User talk:Александр Мотин

• Talk archive: 2007–10
• Talk archive: 2010–16
• Talk archive: 2016–20
• Bot generated notices: 2010

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive editing

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the partial block hasn't helped, I am topic banning you from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for continued disruptive editing as seen in these ANI threads [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Could you provide diffs, please, which prove "disruptive editing"?--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing for original research about social media posts despite being told that it isn't permissible has been highlighted in the ANI thread. Your volume of editing on the talk page has also been flagged as disruptive. There was a pretty clear consensus that either a topic ban or block was appropriate. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: What are talking about? A publication of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation [5] is the original research??? That is a ridiculous accusation! Have you read this thread BEFORE banning me? Maybe THIS is the original research with a link to a photo of a Buk launcher posted in 2011? What's next? Maybe this proposal is a disruptive editing? Tell me. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Hey there! Bellingcat claims @dnrpress as "the separatist-linked Twitter account" but not "The Donetsk People's Republic claimed... in a tweet" So where is exactly a disruptive editing in my proposal on this thread to use neutral wording? Wow, and this tweet cited by Bellingcat is in Russian [6] (as I said) but not in English as the article and the opposing editors said! Why don't you say something? Are you against neutral wording on Wikipedia? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nil Einne: could you check on this, please, since you seem to be an uninvolved user? So they say that my proposal to use neutral wording is disruptive but the thing is that on WP we MUST use neutral wording and when we say "The Donetsk People's Republic claimed... in a tweet" it is at least illiterate or ignorant (DNR could claim nothing since it is NOT a person (an official) or any department of this self-proclaimed state), biased (since other sources say it is only "the separatist-linked Twitter account"), not neutral and not encyclopedic wording. Moreover we have lots of the sources which say that the press office of the DNR claimed in the official commentary, at least, to the Russian media the possession of the missile launchers on that day (this is an in-article source). But what is the reason and purpose to use this claim of a questionable tweet in the article then? Why is my proposal considered disruptive? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I will not address any article content proposals since as El C said you are now allowed to make such comments with your topic ban. However I will address your topic ban itself. As I noted on the talk page, and which you've clearly read although I strongly suggest you stop doing so lest you are tempted to break your topic ban; your comment was confusing. You seemed to keep insisting that sources had claimed the tweet was in English even though as I said, no source ever seems to have said that. If you had focused on the actual issue i.e. that one of the sources we are using seems to be relying on a machine translation and has not made it clear it's a machine translation indeed it's not even clear if they're aware it's a machine translation; then editors may have been willing to engage in a meaningful discussion about whether we should still be using that particular source. However instead you chose to focus on something which doesn't seem to be true (that a source claimed the tweet was in English) which just confused the whole situation. It's not surprising that editors find your conduct frustrating if instead of focusing on actual problems, you focus on made up ones. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: If a news reporter says "he claimed that ... in a tweet" and hyperlinks this text, that means that he said it to be in English since the tweet itself was shown in English without any disclaimers. That's what I said! That is why I suggested the opposing editors to use the original snapshot of that tweet in Russian since it was in Russian. I just can't imagine why they think it is normal to use sources which cites machine translated or photoshopped tweets! So maybe their edits, in this case, are disruptive? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thank you so much for your principled, honest and unbiased stand on the MH17 talk page. I'd like to draw attention that I just, inter alia, suggested to remove from the article something what it seems to be fake, since in May 2014 the authorities of the DNR clearly stated that @dnrpress had nothing to do with them ([7] by RIA Novosti), long before that so-called "deleted tweet by DNR" was posted (29 June 2014). So, as I said, that passage in the article about "a since-deleted tweet by the Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR) smells like "propaganda bullshit" (it is a citation of what the Russian administrator Ymblanter likes to call something I do) and that's why I said it straight out in that way. And instead of getting into the situation, the opposing editor Slatersteven filed a false report against me. So who is a disruptive editor amongst us? (a rhetorical question). --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, unless you appeal the ban, you are not allowed to discuss the content covered by that ban, which you are contravening above. El_C 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: How do I know what exactly I was banned for? How should I appeal if you don't let me even explain my actions and try to understand what I was doing wrong in your opinion?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction on how to appeal are in the template above. El_C 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I don't understand what I'm being charged with? I was banned for this proposal or this one?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You can query that in your appeal. El_C 12:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out BEFORE appealing?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's possible. Again, if you deem that to be a key component of your appeal, you should note it accordingly. El_C 12:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to distract people with this appeal without even knowing what exactly I was blocked for. You will then say that my filing an appeal is disruptive and that I should be banned from English Wikipedia. This is how I see it. I just want to discuss why my suggestions, arguments, and my point of view are considered disruptive since my suggestions will definitely help to improve the article. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The act which I would like to apologize for is that I used the term "propaganda bullshit" but I don't like it when my edits are called "propaganda bullshit" by the Russian administrator Ymblanter and "almost gibberish" and "Kremlin-ophilic" by the opposing editors, because I never insulted these people.