockage. If it has caused any inconvenience or problem, I sincerely apologize. The reasons why I believe I should be unblocked are: 1- I realize how bad my conduct was in Wikipedia, and I would say I have grown as a Human Being and trying to move in the right direction. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia for almost a decade, my last Wikipedia article edit was in June 2015 2- Going forward, I will be committed to following all guidelines (Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks) put in place by my community. I have critically looked at the set guidelines such that I am not in any state to repeat the same mistakes again. My aim is to help make a positive contribution to the community and work toward creating a respectful and cohesively working environment. An honest apology I sincerely wish to apologize to anyone who was affected by my actions. Never at any given time had it been my purpose to cause distress or provide an inconvenience in the meantime. I regret any negative impacts my behavior might have caused in the community. Please, do so with a good mind, by unblocking my account. Now, more than ever, I'm dedicated to making up and proving by my deeds that I can be a responsible and valuable member of the community. I thank you for considering my appeal. Best Alexis RussianDewey (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Again, you are banned, not just blocked. Yamla (talk) 16:03, 27 July 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.

Based on WP:CHECKUSER technical evidence, I think it's Unlikely there's been any recent ban evasion here. That should be helpful if this user decides to follow WP:UNBAN to contest their ban. --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]