User talk:Chuvash Studies

This user cannot reply your questions at the moment

/s Chuvash Studies (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Kamista per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamista. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Won't I ever edit Wikipedia? Account your talking about is already banned. Chuvash Studies (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I created an account will you ban me? I made this account for contribute Chuvash language and culture. If you think anything is wrong in my edits, use my talk page. But it's relentlessly to ban me for nothing. I didn't even know what sockpuppet means until some Wikipedia editor banning me without asking me anything. Chuvash Studies (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi Mz7. You recently blocked Volgabulgari as a sockpuppet of Kamista. A new account (Chuvash Studies) has appeared immediately afterwards, and given their edits to Chuvash people (here Volgabulgari adds undefined refs to "Golden 2006" and "Golden 2007a", here Chuvash Studies does the same), they appear to be another sock. Should I raise this at SPI or is this WP:QUACK enough to act on? -- LCU"

-@ActivelyDisinterested

"Given their edits to Chuvash people"

Not exactly. I did not simply use the previous version of the text as-is. Instead, I reviewed the older sentences and cross-referenced them with relevant sources. I subsequently rewrote the content.

"Here Volgabulgari adds undefined refs to 'Golden 2006" and "Golden 2007a', here Chuvash Studies does the same),"

Because I copied as a whole sentence. Right now the sources you are talking about are no longer in page.

"They appear to be another sock."

What exactly are you trying to say? My edits were pretty academic and I'm glad I made regions of significant populations page, checked sources, edited older version. I want to contribute this page. I don't see anything used abusively.

And if you did, you could just text me or used talk page. The miscommunication only made everyone more troubled here. But I guess someone's problem is another's fortune. I was editing this page since early 2022. I made a lot of contribution and I wanted to do a lot. Unfortunately, we're in Wikipedia.

Should a user notice the utilization of an unspecified source in a previous iteration of the page, they may opt to bring it to the attention of the moderators for potential action. No surprise Wikipedia has worst reputation among academic sources. Chuvash Studies (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

(My reply for Volgabulgari) :Thank you for clarifying the situation. I was taken aback by the banning of Chuvash Studies' and the subsequent reversal of all of its academic edits. I believed that each account is responsible for its own actions, and I am surprised to see that this particular account has been banned without any apparent reason. And that was also the reason of why I used IP after Bulgaryani as you stated. In Chuvash Studies I was revert to Volgabulgaris edit and fixed the errors in sentences while comparing them with sources. It was perfect. User: ActivelyDisinterested said just said I may be Volgabulgari, so you banned me which I didn't have any intend to hide myself. I just edited 1-2 days after I get banned. I wouldn't expect this account to be banned. :About Bulgaryani's thing I realized that my behavior was not only dishonest, but also disruptive to the community, and I take full responsibility for my actions. I understand that the sockpuppet rule is in place to protect the integrity of the platform and to ensure a fair and respectful environment for all users. Thus, It's okay for me if you want Volgabulgari should stay banned. :While I am open to the possibility of maintaining the ban on this specific account, I don't see any compelling reason for banning Chuvash Studies. As you may recall, Bulgaryani was banned for modifying the Oghuric languages page, which has no connection to Chuvash Studies who edited Chuvash page. Hence, it appears to me that Chuvash Studies has been unfairly targeted in this matter. :I would like to clarify that my contributions to the platform are based on sound academic principles. My sole purpose is to enhance the accuracy and credibility of the information provided. In this context, I only revert Volgabulgari's edits and fix sentences while comparing them to the original sources. I believe this practice is consistent with the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarship. :Based on these considerations, I respectfully suggest that Chuvash Studies should be unbanned. Doing so would be consistent with the principles of fairness, impartiality, and accountability that underpin academic discourse. Moreover, it would promote an environment of open dialogue, academic rigor, and intellectual freedom that is essential to the advancement of knowledge.I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a prompt resolution. :Sincerely, :-Volgabulgari

Decline reason:

"Everytime I created an account will you ban me?" Yes, every time you create an account, that account will be blocked. You personally are blocked. You personally are not welcome to edit here. Until the block on your original account is lifted, you personally need to stop. It's clear you don't understand this. Your unblock request is ludicrous. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (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.

You are not permitted to edit (or remove) a declined unblock request for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]