User talk:Bencemagyar

June 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kingdom of Georgia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 23:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kingdom of Georgia, you may be blocked from editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- LouisAragon (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

???

LuisArragon, what is the meaning of this? Why do you leave me these threatening messages and delete everything I added? What exactly is your problem? stop leaving me childish threats, I am not afraid of you, this is just malicious--Bencemagyar (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kingdom of Georgia. Denial of historical facts and referenced informations cannot be tolerated. Stop your disruption please. Wikaviani (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insulted anyone, I am the one who's getting constant threats like this. I have not vandalized anything and I provided references--Bencemagyar (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Abusing multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2. A checkuser has noticed a similarity in the technical data between your account and the recently blocked Studiawschodnie (talk · contribs). I personally became aware of your activities through seeing an edit war at Georgia (country). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal! I have provided citations for everything. I don't know who Studiawschodnie is. This is a setup by editors I have angered with my edits. Please review this EdJohnston.--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the link where I am being accused of being someone's "puppet". I can't even say anything in response because its all blocked--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account is blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". I went to the link where I am being accused of being someone's "puppet" but I can't even say anything in response because its all blocked. I have had a spat with with several users over some additions to the Georgia article but I have not abused anything. This is the only account I have and whenever editing I included relevant links and citations, explaining my reasoning as well. All they have done is call me a vandal and say I cause "disruption" without elaborating what exactly is wrong with my information. Please someone unblock me. I am not a vandal.

UPDATE: Upon close inspection, something just does not add up in this fake account investigation that I was drawn into. I was blocked for being a fake account of certain Studiawschodnie. This Studiawschodnie itself was being blocked for being a fake account of certain Satt 2. However, now the cited investigation has found that Studiawschodnie was NOT in fact a fake account of Satt 2. So now Studiawschodnie has been re-blocked for being the fake me??! None of this makes sense. This is nothing more than bureaucratic mess and abuse, and I'm caught right in the middle of it.

@Bbb23: your investigation is being cited to bar me from Wikipedia. I have no way of adding a comment to the investigation page and no one is doing anything here. Care to please drop by and elaborate on what exactly is going on and what you accuse me of?

@Courcelles: @Yamla: @Huon: @Drmies: @Dlohcierekim: @331dot: dear random administrators, please forgive me for picking up your information on the unblock requests page and spamming you but could someone pleeeease look to my page? I can't request a block review anywhere else as I can't edit at all, and my request tag does not appear to work? because it's been a week and I don't know what is going on...

Decline reason:

This user appears to have given up; no replies for over a month will do that, I guess. Conditional unblock was offered below a week ago. Bencemagyar, if you return, and the conditions offered by Vanjagenije are acceptable, post a new unblock request below; one of the admins who now have this page on their watchlists will act on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 17 September 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.

Your first edit to the encyclopedia was on 13 June. In less than 24 hours you were already edit warring on the Kingdom of Georgia, a high-profile article. When brand new accounts start editing aggressively right out of the gate, we often suspect they are socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, it was not my intention to come across as aggressive, I started editing "right out the gate" because I saw these depressing articles and I meant to improve them and lighten them up based on my sources. I did not consider whether I am dealing with something "high-profile" or not, I don't see why a medieval kingdom or an obscure Soviet country would be high profile...--Bencemagyar (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, after a few edits I reached an agreement on changes with another user, Bdog Drummond, who in fact thanked me for some of my edits on Kingdom of Georgia (I received a notification to that effect). The other two users who seem to be bent on removing me from this website just don't seem to agree with what I wrote. Instead of engaging in any meaningful discussion, like Bdog Drummond, or explaining why my referenced and supported information is wrong, they just brush me off as a vandal and a fake account, all of which is baseless. I'm starting to think that there must be a reason why they keep these articles in this depressing state and the OLD BOYS CLUB just don't want to change them, so they harass me and push me out for no better reason than that.--Bencemagyar (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its interesting to note that "Bdog Drummond" had not edited for a month, and had never touched the Kingdom of Georgia article before. On 14 June 2018, he suddenly became active and endorsed Bencemagyar's edits on the article.[1]-[2]. He hasn't made a single edit since that day (14 June 2018). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I have something to do with Bdog Drummond? Because I don't, so feel free to start another baseless witchhunt, I have nothing to hide.--Bencemagyar (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I was blocked for getting into an argument, perhaps I would not care as much as being blocked based on a lie. Again, I am NOT a fake account--Bencemagyar (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, upon close inspection, there is something strange about this fake account investigation I was drawn into, something just does not add up...I was blocked for being a fake account of certain Studiawschodnie. This Studiawschodnie itself was being blocked for being a fake account of certain Satt 2. However, now an investigation you cite has found that Studiawschodnie was NOT in fact a fake account of Satt 2. So now Studiawschodnie has been re-blocked for being the fake me??! None of this makes any sense. This is nothing more than bureaucratic mess and abuse.--Bencemagyar (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I asked to have my block reviewed above, but nothing is happening, am I doing something wrong? Do I need to add another link?

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please, do not post two unblock requests at the same time. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:31, 22 July 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.