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked, you were topic banned. Please don't words in my mouth. You have no idea what I would say, or even if I would say anything at all, if you were to file an appeal. El_C 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were responding to me, so... El_C 13:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, Calm down. You are in that period where you think everyone on Wikipedia is trying to harm you. If you just calm down and listen to these people then you won't be "harmed". {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3125A: What would you say if you were banned just for the suggestion to use neutral wording in the article and to find really reliable sources without biased claims? They accused me in "high editing volume" but I was just responding to the opposing editor to clearly articulate my point of view. Is that normal? Does the "editing volume rule" apply to me only? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, when I blocked you from the mainspace article, I noted in my closing summary how close I was to topic banning you (or alternatively, blocking you from the talk page as well). Since having been given that boon, you have directed some rather bizarre queries at me which, frankly, made me regret not having done so from the outset. El_C 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well look, as you see I haven't even asked to unblock me from editing the article's page yet in order not to irritate you (not you personally). And now you you banned me just because the opposing editor hasn't got sufficient arguments? And you say "I don't know what suggestion you were banned for". I think that before you accuse me we need to figure out what's wrong with what I suggested. It's a fair request, isn't it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has become circular. You are free to launch an appeal of the ban at any time. I don't think there's much more to say beyond that. El_C 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, you were banned for "continued disruptive editing", in your appeal you need to explain (in your appeal) how you did not disruptively edit, or explain how you will not do so again. Its as simple as that. As in "I did not disruptively edit as I was trying to improve the article with well source facts" or "I understand my tone and communications skills may have caused confusion and will try to make my case better in the future". note (as this has caused confusion in the past with some users) this is not what you should say, just examples of the tone you need to use. I cannot see how this can be any clearer. I had better add, any appeal must be solely about you, and no one else So "because user69 said I was a loathsome spotted reptile" will just earn a rejection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Александр_Мотин, I'll forgo a one month sitewide block, because I think I can still reach you. You cannot add or —as you did a couple of minutes ago— modify any content covered by your ban, for any purpose whatsoever. You are done with those discussions until an appeal to repeal the ban succeeds. Needless to say, there will be no further warning. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "thank you" for identifying and trying to correct false information, factual misstatements and significant omissions in the article, you are threatening to block me for a month? As far as I can see, you didn't even try to understand the situation. That's what upsets me the most, frankly. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not getting it after all. This warning is a boon for you. Don't squander it. El_C 11:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's something to be thankful for. I will appeal later. For now, I just want to see what the opposing editor and the reporter (Slatersteven) will do with all those facts about false statements in the article, in order to be more convincing upon appealing the ban. Anyway, I hear you loud and clear, despite the fact that I have questions about your actions and attitudes. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions about my actions and attitudes might as well bring that up. Light is the best disinfectant. El_C 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a small comment.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. But if you have something to say just say it. El_C 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I would just like to draw your attention to the manifestation described, in the context of Wikipedia, as "Systemic bias". In this way, their, your and my actions and attitudes on the Wikipedia are, in some ways, a subject to this manifestation. But, given the background, it concerns you and the opposing editors most. And, please, don't be offended by what I'm saying because this manifestation is evident in our everyday life and not just on the Wikipedia. That is why I'm not at all surprised by your desire to block me and to banish me from the English Wikipedia. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I have no desire "to block ... and to banish" you. I would have blocked you for today's violation if that was what I desired. I also don't have a strong opinion with regards to the crux of the content dispute. Just to put it in context for you. El_C 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Good afternoon! Due to the fact that the indefinite block of my account in the Russian Wikipedia, which was referred to by my opponents here, was cancelled by the arbitrators as it was found to be erroneous (Case 1115), and the administrator who indef blocked me was (just) warned (unfortunately) for imposing his third (!) indef erroneous block. However, referring to the topic ban here in the English Wikipedia (paragraph 1.5.2. of the Case 1115), I was imposed an indefinite topic ban by the arbitrators on editing the article about MH17 in the Russian Wikipedia. In my opinion it is unfair and this circle must be broken. I would like to start the procedure for removing the topic ban and prove here that my edits were well-intentioned, what was recognized in the Russian Wikipedia upon indef block cancellation. I would like to ask your opinion on this matter and find out what I can do.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that El_C is currently not active on Wikipedia during last weeks so maybe it is a good idea to ask you, Guerillero. What do you think? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Александр Мотин: You may appeal your topic ban at AE or AN. I will point out that decisions on the Russian Wikipedia do not have any barring on what the English Wikipedia decides to do --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that 'warnings' from the Wiki Ru to an editor of another Wiki carry no weight whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.23 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ты, это, держись там. --Winterheart (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterheart: Добавил несколько свободных изображений по теме. Чекни категорию Wikimedia Commons.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Salvio 14:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Александр Мотин". Thank you. — RexxS (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked "your" thread up.

