User talk:Russianvodka

Saudi Arabia

Please examine the changes caused by this edit. The changes were made from a broken proxy, resulting in malformed text. If you wish to change the article, then don't undo, change the text instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks zzuuzz I edited it instead Russianvodka (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and a note.

Hello, Russianvodka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

As you've mentioned that you are a new editor here, I thought I should give you a heads up about a rule that often trips up new editors, the three-revert rule. You will want to read WP:3RR. --joe decker ^talk 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm DeniedClub. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary (which I appreciate you doing this on the LGBT Rights in India article). If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When you want to change an article's content that has been the accepted version for more than a couple weeks, you need to discuss your intended actions before you make the edit. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 01:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you seem like a cool person who is just trying to help, and anyone who contributes in good faith is awesome in my book. We just have to take our time and discuss things, especially on controversial topics. I hope you don't take my reverts as an attempt to silence you. I would very much like to have a dialogue in the talk pages of these articles where we can gather consensus and come up with a compromise. I don't want any of this to discourage you from future editing either, it is appreciated that you're even here to help. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks I appreciate it Russianvodka (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That block was unnecessary, by the time you showed up user:DeniedClub and I had discussed the edits and I had already agreed to leave the info about the one same sex marriage that illegally occurred in India. I was editing in good faith to try to get info behind why DeniedClub did the edit which is how I got to understand what the reasoning behind his changes were. I also am not a sock puppet and you had no proof of that so that false accusation is unacceptable. Also, I am new here and I believe you might want to look again at WP:AGF and WP:Civil as well as WP:NPA. Cheers. Russianvodka (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent report to WP:AIV

I have removed your recent report to WP:AIV. This is clearly a content dispute and not obvious vandalism. Sasquatch t|c 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Even though it was an obvious violation of the three revert rule?Russianvodka (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is your last warning, dont add false information --Mojackjutaily (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No this is your last warning stop blanking info you don't like. Every edit I've done had sources where are yours?08:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)08:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)~~

December 2017

Hello, I'm Greyjoy. I noticed that you recently removed content from Homosexuality in India without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Greyjoy^talk 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable edit summary

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Homosexuality in India has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Please be aware specifically that it is disruptive, and disrespectful to other users, to describe edits made in good faith as vandalism, as you did here. You also should be cautious not to ebngage in edit warring. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether another user's edit is valuable and done in good faith or if it was done in a disrespectful and disruptive way is in the eye of the beholder. To one editor it seemed like a good edit but to some could be seen as adding back low quality sources in a malicious spamfest. People are free to have opinions, freedom of speech. Russianvodka (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People are free to have opinions, yes. Nevertheless, Wikipedia users are expected to assume good faith. Accusing another user of vandalism is making an extremely serious accusation. Wikipedia is not a democracy and makes no guarantee of freedom of speech. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russianvodka, given the above, why did you again violate WP:AGF in an edit summary here? Three different editors have now reverted your edits to Homosexuality in India (four including myself) and yet you have not tried to discuss your suggested edits on the article talk page, but keep reverting back citing "vandalism" (despite having been told what the issues are: primarily removal of sourced content and problems with neutrality). --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because now you and your ips are removed sourced material which is a textbook example of vandalism. Now see the compromise edit made and talk about it here before revertingRussianvodka (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you said above ("you and your ips") makes no sense, and you are still reverting without discussing on the talk page. Use the talk page for each article to discuss your edits. It is how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) :::What I said does makesense, between you and some random ips you have been attacking any factual and fully sourced edits for the sack of wp:Ijustdontlikeit, WP:OFFENSIVE and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored source material may be offensive or go against your morals, but information on anti-LGBT attacks in India were sourced by reliable sources and will be posted whether or not this information bothers you Russianvodka (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you have noticed several different editors, some of us registered, some not, are disagreeing with your changes, for reasons that are based on Wikipedia policy (as clearly explained in edit summaries). This means that you need to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of each article where your edits are challenged. You state below that you are here to help Wikipedia. Why do you then assume bad faith on the part of all the other editors who are also here to help Wikipedia? Do not attack other editors again by assuming bad faith, as you did in the post I am responding to. Comment on edits, on information, and on the content of articles, but do not comment on other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

long time problem--Moxy (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to that IP and they may be vandalizing but I'm here doing good edits to help Wiki.Russianvodka (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anti-LGBT rhetoric, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You seem to be on a bit of a deletion spree on a number of related articles. I have noticed several content deletions that would need to be supported by consensus - this includes category deletions. Please discuss on the talk page of each article before you remove content in this manner. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Bonadea's note a final warning. Any more disruptive editing or inappropriate edit summaries will result in another block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you followed WP:BRD with these two edits: [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC) :By being WP:BOLD I think the general info of anti-gay attacks India is directly coordinated with the city LGBT culture. Do you think Chennai and Bangalore are somehow suddenly not affected the general attitudes of conservative Indian society? Please provide an explanation. Russianvodka (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the D. You're making a change, someone else is Reverting, and now it's up to you that start a Discussion and wait for consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on LGBT culture in Chennai. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Australia

