User talk:Ze'ev Red

Welcome!

Hi UA0Volodymyr! I noticed your contributions to Red fascism and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, UA0Volodymyr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Kira Rudyk, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Mellk (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please also note that due to WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed editors (<500 edits) are unable to make edits to articles with content about Russia-Ukraine war (but can leave constructive comments at the talk page). Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More edits like this will result in a block or in a topic ban. Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This means edits like this ("broadly construed"). Mellk (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Occupation of Sevastopol legally does not distinguish from the occupation of, for example, Donetsk, and in both cases only Ukraine and its administrative division should be listed in infobox and there is a consensus that Russian occupational government should be listed as installed by Russia. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

These are general sanctions. You cannot make such edits about Russia-Ukraine war, BROADLY CONSTRUED. If you are going to edit war over this after multiple warnings this will almost certainly lead to a block. Mellk (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I won't anymore till I become extended-confirmed, but in any case you shouldn't revert it because those edits in Sevastopol page were consensus. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No, not how it works. By the way, have you had any previous accounts before? Mellk (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That one, but I forgot a password long time ago and besides, I'm just not comfortable with that nickname. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This and this edit is still a violation of WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please read it again carefully. Mellk (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Also this. Mellk (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

And one more will result in a block. Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This still falls under "broadly construed". Mellk (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also the redirect you created at Donbas separatists. Mellk (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I just wrote correct transliteration from Ukrainian and created a redirect for that. I didn't break WP:RUSUKR, because I didn't wrote about a war itself. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for disruptive editing, deliberately ignores WP:RUSUKR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Ze'ev Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just wrote correct transliteration from Ukrainian and created a redirect for that. I didn't break WP:RUSUKR, because I didn't wrote about a war itself. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The block has expired. If you don't understand the reasons for it, I suggest you ask the blocking admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

ENGVAR

In your edit on Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party you introduced a number of violations of WP:ENGVAR. It is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to policies and guidelines. You cannot make a edit that is riddled with errors and expect someone else to clean it up for you. If you want to make the few changes in your edit that are not ENGVAR violations, please do it yourself and don't ask other editors to do your work for you. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Norwegian Book Club (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Norwegian Book Club and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, UA0Volodymyr! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kira Rudyk, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your interactions with that IP editor, you should really rethink all of that. Without exception, the IP editor was correct on the matter of article content, and you were wrong. Your edit summaries were likewise wrong--I suppose I was guilty of vandalism too in that article? Drmies (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, such as those you made to Alexander Butterfield‎. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim1965. UAoV, that was another edit by the IP, whose skills in English are simply superior to yours, in fact they are superior to the skills of many Wikipedia editors, including me. You could have included an edit summary that explained the edit, but you didn't. That's disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• And instead of responding to legitimate concerns here, you're making more unexplained edits? 1/3 of your edits have no edit summaries at all. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Crimean Tatar language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, UA0Volodymyr. Thank you for your work on Donbas separatists. User:Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 37.245.43.164 (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Crimean Tatar language. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure, do you think that since you are extended confirmed now you can do whatever you want on Wikipedia? Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#UA0Volodymyr, at your service. Please reply there. Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked your account because you have been persistently and egregiously engaged in POV pushing and edit warring, and have failed to heed the many warnings you've been given, including two previous short-term blocks for the same thing. Your approach is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals or collaborative approach to writing an encyclopaedia. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an AE block or a community sanction. You an appeal by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message and another administrator will review the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 27 October 2023 (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).

Ze'ev Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understood that I was wrong and I promise not make non-consensus edits and and constructively discuss controversial changes. Also I'll remove a flag of controversial historical organization from my User page if policies forbid have this on User page. I made a lot of constructive edits and wrote 2 articles. I don't want to make POV pushing and edit warring anymore I want building an encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

I don't trust you. You've been POV-pushing and edit warring. The block is appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2023 (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.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Ze'ev Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understood that I was wrong with my edit warring and POV-pushing, all controversial changes must be discussed to establish a consensus. If I'm unblocked I'll not make non-consensus edits and will constructively discuss controversial changes. Also, I'll remove a flag of the controversial historical organization from my User page if there is a policy forbidding having this on a User page. I've made a lot of constructive edits and written 2 articles and I want to write more, I want to benefit from this wonderful Free Encyclopedia and bring up for discussion controversial things that I want to change here, not pushing my personal POV though edit warring and disruptive behavior. I don't want to make POV pushing and edit warring anymore I want to build an encyclopedia. Please give me a second chance and unblock me to let me do so.