Apparently, people fight over words like "guinea pig" as if it's neutral. Instead of fixing it with basic English right away, please ask me to try and fix it with a witty, "stand-up comedian" way.

Because, once you spend your time to fix a mistake in English Wikipedia, you are not doing it in time-effician manner; you only begin to look as if you are "acting alone". Не будь мотом ))))) и из тебя не будут делать моти)))) Uchyotka (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you call the president a "Guinea pig" it is a trashy boorishness (подзаборное хамство). Cheers. П.С. Для начинающего стэндап комика сойдет :) --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! А таки чего ещё ждать от учётки под названием "Учётка"? Я тут вспомнил, как мне в апреле предьявили за эпитет "молчаливый палач". Так вот. Я думаю"у нас есть "подопытный кролик", устоявшийся эпитет наподобие "guinea pig"; но надо предъявлять, что "guinea pig" - epithet, byname, and not exactly a literary norm. Please use "test parttaker" or something. Uchyotka (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....И вот что надо добавить. Как я помню, "guinea pig", "морская свинка", именно в значении "подопытная крыса/кролик" используется вообще в значении "подопытный" в английском. Я-то предъяву ин накатал, что это эпитет, пусть и устоявшийся, но всё же -- похоже, случились ложные друзья переводчика.

П.С. Вакцину, как пишет Интерфакс, уже дают погонять добровольцам. Нужна вакцина? Uchyotka (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uchyotka: Вот пусть добровольцев на клинических испытаниях оксфордской вакцины в статье о ней так и называют.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ну, если вбить в Гугл "guinea pig vaccine oxford", то Euronews уже называют семью согласившихся на экспериментальную вакцину "морскими свинками". Есть подозрение, что этот устоявшийся эпитет - газетный стиль речи. Uchyotka (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Здорово, вот пусть так и пишут в статье про оксфордскую вакцину. И в статье о вакцинах против КОВИДа пусть пишут не "participants", а "guinea pigs". Вот тогда и будет повод рассмотреть этот вопрос детальней. --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you guys are discussing here. Yes, sure, there are Human Guinea Pigs in all countries. One man (who worked in VECTOR) said me long time ago that the personnel in this facility, him including, was given a lot of vaccines (most of which were not really tested in any phases 3), so he is now a lot less susceptible to the most terrible diseases including EBOLA. Is it really a bad thing? Some of his colleagues did die though in that facility due to well known accidents. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: As I said, when they start calling "participants" for vaccine trials "guinea pigs" in WP articles, we may talk about it seriously. Up to this point, I consider it non-encyclopedic when they call volunteers or participants Guinea pigs. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing really offensive in this expression. This is actually an expression of compassion to volunteers who are taking part in the trials without knowing the actual dangers, which can vary from rather low for vaccines to extremely high for common drugs. There are also cases when doctors misinform patients about the dangers by simply saying "hey, there is always some risk" to give a drug approved by FDA for a different disease. But we should stop this discussion because of the topic ban. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, false friend has happened. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this discussion, you are hereby indefinitely banned from making any edits relating to Covid-19 as well as Russian politics, both topic areas to be broadly construed. Salvio 20:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Salvio giuliano: What edits I'm banned for this time?--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Александр Мотин, you are banned as a result of that AN discussion; the reasons are discussed there. I merely closed the discussion and enacted the topic ban. Salvio 20:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Salvio giuliano: But you can check my edits. I was really trying to improve the article and other editors sometimes supported my edits. Just check any of my recent edits, please: Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac. Is this a reason to ban me from work on improving the article if someone doesn't like my edits because of bias against me and my edits? It is not fair because I listen to my opponents and their opinions but at the same time I have the right to have my own. Could you read this thread please: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. You will see that all they wanted was just to ban me because they don't like my opinion. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no point in relitigating the issue. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and you are now topic banned. If I may volunteer a bit of unsolicited advice, I suggest you keep out of trouble for six months and then ask for these sanctions to be lifted. Salvio 21:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Salvio giuliano: May I use talk pages?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The answer is no, I'm sorry. Topic bans prohibit all edits relating to a specific topic area, regardless of where they take place (cf. WP:TBAN). Salvio 13:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Russian Barnstar of National Merit
		За всю вашу работу над русскими смежными статьями. Продолжайте в том же духе, Cheers :) Danloud (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Александр Мотин by Danloud (talk) on 11:57, 9 October 2020

