~2026-16974-91

Hello

Welcome!

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

You are welcome to edit without logging in; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages and upload media).

Create an account

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

Learn more about editing

If you have any questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Happy editing! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice: Russo-Ukrainian War

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 Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Additionally, the following restriction(s) apply to this topic area: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean the edits are being reviewed or not? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend reviewing WP:ECREXPLAIN _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend you follow Wikipedia’s policies as it relates to the “neutral point of view” policy. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as War in Donbas are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a search engine, a chatbot, or a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC) Note that issuing "petitions" to merge articles, or demanding the article be edited to "indicate Russia is winning" based on a single cherry-picked sentence, is not a constructive edit proposal. Doing this violates Wikipedia's policies on original synthesis (WP:SYNTH) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Constructive proposals require high-quality sources and an understanding of consensus, not rhetorical arguments.

I’m glad you agree that the article as it stands isn’t a great example of the neutral articles we try to create here at Wikipedia. So I’m interested in hearing how you intend to do that if you will not be merging the two articles in order to continue to dodge the fact that Russia is winning the war. Thanks! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to show Russia is winning the war, please provide high-quality sources. Currently, you are not relying on any sources at all, and simply proposing to add "Russia is winning". If you find a reliable source and show us that Russia won/is winning and that it is in fact incorrect to say the Donbas war is subsumed, you will follow the policies WP:V and WP:SYNTH and editors may take your proposal seriously. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 11:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not saying which is correct or incorrect, whether it is “subsumed” or not is irrelevant; if you will read the article you’ll see that it plainly claims both. It claims that the “war in Donbas” ended in 2022 but that it was also “subsumed”. So which is it? Maybe you need to provide the source ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room, nor are they a search engine or chatbot, or a place for "petitions". If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 21:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It literally said to bring it up on the talk page as per the Wikipedia guidelines otherwise I wouldn’t have done so to begin with. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeat violations of the WP:ECR restriction which applies to Russo-Ukrainian War topics, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

{{subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal :| Appealing user : = <N/A> :| User imposing the sanction : = <Rosguill> :| Sanction being appealed : = <Blocked for 2 weeks> : <not sure why I was blocked when I was the only one that provided a source whatsoever as it related to the discussion… :>

unblockreason=Please copy my appeal to the WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard or WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard.

}} ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As previously notified, per WP:RUSUKR, editors without a registered account, 500 edits, and 30 days of experience, are not allowed to edit or discuss the Russo-Ukrainain conflict except to make uncontroversial edit suggestions. You are not allowed to engage in extended discussion or open-ended commentary as you did here, here, here, here, among other less recent edits. I strongly suggest that you review WP:ECREXPLAIN before engaging with this topic further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The title “Russo-Ukrainian war” is itself contentious (if you had even been bothered to read my original posts on the talk page) and so this appeal is completely capricious if the original creator of the title has not received similar actions. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Rogue moderators?

I knew it

How was the ban policy followed in this case

when it literally said on wikipedias page concerning the talk page to propose “uncontrovertial edits” in the talk page, yet it does not reconcile with the fact that the title “Russo-Ukrainian War” is itself contentious, and it is not humorous nor constructive to instill a two week ban instead of addressing the heart of the issue at hand here, so I would like to know how the ban policy was followed in this case when I was the only one in the referenced discussions that provided any source whatsoever? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

|idletimestamp=20260512024827 ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

why are there 2 articles for 1 conflict? (“Russia-Ukrainian War”, “War in Donbas”) This creates unnecessary confusion for newcomers who are trying to understand the facts and whom may only have a few spare minutes.. and now my account has been blocked without reason and been named as part of a “LAUTSOCKING” enforcement also for no reason when there was already a “SOCKPUPPET” case opened ad ipsum. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

{admin help}

this was marked answered when it has not been. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

this was marked answered when it clearly has not been. Nor is the crude dismissal of my points constructive to Wikipedia. I am the only one that has provided a source this entire time that it is in fact Putin that wishes to end the conflict and Zelensky wants to continue the conflict and his little drones are hard at work to publish how Ukraine isn’t losing so how many more young ukrainian men can needlessly die? And they are the ones that claim to be pro-Ukrainian? Any actual response would be helpful. And don’t mark it answered for me, I am the one that is supposed to do that. And your threatening me is directly in contradiction of Wikipedia guidelines. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Further, the block of my account GLORIARUSSIYA by User:The Bushranger is directly because the Admins have refused to get off the bean bag chair and address this… ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

