User talk:RussianDewey

Talk page access restored
Per my email to you via your UTRS appeal "The change in attitude is certainly refreshing. Given the strength of the arguments for the block and the consensus by multiple admins, and now yourself, that the block was correct, I cannot unblock you unilaterally. What I will do however is restore your talk page access so that you can post a new request there for review." Note that if the use of this page is abused as it was in the past, your access will again be revoked. Good luck with your appeal, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Clean Start and a new beginning after a long vacation

 * Original blocking admin note: Based on my faith in Ponyo in reviewing the case, I would withdraw my objection to any unblock and simply be neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and unblock reviewers; note that I'm not endorsing an unblock (or vice versa) - I only restored the talk page access so that a new unblock request could be made based on an appeal made via UTRS. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should have been more clear in that, but the same for me. We both are just standing back and allowing other eyes to review, without endorsement nor comment on the merits. This would probably be a good time for Dewey to explain what they plan to do, what they have learned, and what their goals are, to give the reviewer something to consider.  I would expect the reviewer *might* have a question or two as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer
Either I'm feeling in a forgiving mood, or possibly just cynical, but I'm inclined to unblock per WP:ROPE. I was considering going down the 2nd chance route, but that is rather a palaver for both the both the applicant and the reviewer. However I would like to know about RussianDewey's intentions. Therefore I'd like to ask them the following questions:

- Optimist on the run (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there any particular articles you want to work on?
 * 2) How do you think these articles can be improved?
 * 3) Do you accept that your edits will come under greater scrutiny than usual, and any edits that are perceived as not being "good faith" are likely to lead to the block being restored, possibly without warning?


 * 1) None, but I would like to get my feet wet on some film articles.
 * 2) More content and some sources.
 * 3) Yes I accept that

RussianDewey (talk)
 * The delay has been so long, it might be helpful to ping, which I have done. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay and thanks for the ping - I saw this last thing last night, but didn't have a chance to do anything about it at the time, and it slipped my mind today. As has already stated he has no objection to an unblock I'm going to go out on a limb and unblock you - please don't let me down. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course I will not let you down, is there a way I can change my username? RussianDewey (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * See Changing username. However this will transfer all your old edits to your new username. You may wish to consider a Clean Start instead. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
But there have never been conflict of interest where I intentionally edit the article knowing of a past edit. You can check the records, I'm going back all the way to mid June 2015, when I stopped editing from here. I'm just asking for a definite block with a time frame at the minimum with some probational period. RussianDewey (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You deliberately engaged in block evasion. Yes, just to edit your sandbox, but it's still a violation of WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. It is simply not accurate to say there's been no "illegitimate reasons" here. And it's not like it only happened once. It's a pattern of behaviour. And that's on top of your edit-warring and personal attacks and concerns around WP:HERE. At this point, I think you are done. I don't see any admin being willing to unblock you. You had your second chance and blew it. In fact, even your second chance was made in bad faith. You are certainly welcome to request another admin review your situation, but I urge you not to get too hopeful. I think you've worked hard to show you shouldn't ever be unblocked again. --Yamla (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I fully deserve it. How about I contribute without editing articles, giving out suggestion on things to improve upon on, here on my talk page. RussianDewey (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)



--UTRSBot (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

unblock discussion
Checkuser needed  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support this going to AN, now. Just Chilling (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted it there: WP:AN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

an discussion replies WP:AN
I have expressed some misgivings. Please reply here and your response can be carried over there. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello sorry for the late reply RussianDewey (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * no problem.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Carried over  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ivanvector has voiced some concerns, if you'd care to address them.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

✅ carried over. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there has been a little confusion with the Brown Haired Girl, majority of my work was not under this name rather the other one. Contributions and also unfinished researches Subpages. I also made contributions to non-English Wikipedia by the way. RussianDewey (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In reply to "Beyond My Ken", I disagree, Socks will always get caught especially the amount of detailed articles I work with, I want to start in a legal manner and work my way up to gain the community to trust. I agree that socking is "is a danger to the project and an affront to the community" that's the whole point of this. RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In response to "CorbieV", you say ""passionate" sockmasters" I think you paint me in a negative light, I'm not passionate about being a sockpuppet, I'm passionate about contributing to Wikipedia that's very different. Also I think you got my reasoning wrong, I recommend you read it again, I have two reasoning, one moral and one legality/punishment, the moral one is I want to do things the right way and the legality one is that sockpuppets at the end will always get caught and punished. I also never said my passion for Wikipedia comes before my respect for the WP Policy. I clearly stated "I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians" that includes following the Five pillars,Policies and guidelines and the Ethical Codes RussianDewey (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request discussion closed
Unfortunately there was no consensus at AN to unblock your account, and I closed the discussion. This means that the block now becomes the community ban, and you may appeal to the community, not to individual administrators, to unban you. It is unreasonable to do it for the next half a year, but I leave you the talk page access, feel free to request an unblock in half a year or later if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * How do you appeal to the community ? RussianDewey (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as before, you can post here an unblock request, and someone will move it to WP:AN. Just have in mind that you will be posting for community evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note also that, as pointed out, it is unreasonable to appeal before six months are up. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't sock, and come back in six months. Don't give up RussianDewey!  starship .paint  (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * HAHAHA, I won't but thanks for the support. RussianDewey (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
Got it, I'm too rusty at the moment, thanks for the info RussianDewey (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)