Accept reason:

This unblock is accepted. The user is subject to a one-revert restriction, and they are subject to the two topic bans below. These topic bans and the 1RR will be enforced as unblock conditions. Per agreement below, these conditions may be appealed three months after this date to the administrator's noticeboard. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

21:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, in your appeal, you've stated that you will not make non-consensus edits and will constructively discuss controversial changes. I note that you are a user in good standing on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and based on my reading you haven't had these same sorts of issues over there in the time since your block here. I am possibly open to unblocking you under the standard one-revert restriction. This would mean that, if you make one revert of another editor's contributions to a page, you may not make a second revert on that same page within a 24-hour period under pain of receiving a block. In this vein, you are expected to discuss you reversions on talk pages should they be contested.

@UA0Volodymyr: If you are unblocked, are you willing to accept this as a condition of your unblock?

@HJ Mitchell: Do you have an objection to the above?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've discussed with the blocking administrator, and I've reviewed the AE discussion that led to the indef. There were a number of administrators at the time who would have supported a topic ban on Ukraine-Russia related topics. If I unblock you, are you also willing to avoid making edits—on any page—that are related to:

1. Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed?
2. Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed?

I think this would directly address the area that was the problem, while also allowing you to return to editing and demonstrate better knowledge of norms. Under the terms of the unblock, these restrictions would be appealable to the administrator's noticeboard in three months, and would be issued alongside the 1RR.

I note that you've expressed a desire above to change your userpage to remove the flag that's currently there; I would be willing to grant an exception ad hoc if you still want to remove that flag.

Please let me know your thoughts.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with these conditions. Also, yes, I want to remove this flag from my userpage. Also I have one question: Will I be able to discus on these topics on the talk pages? --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

All pages means all pages in all namespaces, including talk pages. The sole exception to the topic ban is that you may remove the flag currently on your user page, should you still desire to do so. Any other edits on the English Wikipedia that fall within your topic bans are strictly prohibited, even if they would ordinarily be good edits; please see WP:BMB for more information on this. Also, please feel free to contact my on my user talk page if you have any questions about the scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a major error to unblock this user even partially. From the moment the account was registed, its sole purpose was aggressive POV-pushing. The only edits it made that were not directly adding bias (and extremely bad English) into Ukraine-related articles were malicious reverts targeting editors who had reverted them.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the user is a sockpuppet:

1. digging through the article history of Kyra Rudyk to restore biased material previously added by a different username, one day after they started editing: [1]
2. finding their way to page protection requests, also on their second day as an editor: [2]
3. making multiple posts at AN and AN/I within just weeks of creating their account.

I see absolutely no evidence of any kind that the user wants to or is able to contribute constructively, on any topic. It is one of the most obviously merited indefs one could hope to see, so quite why anyone is considering unblocking the user, I cannot imagine. 86.187.226.245 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@86.187.226.245: I would be a bit more in agreement if not for their UkWiki contributions—which show several weeks of editing there before they made their first edits here. To respond more specifically point-by-point:

1. The user first edited the UkWiki page for Kira Rudik on UkWiki on September 27. That they first edited the English version of the page in an edit on the 30th of September doesn't seem that odd, and it seems consistent with their activity over at UkWiki.
2. Because of their experience on another wiki before editing the English Wikipedia, I don't think it unreasonable for them to have figured out how to make a request WP:RFPP.
3. I do note that they took an IP that shares an IP range with you to ANI on 6 October, but again ANI isn't that hard to find, particularly if one has experience on other projects.

I think a 1RR combined with the topic bans above will be sufficient guardrails. If the editor violates them, and steps outside those guardrails, then they will be blocked again. WP:ROPE might provide you some food for thought. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)