“any Homo sapien with a cerebral connection would be able to notice the following comment:

"Yes I edited my own comment, something needs to be done about the obviously Pro-Ukrainian bias as this violates the "neutral point of view policy". Therefore, I petition further that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R0paire-wiki be banned for violation of this policy and reverting my own edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbas done on my behalf by ~2026-16974-91 without permission or discussion from me. Further, this creates an environment of attack which it says should not be propagated by users.

Further, I suggest that a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry" investigation be done into some of the accounts listed above and review their edits; besides this discussion and this edit I have not utilized multiple accounts as it should not be done unless absolutely necessary according to Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, an unnecessary ban by rogue moderators or otherwise would certainly fall in this category. However, coordination of edits and suppression of others' ideas by multiple accounts IS a violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, it is my opinion that an investigation needs to be conducted to review possible further potential violations to these aims. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)"

which was posted wayyy before the following comment:

"The TA is currently blocked as an AE action for violating ECR in RUS-UKR topic area. Based on their edits, its obvious that GLORIARUSSIYA has been using the TA to LOUTSOCK, and is now logged back in to bypass the TAs block. See [9][10][11], in which GR swaps between accounts, and see also the replies on behalf of the TA on their talk page [12][13]. nil nz 05:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)"

At which point will you realize you are only creating more work for yourselves? GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

There, I did you a favor by making it require slightly less work so it should be easier to achieve a resolution where everyone is happy ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

(2)“in the alternative, I requested another Administrator because blocking me for two weeks for merely posting the FACT "For just one example, On "War in Donbas", it says that the current status of the conflict is a stalemate, however Russia controls much more than 50% of the Donbas." and also because you may be acting out of the belief I am only pro-Russian, that would be against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Policy. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not able to even post the request to launch the investigation on the arbitration board, despite me requesting first, due to these rogue moderators blocking both my accounts ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought admins were supposed to be helpful? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And why do you give “good faith badges”

to admins who don’t operate in good faith? I was preemptively threatened to have my own access to my own page removed by the last Admin, who was confused how I am receiving a blank screen upon attempting to edit the prompt they created when I have been blocked

🤦‍♂️ ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have been more than patient posting here for 13 hours ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This was my revision

“Undid revision 1351977290 by ~2026-16974-91(talk) - NEVER delete other people's comments without giving a reason

This is a phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The phase ended in 2022. The war didn't, but this specific phase did. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Then why isn't this page in the Russo-Ukraine war page or vice versa? Almost like that's why I posted a thread. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The article says the conflict is “subsumed” but also that it ended in 2022. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a hypocritical stance on this article! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I further petition that the reverter of this edit face a similar ban, as I edited my own comment. GLORIARUSSIYA will reply to this comment to confirm the ban of this wiki editor to ensure fairness across the board for all of Wikipedia’s policies. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I edited my own comment, something needs to be done about the obviously Pro-Ukrainian bias as this violates the "neutral point of view policy". Therefore, I petition further that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R0paire-wiki be banned for violation of this policy and reverting my own edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbas done on my behalf by ~2026-16974-91 without permission or discussion from me. Further, this creates an environment of attack which it says should not be propagated by users.

Further, I suggest that a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry" investigation be done into some of the accounts listed above and review their edits; besides this discussion and this edit I have not utilized multiple accounts as it should not be done unless absolutely necessary according to Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, an unnecessary ban by rogue moderators or otherwise would certainly fall in this category. However, coordination of edits and suppression of others' ideas by multiple accounts IS a violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, it is my opinion that an investigation needs to be conducted to review possible further potential violations to these aims. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

(3) more evidence if needed to close my initial reopened ticket for your convenience only ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And the real user is User:Rsk6400 that needs to be banned. Let me know ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Only for 2 weeks tho just like me ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

“ Euromaidan as coup "is easily and widely refuted by scholarly research." “ I read the article they cited, and there is no

scholarly research to be found that disputed the fact that Euromaidan was a coup. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re welcome ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have proof to support my skeptical stance:

Exhibit a:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-dept-vows-nord-stream-2-hunk-metal-bottom-ocean-russia-invades-ukraine

look at the time stamp (before the “Russo-Ukraine war” began!)