An article you recently created, Volokolamskoye Highway, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article MR Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With your revert you have restored nearly 3000 links to disambiguation pages. Do you really think that is an improvement? The Banner talk 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Do you think it is an improvement not to add correct links to {{MOSMETRO stations}} first?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it my best try but the links were very unclear. But you have still left a link to a disambiguation pages standing. As the template is used 936 times, that means 936 times an incorrect link. The Banner talk 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I'm working on it right now--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Now you can check it out {{Moscow Metro}}--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But to be rude, can you also take care of Template:Sokolnicheskaya line RDT (42*2) and Template:Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line RDT (24*1). Links to disambiguation pages after your page moves. The Banner talk 13:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Petrovsko-Razumovskaya railway station, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lopifalko (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. I can't speak for the community —and I'll let the WP:CBAN discussion continue— but I, for one, am all out of patience for the perpetual WP:BATTLEGROUND that you exhibit. It's too much and just isn't a good fit for a collaborative volunteer project.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: So you blocked me for this page move and this edit? What is wrong with that? Previous name had no sources at all for more than 4 months since the recent discussion here --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the block concerns your conduct, overall, including but not limited to the manner in which you have conducted yourself at ANI today. My block summary speaks further to that in broad strokes. El_C 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: What do you mean "overall"? What authority had he to request indef block for renaming the article while I have provided reliable sources and the official map? Ymblanter had to use talk page instead! Why that indef block proposer didn't provide any reliable source for more than 4 months? Why am I not allowed to rename the article (relying on reliable sources) in this situation? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I don't feel that the (latest) content dispute is that germane to this block, a block which concerns your conduct — as in your behaviour toward other people. Behaviour which I deem overly aggressive. Coupled with a troubling editorial history, it all just paints a rather bleak image about your future prospects here on the English Wikipedia. Which should be obvious to you: in less than 2 hours, the proposal to siteban you has seen five editors voice support, with zero opposition. As it stands, the likelihood that my indefinite block will end up being converted into a community ban, appears great. El_C 11:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Aggressive? Where did you see aggression in this renaming relying on reliable sources since Ymblanter failed to provide reliable sources after 4 months since recent discussion, or maybe creating Modules was aggressive yesterday or creating lots of articles about railway stations in Russia? This is the most unreasonable blocking I've ever seen and the clearest manifestation of "cancel culture" in the English Wikipedia. If you do not explain to me why I could not rename the article in the absence of reliable sources for more than 4 months, then "misuse of administrative tools" will very clearly describe what you are doing together with Ymblanter because the issue with renaming the article does not apply to the reasons for indefinite blocking in the entire Wikipedia. And it is clear that my edits here were completely based on reliable sources and the official map while his edits are unsourced. It's disgusting, frankly. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I still am not interested in discussing the content dispute because I still don't feel it is germane to why I blocked you. At ANI, you said that Ymblanter was subjecting you to "harassment," but you provided zero evidence to go along with that charge. That is a serious accusation — who does that? Or, when Gwen went on to express support to site banning you and you responded by badgering her with: "cancel culture" — really? Maybe you think that this is an acceptable way to behave toward other people, but I sure don't. You can continue to protest, but I'm sorry to tell you that you are basically deluding yourself if you think that it's going to help you in any way, when you continue to fail to convey any sense of reflection or introspection. El_C 11:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: And why you didn't ask this administrator Ymblanter why the renaming the article based on reliable sources should have been punished by indef block? And what rule did I break by renaming the article based on reliable sources replacing the name without a single source? Did you ask him? So what other proof or evidence do you need?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the 3rd time now that I've told you that I am not interested in discussing the content dispute because I don't feel it is germane to my block. I don't want to be impolite, but I do expect some basic reading comprehension from you. El_C 12:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: You indef blocked me for WP:BATTLEGROUND. And why not Ymblanter instead? It is prescribed to "Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree". What good faith you assumed since you say "I am not interested in discussing the content dispute" and just indef blocked me? Huh? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like I have sufficiently explained myself, so I don't really have anything further to add at this time. Well, beyond briefly pointing out that I obviously consider you to have failed on the WP:PACT front. Please don't ping me again. El_C 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also you blocked me before I could add more evidence to this section at ANI. And now you say "you provided zero evidence to go along with that charge"? Are you serious? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Am I serious? A bit too late for that now, methinks. You have had plenty of time to do so already. El_C 12:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: How do you call it when administrator Ymblanter requests indef block for renaming the article while this renaming is based on reliable sources and replaces the name without a single source? See, for instance, WP:HOUNDING for more info which is WP:HARASS. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, Александр Мотин, I've asked you to please not ping me. It is becoming a nuisance. If you continue, I'm going to revoke your talk page access. El_C 12:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Will I see an answer from you instead of threats?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what Ymblanter said at ANI:

