Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Mr.weedle (
talk)
16:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vgaiyfi! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I didn't claim there was consensus. In the absence of consensus, you may not restore your preferred version. The next time you restore the infoboxes, I'll take it to the edit warring noticeboard at WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vgaiyfi reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request the unblocking of my user, as I believe it is not properly justified. Also, if user Rsk6400 had also been blocked for 24 hours, then I would consider it excessive for both of us, but at least we would have been treated equally. In this case, I have reverted content removals such as this one, where user Rsk6400 claimed that "There was no consensus on the discussion page for the inclusion of the infoboxes", as if that meant that consensus had been reached not to add the infoboxes (which is not true). If my block is due to the number of reverts made by me, what happens with the several reverts made by the user Rsk6400? Apart from that, the last revert performed by me ( see here) following a content removal ( see here) took place when a RfC about this matter had already been opened on the article's Talk page (please, note that the RfC was opened before Volunteer Marek deleted the content). All I did was to restore the status quo in order to wait for the RfC to complete its mission. At this time, there is no consensus in the RfC to remove the infoboxes from the article. However, user Rsk6400 has again removed the infoboxes ( see here) trying to make it look like there was a consensus before September 27 not to add them. This is not true; so the RfC should be about Keep or Remove the infoboxes, not about adding them or not, since they were added because there was no previous consensus restricting it. I think the situation is being manipulated and the opinion of other users, such as those who are participating in the RfC, that do want the article to contain infoboxes, is not being taken into account. Vgaiyfi ( talk) 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The main reason for the block is that you continued to revert after an RFC- which you endorsed- was created. You seem to misunderstand "status quo" or at least disagree with its interpretation. There were no infoboxes until you added them- so the status quo would be a lack of infoboxes. It's up to you to gain consensus, or show an existing consensus, to include them. Your reversion after the commencement of an RFC certainly suggested that you would continue to edit war, thus the block was correctly made to prevent that disruption. Not that it's relevant to your block, but I see no such disruption from the user you named. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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|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.Vgaiyfi ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request my unblocking because I do not know what the reason is. I would like to receive an explanation. I think that my block is not correct. Vgaiyfi ( talk) 01:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You admitted this was false, below. Yamla ( talk) 01:20, 1 October 2022 (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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Mr.weedle (
talk)
16:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vgaiyfi! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I didn't claim there was consensus. In the absence of consensus, you may not restore your preferred version. The next time you restore the infoboxes, I'll take it to the edit warring noticeboard at WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vgaiyfi reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you.
Rsk6400 (
talk)
17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Vgaiyfi ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request the unblocking of my user, as I believe it is not properly justified. Also, if user Rsk6400 had also been blocked for 24 hours, then I would consider it excessive for both of us, but at least we would have been treated equally. In this case, I have reverted content removals such as this one, where user Rsk6400 claimed that "There was no consensus on the discussion page for the inclusion of the infoboxes", as if that meant that consensus had been reached not to add the infoboxes (which is not true). If my block is due to the number of reverts made by me, what happens with the several reverts made by the user Rsk6400? Apart from that, the last revert performed by me ( see here) following a content removal ( see here) took place when a RfC about this matter had already been opened on the article's Talk page (please, note that the RfC was opened before Volunteer Marek deleted the content). All I did was to restore the status quo in order to wait for the RfC to complete its mission. At this time, there is no consensus in the RfC to remove the infoboxes from the article. However, user Rsk6400 has again removed the infoboxes ( see here) trying to make it look like there was a consensus before September 27 not to add them. This is not true; so the RfC should be about Keep or Remove the infoboxes, not about adding them or not, since they were added because there was no previous consensus restricting it. I think the situation is being manipulated and the opinion of other users, such as those who are participating in the RfC, that do want the article to contain infoboxes, is not being taken into account. Vgaiyfi ( talk) 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The main reason for the block is that you continued to revert after an RFC- which you endorsed- was created. You seem to misunderstand "status quo" or at least disagree with its interpretation. There were no infoboxes until you added them- so the status quo would be a lack of infoboxes. It's up to you to gain consensus, or show an existing consensus, to include them. Your reversion after the commencement of an RFC certainly suggested that you would continue to edit war, thus the block was correctly made to prevent that disruption. Not that it's relevant to your block, but I see no such disruption from the user you named. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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|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.Vgaiyfi ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request my unblocking because I do not know what the reason is. I would like to receive an explanation. I think that my block is not correct. Vgaiyfi ( talk) 01:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You admitted this was false, below. Yamla ( talk) 01:20, 1 October 2022 (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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.