User talk:Vgrinberg: Difference between revisions

Line 59: Line 59:

You will probably find it helpful to go through your contribution history to refresh your memory, before addressing each incident/issue in a new post – you may find it easier to just click Reply to this comment & provide your response there. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet#top|talk]]) 16:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vgrinberg&diff=prev&oldid=1329039982 This] is a good start!

:To keep everything clear for the reviewing admin, you might want to read through your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vgrinberg contribution] and/or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vgrinberg&action=history Talk history], then reply to my message with a list of incidents & a brief explanation of your mindset at the time. You don’t need to go into too much detail, just a brief overview & maybe a diff if you think it’ll help (make sure to avoid the temptation to justify your actions – you’re human so you’ll want to do this, but it’s a really bad idea).

:Give your current perspective on those incidents, then explain how you’d deal with that same situation differently if it happened now. This way, admins don’t need to go digging around and have everything laid out in front of them.

:You can also ping the original editor if you would like to apologise to them (unless you think it’ll clutter things up or make it confusing).

:Remember that your appeal will be looked at by someone uninvolved – they’ll go through both your contribution and Talk history using the links above, so make sure you do the same thing and cover any situations or concerns you think they might have. That’ll help make sure your appeal is dealt with quickly (there’s a backlog right now) and demonstrate both self-reflection and a willingness to take accountability for your actions.

:”TL;DR: Proactively look through your own history & address anything that an admin might notice. At worst, you’ve wasted a bit of time but shown you care about your appeal. At best, you’ve both bolstered and pushed your appeal into “accepted” territory without any back & forth questioning.” [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 10:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Acroterion (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though the template below says otherwise, this notification is indeed because of your tendentious editing.

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s common for mainstream newspapers to host opinion pieces from all sides of an argument. Including sides that the editors may find repugnant. It doesn’t mean that they support it – of course you may know that already. As for your comment about donations, there are still a lot of decent people in the US, many of them committed Christians who accept all people no matter their views on gender, race, etc. Like the great Archbishop Tutu who declared he would not want to go to a homophobic heaven. If I were a Christian I’d pray for your soul. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Who are you to teach me ways of of life and talk to someone who you never met before like that. You as well as your censor buddies contradict yourself all of the time. You even contradict yourself even now. You are mainstream media as well if you didn’t know because people read you even more then news. I don’t expect you to support anything. That is not what Encyclopedia should be about. But I expect information to be available regardless of how controversial it might be. You could say:” this is highly controversial”, but don’t lie about consensus. There will never be and shouldn’t be consensus unless you are Gestapo. You can add your opinion about the study, but rejecting it simply because some other clearly BIASed groups baselessly called it homophobic and not reliable is irresponsible. I read some of their opinions. Much of it either doesn’t makes sense, or a lie, or is not important even to be considered. Oh, when it comes to financial you remember about Christians don’t you. I won’t support the clearly evil cause – a lying propaganda machine and will spread the word about you guys too. Enjoy the money that Google poors into you. Even one of your co-founders speaks of you as propaganda. This must make people think at the very least after reading each of your “free editable papers”. Wikipedia is not allowed to be cited in universities not because anyone can edit it, because it is not true, but because it is highly biased propaganda. Do you really think people are that stupid? Move on. I can’t belief some of you guys are professors and PhDs. But formal education doesn’t prevent ignorance, bias, and plain stupidity. Vgrinberg (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Our Trump loving, global warming denier, anti-vaxxer, quack medicine, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion co-founder? Who cares? He has had virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia for about 20 years. Wikipedia is allowed in universities, but it shouldn’t be used as a source because anyone can edit it and we are constantly fighting against incorrect, pov etc edits. We don’t allow wiki-based sites to be used as sources for our articles either. But it’s a great way to find reliable sources. Never mind, you are just wasting people’s time. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose time do I waste? I see that you are quite entertained, so you owe me that, don’t you? Wikipedia is a great way to find sources of some information. Reliable or not reliable its not up to you and your censoring friends to decide. Blocking someone’s opinion and facts on Wikipedia its all you can do. But people are opening their eyes. Slowly, but they do. People are naturally checking out the opposing or supplemental views. None of the professors that I met allow citing Wikipedia regardless of University policy itself. You are lying. No one except admins and “trustees” can freely edit Wikipedia articles. I just witnessed it. Any edit can be reverted at admin subjective will and there is nothing I can do about it. And frankly I don’t care. Who cares about your co-founder opinion? You and people like you care about opinions. Otherwise, you wouldn’t bother arguing with me. I started this ball rolling, to just prove myself that Wikipedia is as brick-walled as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Swamp speakers. Trump loving, global warming denier, anti-vaxxer, quack medicine, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion co-founder? This is one BIASed way of characterizing someone. The other way would be, pro law, pro security, pro true healthcare decisions choice, pro true science, pro life, pro self defense, pro free speech and the rest of the constitutional rights for everybody and anti-globalist, anti greta-tunberg-like, anti vaccino-maniac, anti baby-killers, anti gender-and-biology-confused nazis. If you weren’t BIASed I wouldn’t be able to guess that you and your dear Wikipedia are leftist. My BIAS should be of no concern to you. I am not the media. But you are. Now, you can move on and not waste your time on me anymore.Vgrinberg (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my work here is done. It’s been amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can be proud of the work you do. <-sarcasm. No shame.Vgrinberg (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller, It has been long time but I grew up and reconsidered my approach to things. I lost my cool back then and instead of looking for consensus I allowed myself immaturely to force my opinion on Wiki community. I never had intention to troll or be disruptive, it just when I argued back then I was not in the right state of mind to be helpful. I appreciate you being as patient with me as you could and apologize for my immature conduct. Vgrinberg (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (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.

