Théophile de Viau
Welcome edit
|
June 2016 edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Human rights in Ukraine, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and content is subject to WP:RECENTISM. Your content addition was unnecessarily detailed given the nature of the article. I suggest that you read the WP:NPOV policy carefully and spend a little more time familiarising yourself by editing in less controversial areas before biting off more than you can chew as your first edits. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Théophile de Viau, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Usr lI (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Continued reverting at Human rights in Ukraine edit
Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#Human rights in Ukraine. You are continuing to revert on an article that's already been protected at WP:AN3 to stop an edit war. At this point, continued warring by any party is blockable. That could mean you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Human rights in Ukraine is covered by discretionary sanctions edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Théophile de Viau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Context:I made my first edit on Wikipedia on 6 June: [[1]]. I thought it was a good edit, since the sources were The Times, NYT, Newsweek and the UN. I was away a few days and when I came back I saw there had been an edit war going on between Iryna Harpy and Usr II about my edit. she accused him here [[2]] of being my puppet. This is false. I reposted my edit on 13 June, was reverted by Lute 88 and reverted him again the same day. After that I never touched the article again and just made comments on the talk page. Accusations were again made that I was Usr II and then Gnothi Seauton. My very best wishes even took the liberty to redirect Usr II user page to mine [[3]]. This prompted me to ask Usr II to try a way to differentiate us [[4]]. Blocking event: A new edit was made on 16 June by Ymblanter, using the same sources as me. However, I thought he misrepresented the sources and I asked him to revert[[5]]. He replied that he was not interested in talking with sock-puppets [[6]]. Our last exchange was: [[7]], where I told him that he implictly admitted he had misquoted the sources. I understand that I should not have used the word "fabrication", but I was nervous after being treated dismissively. In any case, even though I am not as familiar as I should with Wikipedia rules, I don't think that this can possibly justify an indefinite block "per clear WP:NOTTHERE". In case my unblocking request were to be rejected, I would appreciate a clear explanation of what exactly I did wrong. Thank you. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 13:50, 17 June 2016 (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.
- @EdJohnston: Hi, I am sorry to bother you again but you are the only person I can turn to. You are the only administrator who knows the situation. As I told you I woud, I have never touched again the article Human rights in Ukraine. Nevertheless, after My very best wishes redirected Usr II user page to mine, Iryna Harpy and Volunteer Marek accused me of being a sock puppet of users Againstidsinformation, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν and Lokalkosmopolit on top of Usr II. I have absolutely nothing to do with these guys. Then, on June 16, another edit was made by Ymblanter, using the same sources as me. However he added that, according to The Times , " both Ukrainian authorities and the authorities of separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics allow torture and run secret jails" . The exact quote from The Times is "Ivan Simonovic, UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, said that in some areas Kiev’s “disregard for human rights” had become entrenched and systemic and needed to be urgently addressed." In the section"Sources to be used for Torture" of the article talk page, I told him I thought he was misrepresenting the source. He answered that he was not interested in the opinion of sock-puppets. I replied that his not answering my straightforward question was tantmount to an admission of having misquoted the source. His reply was " Blocked indef per clear WP:NOTTHERE". I know that, having been blocked indefinitely, I should show remorse but the poblem is that I don't see what I did to deserve this block. I have not breached, at least consciously, any Wikipedia rule. I have a feeling of having been treated unfairly and that hurts. I would be very grateful if you could have a look into this and explain to me why it happened. I have requested an unblock but I have very little hope. I don't think that anyone will disavow the judgement of an administrator for the sake of a newcomer who has been here only for ten days. I sincerely hope that you will have a look into the matter and I apologise for asking you to spend your time on this. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is understandable that people might suspect you are a sock on behavioral grounds. The short tenure, strong opinions and interest in only one topic are distinctive. Beyond that I have no comment. I won't be taking any action on the unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:. I am not asking you to take any action. I knew all along that you wouldn’t, and this is understandable for the very reasons you state. However, I can’t agree with your statement that I have “interest in only one topic”. I don’t see how my first edit could have been on anything but a single topic. Moreover, I have no special interest in the subject, nor do I have “strong opinions”. Every single word I wrote was taken directly from the sources (The Times, NYT, Newsweek and the UN). If there is any bias, it’s theirs, not mine. Can the group of people who had me banned say the same thing? Forget my case, the only thing I am asking you to do is to take a closer look into the matter and reach your own conclusions. Who misrepresented the sources? Who are the persons who have been editing for a very long time and display very strong, personal and emotional opinions, all on the same topic: Eastern Europe? Is it common practice on Wikipedia for experienced editors to redirect the user pages of other editors and not even get a warning? Can an administrator ban a new editor on a whim because he didn’t like his (politely formulated) questions? I am not advocating for myself, this goes far beyond me. When you make a search on Google, Wikipedia appears almost invariably among the first results. This gives the encyclopedia the obligation to be transparent, fair and neutral. If coteries are allowed to slant the presentation of “sensitive” topics” in a way that suits them, be sure that it won’t go unnoticed. This should worry you more than me, since you have invested incommensurably more in the project than I have. If there is crap in Wikipedia, the risk averse, who are the majority, will tend to think that everything in Wikipedia is crap. This is a pity, since some articles are, indeed, remarkable. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I forgot to tell you something. If Usr lI is my puppet, why is his account not blocked? --Théophile de Viau (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is understandable that people might suspect you are a sock on behavioral grounds. The short tenure, strong opinions and interest in only one topic are distinctive. Beyond that I have no comment. I won't be taking any action on the unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
My indefinite block edit
@Ymblanter: Hello, Ymblanter. After having carefully read the relevant Wikipedia policies, I have concluded that it is my right to ask you why you blocked me. I started editing about ten days ago and made a single edit. I was absent a few days and when I came back I saw that it had been strongly opposed. In the meantime another editor, whom I had never heard about, defended my edit. This prompted other editors to claim that we were one and the same person. This is completely false. You said yourself in your blocklog that I was "probably" a sock. With all due respect, this is not enough. Could you imagine a court issuing a verdict with such a rationale? If I have done something else wrong, please tell me what it is. I don't understand what you mean by "WP: Nothere". My only disagreement with your edit is that you put words in Ivan Simonovic's mouth that I can't find in the source. The precise quote from The Times is "Ivan Simonovic, UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, said that in some areas Kiev’s “disregard for human rights” had become entrenched and systemic and needed to be urgently addressed.". On the other hand, you write in the article: "Acccording to Ivan Šimonović, UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, as published by The Times, both Ukrainian authorities and the authorities of separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics allow torture and run secret jails" I asked you, politely I think, to explain this discrepancy to me. I don't understand how this simple question could earn me an indefinite block. I hope you will take the time to answer me. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would you please stop pinging other users? After the checkuser confirmed that you indeed evaded the block nobody is going to talk to you. If you do not stop, I will revoke your talk page access.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter:. OK, this is my last edit. I have not been using multiple accounts or evaded any block. As I told the checkuser, it should be very easy to see whether the other users using the same IP (if any) edited the same article. I see that you do not answer on your manipulation of the sources and anyone can see that. I no longer think that it was unintentional. In any case, I will not again post a single edit on wikipedia. Not because I am afraid that you revoke my talk page access. You will do it anyway and this will only confirm that you are ready to silence anyone who disagree with you and against whom you don't have a single valid argument. Farewell. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jpgordon:. Hello. I totally reject the assertion that I have multiple accounts. Since you say so, you must have some kind of a proof, like a common IP for instance. However, I am not the only one to use this IP address. Therefore, I kindly ask you to check whether the other accounts edited the same article. It seems to me that this would be very improbable. However, if that were the case, I would understand your reasons. Regards. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)