In particular, I created articles about all railway directions / lines in Moscow such as Savyolovsky suburban railway line (which happened before Александр Мотин became active on the project). Александр Мотин for whatever reason does not like these names

These names, which Ymblanter came up with, have no single source but he accuses me that I "just don't like these names". You think it's normal, El_C? And you decided to drive away and banish me on this fake reason? Why don't you want to comment on it? Why didn't you ask Ymblanter for evidence? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It is totally unfounded indef block. Indef block for renaming the article, based on reliable sources like the Government of Russia and Moscow Mayor official website, replacing the article name without a single source? Is it "cancel culture", WP:TOOLMISUSE or what? It's embarrassing, is what it is. Александр Мотин (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It seems clear to me (and it has been stated several times by the blocking administrator above) that you were not blocked specifically for the rename, but for your more general behaviour during disagreements. You would need to address that if you wish to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2021 (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.

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Where are diffs of "general behaviour during disagreements" at least for the last two weeks? Or months? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I declined your request because you were addressing something that was not the reason for your block, as the blocking admin clarified with: "The reason for the block concerns your conduct, overall, including but not limited to the manner in which you have conducted yourself at ANI today." If you wish to challenge that, please make a new unblock request and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Boing! said Zebedee: "the manner in which you have conducted yourself at ANI today"? Do you want to be a little more specific? I want to understand what you're imputing to me --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Those were not my words, I was quoting the blocking admin, as I made clear. So no, I do not need to be more specific. *You* need to address the blocking admin's words (which I guess will have to be via UTRS now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 13:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Александр Мотин, please do not continue to email me. I am not interested in further corresponding with you (in any way) at this time. El_C 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note FWIW, this UTRS appeal is a shining example of how not to appeal a block. Also, per the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Александр Мотин again, User is WP:CBANned. @Александр Мотин:, I urge you to read the WP:GAB, to reflect on the feedback you have received, and to address your next request to how you will redress your behavior. It might be best to edit other WMF projects, establish a reputation for editing constructively and collaboratively, and then to request that your appeal to the community be carried to WP:AP. This advice is tempered by my awareness that you were blocked indefinitely on RU WIKI before you were blocked here. Please, please-- see that the problems are not the behavior of other editors. On reflection, if your next UTRS appeal is not convincing, I'm afraid it will be necessary to ban you from UTRS for six months from the date and time of that appeal. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Александр Мотин. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Volokolamskoye Highway, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Александр Мотин. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Volokolamskoye Highway".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Knerten Rock has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable rock