Non-admin comment Please be patient. All of the administrators (and really everyone on here who is not WMF staff) are volunteers, who contribute to and moderate this encyclopedia because they want to, not because they are obliged to, and they will all have real life commitments more important than Wikipedia. I'd suggest you wait a few more days, maybe even a week before adding any new requests. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: As I can see, this account and Studiawschodnie are blocked as socks of each other. But, what is exactly WP:ILLEGIT in their editing? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider unblock of User:Bencemagyar if User:Studawschodnie were also unblocked. However, the latter is globally locked by User:Ruslik0. Studiawschodnie has continued in the footsteps of Satt2 (even if they could be a different person) by such edits as this one at Wikidata where they want Georgia to appear to be a European rather than an Asian country. This was a trademark of Satt 2. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Satt 2: "..making desperate attempts to make Georgia-related matters look more "European". If an unblock of either Studia or Bence were to be considered I'd suggest an unblock condition that bans them from Georgia-related editing, that could be reviewed after three months of normal editing on other topics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: As I can see from WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2/Archive, it was not proven that Studiawschodnie is Satt_2. Studiawschodnie was blocked only for their technical connection to this account. So, are you sure that the evidence is strong enough to say that Studiawschodnie is Satt_2? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three accounts could (in a simplified way) be described as ardent pro-Georgians and are seemingly unaware of Wikipedia's concerns about POV-pushing. If you think that Bence's block ought to be lifted because the SPI case reasoning is not sufficient, I could see your argument. In the alternative universe where there were Arbcom sanctions governing Georgian matters, it seems to me that Satt 2, Studawschodnie and and Bencemagyar would all by now be justified in being alerted to those sanctions, due to apparent POV-pushing. But I can perceive that is not quite the same issue as what SPI cares about, so if you think Bencemagyar's block should be lifted, you should do so. I imagine that Studawschodnie's block should not be lifted without wider discussion due to the number of admins involved. In a June edit, User:L235 modified the tagging so that Studaw was shown as the master and Bencemagyar the sock, thus not declaring that Satt 2 was the master. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencemagyar: Since it is evident that you were edit-warring and in other ways acting improperly regarding Georgia, I am willing to unblock you but only under condition that you accept a WP:topic ban on issues regarding Georgia (broadly construed). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I would suggest Transcaucasia, the edits on Armenia and Azerbaijan were not exactly stellar either.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged above: The behavioural evidence, on top of the CheckUser "possilikely" result, seems rather strong to me. And whether or not the reason for the first block for Studiawschodnie was correct, using another account to evade it is still abuse of multiple accounts. That said, I would not object to an unblock with a topic ban as suggested by Ymblanter - if they're interested in that. Huon (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet a penny on it. The CU results, vis-a-vis Bencemagyar and Studiawschodnie, clearly state "possilikely".[3] Furthermore, his editorial pattern bears an uncanny resemblance to that of LTA Satt 2. Even after getting blocked, he still doesn't acknowledge/understand that he's been extremely disruptive. He even disagrees with a topic ban (see below), which clearly shows that he intends to continue with the same editorial pattern, and is deliberately oblivious of what he's doing. Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that he's not here to build this encyclopedia, regardless of who's sock or meatpuppet it is. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrongfully accused of being someone's puppet and had my contributions wrongfully deleted by you, for no other grounds than the unsubstantiated accusations of me being a puppet. This is how I got involved in an edit dispute in the first place; there was nothing "disruptive" about my contributions content-wise, it was all supported by sources. But your comment makes it clear that you don't care about the truth, you just didn't like something I wrote and you want me banned "regardless" of whether I am a fake account or not. If the investigation was truly convinced that I was a puppet, why didn't they block me themselves? Why did it require your personal involvement and lobbying to block me? Your accusations are built on nothing.--Bencemagyar (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, even your responses (denying to be a sock, belittling the disruptive nature of your edits, the way you sign posts, arguments, proficiency in English, etc.) are completely similar to those of Satt 2 & Co. When Satt 2's sockpuppet Damianmx was CU indeffed, he also vehemently denied to be a sockpuppet and his arguments were reminiscent of yours. It is very much evident that you are here on a single purpose mission, and that mission is to continue Satt 2's destructive editorial pattern. You can't hide the diffs. Anyways, thanks for proving my point once more. Someone who's willing to spend 10 years of his life to disrupt Wikipedia, is obviously willing to go to any lengths in order to reach his/her goal. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to say that "denying to be a sock" is evidence of being someone's fake account. Have you allowed the possibility that perhaps someone is denying it because they really aren't a puppet account?! Your comment just confirm what I already say above, you don't seem to care about the truth, only what you personally think for whatever reason.--Bencemagyar (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: sorry for late response, I was away, as I had almost given up any hope someone would finally respond. I don't see what I did in relation to Georgian articles that was deliberately improper. I had a little edit war, which I now understand was wrong based on Wikipedia rules. But I just did not know what else to do! My contributions were being repeatedly deleted because I was wrongfully accused of being someone's fake account. Why should I be punished with a ban, and my contributions deleted, when the whole reason I got involved in an edit dispute in the first place was their unsubstantiated accusations? As a last resort, I am willing to accept a several month ban, as EdJohnston suggested, however, I don't think it's fair. The content I added to the Georgia article was legitimate and substantiated. Please reconsider.--Bencemagyar (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Vanjagenije at their talk page if they have any further comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Sorry, I was away. I am willing to unblock under condition set above (indefinite wp:topic ban on Transcaucasia broadly construed). But, I need a clear answer from the blocked user that they accept the conditional unblock. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]