It all started with me trying to argue that using sources with alternative opinions is more beneficial for public to know. I understand that I was blocked for being a little over the top when arguing under the Talk section, but I never actually made any disruptive changes to the original article. Under
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing block it says “A block is not intended as punishment; it’s meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.” Am I being punished? If not please advice what else would you like me to do. To stop asking for unblock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgrinberg (talk • contribs)

You should make an unblock request where you specifically speak to the reason for the block, not just repeat talking points back to us. How were you disruptive? What will you do differently? What edits will you make? Be specific, not general. The block is not a punishment, but in order for it to be removed you must demonstrate that you understand the reasons for it and will not repeat them. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I am still learning Wikipedia, so don’t have anything specific in mind yet. Not planning to do any major edits as of yet, just learning. As far as I understand whoever blocked me wrongly perceived my intent to be disruptive even though the only argument that we had was on the Talk page without me interfering with any actually content. I understand and agree to conform to Wikipedia standards of what reliable source is and won’t challenge this standard anymore. I hope this works. Otherwise, please guide me with more details on how to properly request the unblock without being rejected again. I don’t want to lose access for too many unblock requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgrinberg (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hi, it took me enough time to rethink my position on things and I realize now that my last argument with User:Bishonen was not the hill I would wanted to die on, and I would like to apologize to him for that and assure that I am here not to harm Wikipedia in any way. I have no intention to maliciously change Wikipedia articles. As a sign of good faith I am planning to offer suggestions, but not actually make the changes, like I did once in the past. Since then I haven’t done any harm to Wikipedia and I assure Wikipedia team has no reason to worry about me in the future. Please give me a chance to be of valuable help. Thank you, Team Vgrinberg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hi, it took me enough time to rethink my position on things and I realize now that my last argument with User:Bishonen was not the hill I would wanted to die on, and I would like to apologize to him for that and assure that I am here not to harm Wikipedia in any way. I have no intention to maliciously change Wikipedia articles. As a sign of good faith I am planning to offer suggestions, but not actually make the changes, like I did once in the past. Since then I haven't done any harm to Wikipedia and I assure Wikipedia team has no reason to worry about me in the future. Please give me a chance to be of valuable help. Thank you, Team [[User:Vgrinberg|Vgrinberg]] ([[User talk:Vgrinberg#top|talk]]) 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, it took me enough time to rethink my position on things and I realize now that my last argument with User:Bishonen was not the hill I would wanted to die on, and I would like to apologize to him for that and assure that I am here not to harm Wikipedia in any way. I have no intention to maliciously change Wikipedia articles. As a sign of good faith I am planning to offer suggestions, but not actually make the changes, like I did once in the past. Since then I haven't done any harm to Wikipedia and I assure Wikipedia team has no reason to worry about me in the future. Please give me a chance to be of valuable help. Thank you, Team [[User:Vgrinberg|Vgrinberg]] ([[User talk:Vgrinberg#top|talk]]) 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, it took me enough time to rethink my position on things and I realize now that my last argument with User:Bishonen was not the hill I would wanted to die on, and I would like to apologize to him for that and assure that I am here not to harm Wikipedia in any way. I have no intention to maliciously change Wikipedia articles. As a sign of good faith I am planning to offer suggestions, but not actually make the changes, like I did once in the past. Since then I haven't done any harm to Wikipedia and I assure Wikipedia team has no reason to worry about me in the future. Please give me a chance to be of valuable help. Thank you, Team [[User:Vgrinberg|Vgrinberg]] ([[User talk:Vgrinberg#top|talk]]) 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) Going through your history as a non-involved editor, I’m seeing that most of your fifty edits involved bludgeoning and personal attacks. If you don’t specifically address these incidents (I’m seeing at least three) then I don’t think your appeal will get much traction. You need to show that you understand the specifics of each event, why they were disruptive, and that you know how to approach similar situations differently in future.

You will probably find it helpful to go through your contribution history to refresh your memory, before addressing each incident/issue in a new post – you may find it easier to just click Reply to this comment & provide your response there. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start!

To keep everything clear for the reviewing admin, you might want to read through your contribution and/or Talk history, then reply to my message with a list of incidents & a brief explanation of your mindset at the time. You don’t need to go into too much detail, just a brief overview & maybe a diff if you think it’ll help (make sure to avoid the temptation to justify your actions – you’re human so you’ll want to do this, but it’s a really bad idea).

Give your current perspective on those incidents, then explain how you’d deal with that same situation differently if it happened now. This way, admins don’t need to go digging around and have everything laid out in front of them.

You can also ping the original editor if you would like to apologise to them (unless you think it’ll clutter things up or make it confusing).

Remember that your appeal will be looked at by someone uninvolved – they’ll go through both your contribution and Talk history using the links above, so make sure you do the same thing and cover any situations or concerns you think they might have. That’ll help make sure your appeal is dealt with quickly (there’s a backlog right now) and demonstrate both self-reflection and a willingness to take accountability for your actions.

TL;DR: Proactively look through your own history & address anything that an admin might notice. At worst, you’ve wasted a bit of time but shown you care about your appeal. At best, you’ve both bolstered and pushed your appeal into “accepted” territory without any back & forth questioning. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply