User talk:Uppagus

Welcome!

Hello, Uppagus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Uppagus, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Palestine

The page is now fully protected in the version prior to the dispute. Take it to Talk:Roman Palestine. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts

Have you ever had another account on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No... Why do you ask? Uppagus (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (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:Icewhiz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. 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.

Izno (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Administrator,

I appealed the block on the Unblock Ticket Request System, but was told that I was not blocked on my talk page and that I should appeal here. I did not realize that I would be blocked here too. I hope that you will see this appeal even though I am not logged in.

I started editing on Wikipedia in January 2024 in the hopes of contributing to the scholarship of the general public and making the world a better place. Still being relatively new to the Wikipedia world, I am willing to accept that some of my edits were possibly crudely done, but if I understood the various situations correctly all instances were resolved amicably, at least for my part. I have not been able to detect any transgressions beyond that.

I cannot express the bewilderment and dismay I felt when I saw the allegation of sockpuppetry on my Talk Page. As was suggested on the ban, I have read through the Wikipedia guide to appealing blocks, and I was saddened to see that there is no way to prove my innocence in the face of said allegation.

Furthermore, in the section on sockpuppetry it says "Users confirmed or believed to have engaged in the practice must request unblock at their main account", I understand this to mean that there is no room for benefit of the doubt, and someone who is believed to have engaged in sockpuppetry is identical to one who is confirmed as such, and must make the request on their suspected main account. But in my case – I am not Icewhiz, I do not know who Icewhiz is, and I certainly cannot post my request on his or her account.

I must say this loud and clear - My main and only account is that of Uppagus, I am not a sockpuppet of Icewhiz, nor anyone else. I do not have any sockpuppets, nor am I affiliated or have I conspired with other suspected users.

As for the evidence mounted against me by a user named Levivich, I did not see a reason to respond to it, as I had little time to respond and thought it was ridiculous and of no consequence. I did not know that I would be placed on the chopping block. For the sake of argument, I will respond to the evidence here.

Vague, canned edit summaries – In some cases I simply don't know how I should have given further details. How would one extrapolate on adding a source or a link? In other cases, I'm afraid that this is a result of laziness. I had seen similar edit summaries of others in the past and I thought it was fair to use them as well. If it is not alright, I request for the sake of other users that clear guidelines regarding edit summaries be added to the instructions sent to newcomers (and if an unblock is in my cards, I would greatly appreciate guidance on this matter).

Regarding editing towards XC status – I don't see how this is relevant. When I began editing I had much more time on my hands, but studies and personal constraints have gradually chipped away at my free time, and that is what my edit history reflects. I will add that in the beginning of my editing career I became aware of the XC status when I wanted to edit an article that interested me but was restricted from doing so, and it was certainly a goal to work towards and further served as an incentive to edit more. Once I had reached that goal it was only natural that the edit intensity declined, together with the time available to me for editing.

Similar timecards as other users - I don't see how this is evidence, I edit when I have the time. For the sake of argument, I also don't see such a similarity between the timecards.

Similar time periods to other users – I don't know what to say about this … I just joined Wikipedia after I saw a youtube video about editing Wikipedia and afterwards edited whenever I had the time. I don't see how this can be used against me.

Similar arguments to other users in votes on talk pages – It is true, I generally read through all the arguments on a talk page before I vote, and if I see an argument I agree with I will echo it, even to the extent of using words similar to theirs (and I would not be surprised if others did the same). I did not know that this was prohibited, I assumed it was an innocent vote to be reviewed by someone else who could either consider my vote or not. If there is a problem with this, again, I request that it should be addressed in the instructions to newcomers.

Israeli nationalist views – I am an Israeli, I don't see this as being a crime, and as every country has its patriots, I am an Israeli patriot. One can easily profile other editors as being pro-Palestinian by the same token. I am not aware of it being against Wikipedia guidelines to have pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian views, and it is only natural that one's nationality influence how one sees the world. That being said, I am not aware of conciously biased edits. To the best of my knowledge all edits were constructive and according to reliable sources, and all interactions were cordial. I have only approached Wikipedia with pure intent.

Since one of the core values of Wikipedia is the assumption of good faith, I request further consideration in light of it and ask that the block be removed.

Respectfully,

Uppagus

109.67.91.195 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You will need to use WP:UTRS to appeal under your username, so we know it's you. You don't need to write your statement again, just reference it in your UTRS appeal. I know the stewards won't remove the global lock until a local wiki is willing to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 9 November 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.

Please log in to confirm that you made this appeal. There should be nothing preventing you from this- blocks typically leave access to the user talk page open precisely to allow you to contest your block. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The account is globally locked. That means they can't log in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery Thanks, I didn't see that. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]