Exhibit b:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-oCXnKDAqA&pp=ygUuVmljdG9yaWEgbnVsYW5kIEh1bmsgb2YgbWV0YWwgYXQgYml0dG9tIG9mIHNlYQ%3D%3D&ra=m ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

But yea let’s totally go with what you guys say and that Ukraine is the only belligerent 😂 ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Petition to ban the obviously biased pro-Ukrainian accounts (as they are so advertised)

Wikipedia should be a place of neutrality. In the alternative, all views should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia provided that they provide reliable sources. Therefore, in order to keep adherence to the Wikipedia policies, I petition the following accounts to also be banned for 2 weeks as they have also violated wikipedias policies in reverting my own edits without permission or even discussion first: User:Rsk6400 User:Robert Sandrock ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from interested editors uninvolved in the discussion, to build consensus for your changes. Several venues are available, listed below, to find editors who may be able to assist. But be mindful that after a couple of editors decline to provide input, you may want to consider going to the next step or disengaging altogether. This is because if you keep seeking input, it may look to others like you are disruptive editing or forum shopping.

Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate. However, discussion can still proceed—and consensus may be reached—without the input of a non-participating editor. Also, administrators and the community may take into consideration the degree and nature of an editor's participation in dispute resolution when deciding if an editor's activities have been productive."

not sure how following this policy is also a violation? any response on this matter would be helpful. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Only to maintain fairness of course ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Petition to amend “Russo-Ukrainian War”, “War in Donbas”

Due to the multiple contradictions and inconsistencies in both articles (as I have pointed out before I was unnecessarily banned) I hereby petition that BOTH articles be removed and an entirely new article be created titled EITHER “Conflict in Ukraine” or “Special Military Operation in Ukraine” to prevent the propagation of obvious pro-Ukrainian bias and maintain adherence of Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view policy” . Further, the obvious reality that the only country that has made any substantial gains in this conflict would be Russia, and neither of these articles reflect this reality. In practice, these articles do some impressive verbal gymnastics, idiosyncrasies, and hypocrisies, however, even with the existence of these two obviously pro-Ukrainian articles, they still can’t paint the picture of the reality in which we all live, whether you are a “Pro-Ukrainian”, a “Pro-Russian” or not! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

still no admin response to:

“ why are there 2 articles for 1 conflict? (“Russia-Ukrainian War”, “War in Donbas”) This creates unnecessary confusion for newcomers who are trying to understand the facts and whom may only have a few spare minutes.. and now my account has been blocked without reason and been named as part of a “LAUTSOCKING” enforcement also for no reason when there was already a “SOCKPUPPET” case opened ad ipsum. “ ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You are not allowed to discuss this topic, per the aforementioned restrictions. Furthermore, while blocked, you only have access to this page to contest your block as instructed. I think you attempted to do so but used an invalid template; you must precisely follow the instructions provided. If you further attempt to discuss the topic of the war in Ukraine outside of the extent necessary to request to be unblocked, you may lose access to this page. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

“ Wikipedia should be a place of neutrality. In the alternative, all views should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia provided that they provide reliable sources. Therefore, in order to keep adherence to the Wikipedia policies, I petition the following accounts to also be banned for 2 weeks as they have also violated wikipedias policies in reverting my own edits without permission or even discussion first: User:Rsk6400 User:Robert Sandrock 2026-16974-91 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply

"If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from interested editors uninvolved in the discussion, to build consensus for your changes. Several venues are available, listed below, to find editors who may be able to assist. But be mindful that after a couple of editors decline to provide input, you may want to consider going to the next step or disengaging altogether. This is because if you keep seeking input, it may look to others like you are disruptive editing or forum shopping.

Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate. However, discussion can still proceed—and consensus may be reached—without the input of a non-participating editor. Also, administrators and the community may take into consideration the degree and nature of an editor's participation in dispute resolution when deciding if an editor's activities have been productive."

not sure how following this policy is also a violation? any response on this matter would be helpful.” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• You need to either request to be unblocked as instructed, or find something else to do. If you persist in editing this page for other purposes, your access will be removed.