Mate do you have any evidence of the LGBT anti-discrimination laws “not being enforced” in Australia, as you have repeatedly edited? If not please stop saying so. FWIW, here is just one example of how anti-gay discrimination complaints are formalised and dealt with in the Australian state of New South Wales:

http://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/adb1_resources/adb1_equaltimeconciliation/conciliations_homosexual.aspx Jono52795 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia

Whats wrong with you?, i am sick and tired of your attitude.--Mojackjutaily (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Nothing is wrong with me I undid an edit that restored sourced info and forgot to keep off castrations, so now castrations is removed again Russianvodka (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) and what about me edits here, why are trying to undermined me. --Mojackjutaily (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Not undermining I removed some things that had no source, the things that are sourced I'm keeping there.Russianvodka (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit while logged out again [3] and you will be re-blocked for a much longer time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russianvodka. 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. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is not one I have ever used I only use my main account. Also I never got to even defend myself before the ban. This charges against me are falsefied and targeted toward me in a bias. I feel like this "investigation" was a witch hunt pushed again me because I posted sources that were properly sourced but you didn't like. Please unblock me.Russianvodka (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is the only IP I use and I didn't get to defend myself. I feel like this "investigation" was a witch hunt pushed again me because I posted sources that were properly sourced but you didn't like. I would not try to avoid another ban and this ip isn't even mine it was some ip named User:2600:1:F114:199E:4F:753D:6ED0:6E6. I don't know who he is but I condemn his vandalism and I would like to tell you if you unban me I will follow the community guildelines. Russianvodka (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm seeing the same thing (I'm sure) that User:NeilN sees, and it's not plausible as a mere coincidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN's comment (which was below) has been removed now, so I'll just add a note that I see a key characteristic exhibited by this account and by the several IPs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 15 December 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).

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

Request reason:

This is the only IP I use and I didn't get to defend myself. I feel like this "investigation" was a witch hunt pushed again me because I posted sources that were properly sourced but you didn't like. I would not try to avoid another ban and this ip isn't even mine it was some ip named User:2600:1:F114:199E:4F:753D:6ED0:6E6. I don't know who he is but I condemn his vandalism and I would like to tell you if you unban me I will follow the community guildelines. Russianvodka (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When your block is declined, posting the exact same unblock request verbatim isn't the best course of action, especially when it (still) attacks other editors instead of addressing the reasons for your block. Please read WP:GAB before requesting unblock again. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 December 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.

Please do not remove declined unblock requests while you are blocked, and do not just revert reviews that you do not like. Later reviewing admins will need to see them - I have restored the one you removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hid it becuase I was concerned it would also bias the next admin's review. Russianvodka (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, the relevant policy is explained at WP:BLANKING. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, do you think the previous bias appeal can be archived to hide the bias attack on my last appeal while being within the rules? Or would that be in bad taste? Russianvodka (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted a good faith review of your unblock request, I found evidence that convinced me that there has indeed been use of this account and multiple IPs by the same person, and that forms part of the ongoing block/review process that needs to be seen by future reviewers too - it's evidence and judgment, not bias, not attack. Whoever reviews the latest unblock request will independently examine the case and might conclude differently to me, or they might conclude the same. That's the way it works - we preserve evidence and previous judgment for further review, work together to review unblock requests as best we can collectively, and closed reviews are not hidden while the block is still active, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if you believe that my decline of your first unblock request was a result of bias or in some way constituted an attack, you are welcome to make that case here and the next reviewer (and/or anyone else who wishes to comment) can consider it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel like NielN tried to persuade the mods into thinking that this anonymous ip who did similar edits was me. He should have stayed out of the decision since he was directly involved in the edit disputes with me and obviously already has formed an opinion against me. That being said, I also believe I should have the previous ruling overturned because of the unfair interference. Russianvodka (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC) The Bushranger you ignored the explanation that there was a bias issue raised in the last unban request. Admins can be wrong and unfair too and that is what I feel like the first unblock request review was. Don't you think you should look at how I feel ganged up on? Russianvodka (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, all User:NeilN did was point out that he has seen behavioral evidence that supports the claim of abuse of multiple accounts/IPs and that he is willing to share it - and it is absurd to insist that the blocking admin (or any other observer) should not be allowed to present their evidence in a case like this. In fact, it would be the exact opposite of WP:ADMINACCT policy, which requires admins to account for what they do and why. As it happens, I did not need to ask NeilN for that behavioral evidence, because I can see it clearly myself - and I in turn will share it with the next reviewing admin if they ask me. This is a community process, and anyone can challenge your block and any decline of your unblock request if they disagree - and that frequently happens. And that process could not work properly if we allowed you to delete or hide reviews that you don't like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I have now indefinitely blocked Russianvodka, as well as sock/master Hithisisme (talk · contribs · count). Neither account has been tagged yet because of a technicality.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock requestRussianvodka (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the guildlines, will avoid account socketpuppeting, non-descriptive edit summaries, edit reverting/warring, and I promise to be a constructive contributing member of Wikipedia Russianvodka (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Very unconvincing. You were presented multiple chances to explain your actions (including abusive use of multiple accounts) and attitudes toward collegial editing on English Wikipedia, but you have decided to evade scrutiny by essentially, lying. On a off topic note, is there a reason why you cannot spell "guidelines" consistently? If you are going to file another unblock request, please try to be more comprehensive and detail oriented, as the community can be very forgiving if you do so, instead of making empty promises. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (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.