User talk:Chugunkin

Babel user information

ru-N	Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-2	This user has intermediate knowledge of English.

Chugunkin (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Chugunkin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 16:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the creator of an article is a block evading sock, it is normal to discuss that

And, if there are few if any contributions by non-blocked editors, to delete that article. Please read WP:BLOCKEVASION. If we didn't do that, we'd be encouraging socks. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Chugunkin (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not violated the rules of Wikipedia and I am a bona fide user. I registered on Wikipedia in 2015, I have never been blocked before; I made more than 100 edits on the English Wikipedia and more than 500 on other Wikis. I am not a sock puppet of user Ann Cane. I am not her and she is not me. I am a man, not a woman. I am a real person, my name is really Klim Chugunkin, I am a journalist, I work for one of the Russian newspapers, I have an email, a Facebook account, a personal page on the literary portal Proza.ru; this information is easy to check remotely.

Yes, I work for the same newspaper as user Ann Cane. Wikipedia rules do not prohibit this. At the same time, we have different computers, different operating systems on them, different monitors, we use different browsers and we have different IP addresses. Although, probably, in some cases, the dynamic IP addresses can coincide, since we work from the same office. All this is easy to check and confirm remotely.

Yes, there are some articles in the English Wiki that both I and the user Ann Cane edited at different times. The fact is that I do not know English very well and consulted with her about language problems when editing a number of articles. However, Wikipedia's rules do not prohibit this. At the same time, in terms of semantic aspects, my edits are independent and are not related to the position of the user Ann Cane.

According to the above, I am asking that my block be reviewed. — Chugunkin (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The unblock request is too focused on "Wikipedia rules do not prohibit this", containing this phrase twice. This is incorrect. Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy does prohibit meatpuppetry, especially if it is undisclosed. It does say "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." This has happened. Both your userpages should contain a clear disclosure of this connection, and you should promise to avoid supporting each other in Wikipedia discussions and editing. That would be a good foundation for an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (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.

...and the IP socking? Who did that?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do You ask me? — Chugunkin (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We usually used different modems on different computers in the editorial office, most often mobile modems from MegaFon. Probably, when using different modems, there should be different IP addresses, although in some cases they may be the same. — Chugunkin (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about IP socking...i.e. editing while logged out.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate my contribution. I am a public person and I edited articles only under my own name (as Chugunkin). I did not edit without logging (“while logged out”). — Chugunkin (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion makes the request pretty much un-answerable by anyone except checkusers. That is, unless Berean Hunter confirms that – even if logged out editing has happened – an accident is a credible explanation. Would this be the case? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I finally see what was meant. Crossroads' user talk page, at the bottom of Special:PermanentLink/946406056#WARNING!? Tricky. Chugunkin, is there any chance for you to find out and explain what has happened there? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know what happened at the address you gave above? And why should I find out? I didn't violate Wikipedia rules, and blocking my account is the CheckUser error that needs to be fixed. — Chugunkin (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And why should I find out?"

A. Because you have no chance of getting unblocked without it and...
B. I have no problem blocking the the other account to make sure that we have the socking issue rectified. Your denial would suggest that she must be the culprit then. Is that it?

Between the two of you (if you are two different people), there should be some accountability for what has happened. So if you don't know anything about it then it must be her then. After all, you didn't find out so we are free to form our own conclusions.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your position.

Since I work in the same Editorial staff with user Ann Cane, I asked her about the episode: Special:PermanentLink/946406056#WARNING! She, as me, did not edit Wikipedia without registration.

Thus, look again at which IP and on which computers (their parameters) I edited, user Ann Cane edited and those people who are involved in the episode “Special:PermanentLink/946406056#WARNING!” (Generally speaking, in Russia many people know English, they can write on the English Wikipedia, including without registration, and they do not like injustice.) You are a CheckUser, the above options are available to you. Write these options here. Do not hold back this data and parameters. I think that everything should be honest and open. — Chugunkin (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this mystery is never going to be fully resolved, and – hopefully, if we ask for and get the required promises – not longer relevant to the decision whether the block is still required to prevent disruption. I'm much more concerned about meatpuppetry, especially the section "Sharing an IP address" of the sock puppetry policy. The unblock request is too focused on "Wikipedia rules do not prohibit this", containing this phrase twice. This is incorrect. Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy does prohibit meatpuppetry, especially if it is undisclosed. It does say "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." This has happened. Both your userpages should contain a clear disclosure of this connection, and you should promise to avoid supporting each other in Wikipedia discussions and editing. That would be a good foundation for an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]