If you do request unblock, please click "edit" and not "reply" to edit this page to avoid the automatic indent and signing that can interfere with other formatting. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven’t done anything that wasn’t instructed, not sure what else you need ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop using the help request tag and instead open an unblock request as the block notice instructs. If you think you've done this, you haven't. As I said earlier, you may have made an attempt to do so, but it didn't work; you need to precisely follow the instructions in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

But as it says in the very thing you hyperlinked, I’m entitled to ask BEFORE I open an unblock request. I’m not sure what you’re referring to..(“block notice”). ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

All it says is that I have to understand the reason for the block ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Scroll up to "May 2026"; the box with the scale in it is the block notice, this provides the instructions you need to follow. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Also no one has responded to my request to open my own investigation from my end so I’m inclined to continue to use the admin help as it is the only thing that has moved this along ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Despite the fact I was clearly the first to do so ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

unblockreason=Please copy my appeal to the WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard or WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have been following the instructions ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You're not. You're leaving out coding and not writing a statement. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You think everyone can code in whatever language you want me to code in when you haven’t cited what code you want me to “code” in? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I can’t do anything dude 😭 not everyone is an admin like you ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

When using a template it needs to be followed exactly. You were(probably inadvertently) leaving out brackets, which cause the template to not work. I've provided it below. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

😭 ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I still can’t add anything below. If everything above isn’t enough I’m not sure what else I can do to help ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Mobile version I think ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you using Wikipedia via the app or the mobile version? 331dot (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is as

far down as it lets me go ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking " Edit ". More information about this error.

then if I click edit it says I’m blocked ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you see the access from my end? You should be able to see it ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're using the mobile version, it may be easier to use the full desktop version, even on your device. The mobile version is great for reading, not so great for editing. Just write your statement for community consideration below, I'll fix the placement. You will need to briefly explain to the community why you should be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is really

frankly causing me to lose my marbles, and your threatening to remove my access from my own page is not going to deter me from requesting another Administrator just like you with a different username, because you are not the first in the last few hours to use a threat, for some reason is seems to be pervasive in these types of “communities”. Which is why I “code” solo, all of my coding projects have been solo, and if for free, by my decision only. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to write a statement for community consideration or not? 331dot (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes,

my statement to the community is:

I should be unblocked because my own investigation hasn’t even been started, we know what I am doing right now, but we have no clue what they are doing until the investigation is launched ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And I have followed all instructions ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The chances of the community unblocking you on this basis are zero. You need to explain why the block is in error, or what you were doing wrong that led to the block.

In this case, you violated editing restrictions surrounding the war in Ukraine. You are not allowed to edit in that topic area unless you have a permanent account(a username) that is 30 days old with 500 edits or more. Since it is patently clear you violated the restrictions, the only way the block will be removed early is if you agree to stop editing about the topic. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)}} Here. I've put it for you. You need to now write a statement for community consideration. You may need to click "edit" at the top of the section and not "reply" to do this. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Stop using help requests. You have an open unblock request that-such as it is- will be seen by another admin, who will decline it for the reason I stated above. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  They can decline it if they wish, but that is not your choice ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  The only thing I could’ve done differently is let an overseer know about the edit I made before I did it but it wasn’t my

  fault someone else abused their power ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I will continue to do what I have to until everything is resolved ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  331dot (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

As you have disregarded my instructions, I have removed your access. Perhaps you will find it easier to appeal via WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

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).

~2026-16974-91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The title “Russo-Ukrainian War” is itself contentious and thus all of my blocks need to be removed until the subsequent bias is removed. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This TA was not blocked. The fact you are using it, again, to evade your new block at User:GLORIARUSSIYA means now it is blocked, for the same duration as that account is blocked. WP:LOUTSOCKing is considered disruptive (not to mention, block evasion in this case); continuing to do so will result in this TA's talk page access being revoked, while continuing to Wikilawyer and refusal to understand why you are (again) blocked will result in your main account's talk page access being revoked. Step away, step back, and go do something else for three months, and when your block expires edit other things. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 1 June 2026 (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.

You need to log in and make this request on the talk page of the blocked account. In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)