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #52253 currently being considered. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored for the sole purpose of appealing community ban to the community. Will be revoked again if talk page is used for any other purpose, or if their appeal fails. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a year ago my account in English Wikipedia was CBANned. Since quite a lot of time has passed and at certain colleague's reminder who recently contacted me on the French Wikipedia, I am sending the English Wikipedia community this request for unban. Due to the fact that I was CBANned for renaming an article about a railway line in Russia and since this caused sharp reaction of the opposing editor, I can assure the Community that possible subsequent discussions on this issue on my part will be resolved in accordance with the WP:DISPUTE policy. And since after the CBAN I did not attempt to circumvent blocking and did not commit any violations in the English Wikipedia, and my overall contribution to the English Wikipedia is constructive, I ask you to make a decision on this request.
P.S. Before CBAN I was mainly engaged in writing and illustrating articles from Template:Moscow Central Diameters, Template:Roads in Moscow and also worked on updating and expanding of the List of tallest buildings in Europe.
P.P.S. And to emphasize that I was guided solely by conscientious motives, thinking only about the benefits for the English Wikipedia, I inform you that I used the File:Moscow Central Diameters – official system map (English version).jpg when renaming Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line for which I was CBANned.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have copied your appeal to AN for community review, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Александр Мотин unban request. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown and Eggishorn: Dear colleagues! On the aforementioned WP:AN page you refer to the fact that they imposed, for instance, a topic ban regarding Sputnik V article where I made an edit which they topic banned me for. But you should look first at the text fragment which I was banned for on the initiative of recently desysoped administrator RexxS and compare it with the current version:

Edit made by me:

On 4 September 2020, in The Lancet, findings from two phase 1/2 of the vaccine were presented. The researchers enrolled 76 healthy adult volunteers (aged 18–60 years) into the two studies (38 people in each study). The primary outcome measures of the studies were safety and immunogenicity.

Current version:

On 4 September 2020, data on 76 participants in a phase I–II trial were published, indicating preliminary evidence of safety and an immune response.

Moreover, if you look at the references, you will see that these identical statements refer to the same publication in the world's oldest and best-known general medical journal The Lancet [8], published on 4 September 2020. I kindly remind you that they banned me because I allegedly "pushed a primary study reported in the Lancet". But how then to explain that the identical "primary study reported in the Lancet" was later added again by someone and nobody was topic banned or indefed, and this text fragment is still in the article which they banned me for? Do you think it is fair?--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I kindly ask you not to revoke talk page access since several days ago I sent an appeal to the Arbitration Committee per WP:UNBAN policy.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I had no intentions of revoking it. Hog Farm _Talk 18:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why I was mentioned above but I believe I should do you the courtesy of at least replying. I see nothing here that would have changed my response. It is further evidence, in fact, that you still do not understand why you were blocked and then banned. This is the very concern expressed unanimously in the request to withdraw the ban, so it's not just my opinion and I have no particular sway here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community refused to unban you. I'm uninvolved, just notifying you. starship.paint (exalt) 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per our agreement talk page access has been removed again now that the appeal is complete. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Samara, Russia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nilaji is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilaji until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Rublyovo–Arkhangelskaya line indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mount Stearns has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Antarctic stub not passing WP:GEONATURAL; only substantial source available is GNIS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AviationFreak💬 18:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jezek Glacier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Antarctic stub not passing WP:GEOLAND; only substantial source available is GNIS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AviationFreak💬 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Link Island has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Antarctic stub not passing WP:GEONATURAL; only substantial source available is GNIS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AviationFreak💬 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lord Glacier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Antarctic stub not passing WP:GEONATURAL; only substantial source available is GNIS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AviationFreak💬 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kramer Rocks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kramer Rocks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shiragaonwadi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sagflaps (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ploschad Tryokh Vokzalov railway station has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable rail station, fails WP:GNG, WP:NTRAINS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]