User talk:Lubatchovsky
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
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.
Lubatchovsky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been a number of months since my last block, and I believe sufficient time has passed to reflect on my behaviour and attempt at demonstrating my commitment to contributing constructively. My first priority is to assist in the Wikipedia mission through the improvement of articles, appealing to the core content policies of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research, and in interacting with other editors in good faith. a proof of that is my clean record that I have avoided breeching wikipedia terms and am working constructively.
- I would like to reassure you that none of the other Wikipedia policies, including sock puppetry, will be breached again. Being unblocked, I am quite willing to work under restrictions and prove my seriousness about making good contributions.
- I thank you for considering my appeal. I would be grateful for an opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute responsibly.
Decline reason:
I suggest you wait 6 months from now before making another unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2025 (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.
Lobus (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight & @Izno, the person blocked for sockpuppetry recently accused as my sockpuppet is not one of my sockpuppets, the person had been wronged, his user is @Zayyanid56774849. please review my unblock request seperately and contact him for further clarification on unblock procedure
Lubatchovsky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello dear admin, After careful thinking on my past behaviour, I acknowledge my mistakes in regards to wikipedia policy on avoiding sock puppeting, I made bad decisions in regard to my original block, I wish to return to contributing to wikipedia, I regret my past actions deeply, I assure you that during this time I have contributed to other wiki comms without causing any trouble and I wish to continue to adhere to regulations and edit constructively, I avoided suckpuppeting and breaking wikipedia rules in the duration of my block. Before my block I took pride in making meaningful contributions, I would like to ask you to reconsider my request for unblock and if a full unblock is not possible, I would be open to restricted editing for a period to demonstrate my intentions in responsible editing Note: Zayyanid56774849 is not my sockpuppet, he was wronged, I do not have anything to do with this user who was punished 9 days ago, that user was wronged Lobus (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is a checkuser block, so a connection to the other account is not in doubt. You'll need to explain why it might appear there is a connection if there actually isn't one. I also suggest that you do as Phil states above. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2025 (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.
Please place new comments at the bottom, so they stay in order. This may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply". 331dot (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @331dot The user is not connected to me as checkuser, check out Philknight's comment: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin, In the article of septimius severus, the emperor is well known for his libyan origins, Zayyanid56774849 appears to have read publications regarding the origins of the emperor and made similar comments to me, since I am not related to Zayyanid56774849, having him as one of my sockpuppets weakens my position for unblock request since I am trying to follow rules to get unblocked after a duration, it is also is not a good thing to see a wikipedian who must be blocked because he is accused to be connected to me. I am unable to contact the user in question to address the issue because I am blocked indefinetly, I am hoping that you might unblock him or contact him for clarification, I have not denied sockpuppetry for my block and I assure you that in this duration of time of my block I followed @User:Chaotic Enby's advice to contribute to other wikimedias, I hope that you look into @Zayyanid56774849's case more carefully and release the user asap.Lobus (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the SPI since I got pinged: the checkuser block was on Lubatchovsky as a sock of Potymkin (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin/Archive#13 January 2025). The block of Zayyanid was only behavioral (tagged as technically unrelated in the SPI), and was not logged as a checkuser block at User talk:Zayyanid56774849.I still stand by my previous advice, by the way – while it is technically preferable that you would contribute to other wikis from your original account, the fact that you lost your password means it's acceptable that you use this one instead. You did make some pretty good contributions on fr.wiki (always good to see more being written about Berber culture!) In terms of constructive feedback, some of your edits are missing citations and might not be written in the most encyclopedic way (diff, not sure if adding questions for suspense in the middle of a mythological narrative is needed).A bit more concerning is this diff which appears to "hijack" an article about a Greco-Egyptian divinity by claiming it as a Berber one? (Also, not sure if it is the same on fr.wiki, but, at least on en.wiki, the onus is on the one adding content to get consensus, not the opposite). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I find that some of the admins in other wikis are more prone to offer advice and follow users in their contributions on wikipedia rather than the constant blocking that occurs within english wikipedia of innocent wikipedians such as @Zayyanid56774849, too hasty to lean on the indefinite block option, if any of the dozen admins I contacted had a spine they would look further into his case hopefully, for me english wikipedia is not worth much of the trouble.
- Concerning my contributions elsewhere they are closely monitored and in case I make mistakes. I find that admins and other contributors in other wikis are more civilized, users are more prone to engage in conversation on contributions and so every argument comes with interesting sources and there is always a solid conclusion to arguments since conversations are meaningful, contributions are certainly more welcome elsewhere so from what I have seen.
- Here on English wikipedia, it is like a jungle, arguments are meaningless, contributions are useless, I have noticed a clear pattern of long standing wikipedia users go on other wikipedia users' contributions list and start undoing their edits one by one in case of disdain, and admins don't bat an eye on such behaviour despite knowing full well certain users tendencies to cause issues with other wikipedia users.
- Long standing contributors to wikipedia are allowed to heavily dismiss contributions of other users without being prone to punishment, and thereby you find long standing users causing mass ban of several hundred new english wikipedia contributors by pushing them to engage in edit wars and then use that as proof of misconduct to cause them to be banned, since the banned users are new to wikipedia, many wikipedia policies are unknown to them yet and this is used as a tool to get rid of unwanted contributions that contradict a long standing user's POV (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).
- It appears also that some regular users are well protected by some admins who do share their position on matters, this way they are not prone to punishment it appears, certainly it gives the impression that many admins themselves used similar tricks to get to their position and the cycle repeats itself.
- I have also seen cases of users band together in wikipedia pages to engage with new contributors to dismiss their contributions, it is ridiculous to think that an admin spends a week analyzing where a user puts small dots and commas for sockpuppetry but somehow misses that Person A and Person B written is big bold blue letters are always together reverse editing and engaging in conflict with new wikipedia users across 30 articles and pretending good faith on this behaviour.
- English wikipedia in a few sentences:
- Assume good faith - only with long standing users when they mob attack on new commers, the long standing users are surely moving from article to article together engaging in edit conflict in good faith.
- Neutral point of View - always remove sourced information from the wikipedia solely because it seems biased, when another information is added down below delete that instantly without discussion because "the onus is on the one adding content to get consensus"
- Do not bite newcomers - Always indefinetly ban them because they are not worth the trouble.
- I appreciate that you gave me the solid advice to contribute elsewhere, you are genuinely one of the wikipedia users who actively seek to contribute faithfully, going by your advice was a step towards a positive direction, I hope you tend to give users advice sooner before they are indefinetly blocked, this will help them even more in the future. please find a way to contact Zayyanid56774849 for his block if possible. Lobus (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)