User talk:Royiswariii

Royiswariii is suffering from fever and back ache. This may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

This is Royiswariii's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If you want to search my archives, just search "From The Vault" Example:From The Vault (1)

Appeal again and review again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I'm appeal the recent block on my account for allegedly violating the account sharing policy. I understand the importance of Wikipedia rules to ensure the integrity of contributions and to prevent disruption and I am fully support on all of guidlin,es, and I want to clarify that I am the sole owner of my account. I believe my account was blocked due to a misunderstanding based on an edit notice on my user page, which was mean to be a joke while I was on a wiki break. I regret that I add that on my userpage, and this may have been misinterpreted as indicating that I was sharing my account to others. I reached out to a administrator and checkuser, EdJohnston for assistance, and he said my edit notice was on the userpage, but as I said it was a joke. But, I said that I am the owner and I can give all my information and questions to me to prove that I am really the owner but i got no reply. I take Wikipedia rules very seriously and I assure you that I have never shared my account to anyone never and never. If you let me to unblock my account, I will avoid making any statements that could lead to confusion in the future, and I will be much more careful with my actions. And please let me know if there's any further information I can provide to verify my identity as sole account holer. Thank you very much! Royiswariii Talk! 03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've reviewed this situation and I would find it patently ridiculous if it weren't so ... I don't know a better word than inhumane. We have here an editor with absolutely no history of issues, an AFC helper, and a record of featured content, who suffered a recent loss and left a notice that yeah maybe they shouldn't have, but did that really deserve a block? WP:NOSHARING suggests actions that should be taken if an account is suspected of being shared, which include requiring the user to stop, asking them to change their password, and depending on the circumstances, sanctions up to and including blocking. We didn't do any of that, we just blocked with no attempt to educate or warn the user at all and then told them there was no possible way they could ever be unblocked. When they tried to explain, which is what unblock requests are for, they were callously dismissed.

I am unblocking per WP:NOTPUNITIVE - there is no disruption being prevented here, and one could argue that the block itself is disruptive. I am also aware of and ignoring their sock account, which they created after administrators here told them there was no path to unblocking, because our rules normally permit a person using a shared account to stop using it and create a sole account instead; I will be leaving that account blocked, however.

Royiswariii: I am sorry for your loss, and for the way you have been treated here. Sometimes we administrators fail to see past Teh Rulez to the real human beings who are actually impacted by them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that you aren't someone who took control of this account and are pretending to be the original owner? The answer is, we don't know and have no way to know. If claiming a joke was made would work to get a compromised account unblocked, everyone would claim that. That's why I said that- if it was a joke- it was a very poor joke to make. Imagine if this was your bank account and not your Wikipedia account. Would you joke about giving others access to your bank account? The next admin will decide how to handle this- but I'm not sure there is a path forward here. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hello 331dot! I understand my joke was too far and unacceptable. I can see now why my edit notice was a mistake, and it led to a confusion about my identity and control over the account.

I can assure you that I am the original and only user of this account, and I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding. I now understand that even joking about account access is inappropriate and insensitive, and I won't make a similar jokes again in the future.

If there's anything more I can prove my identity r commitment to Wikipedia policies, I am 100% willing to cooperate. I am here to contribute and will avoid actions that could cause any further misunderstanding.

Here's the suggestions to confirm my identity that I am the real owner:

CheckUser Verification
Past Edit Histrory
Email Address (if can) My account creation details
Past request rights here in Wikipedia (it may declined or accepted)

I hope we can resolve this, thank you for your consideration.

Add: My IP Address User:175.176.26.112 was have a alternative account notice , I added that I think August or September (I didn't check the history) But due to randomly changing my IP Address because of my ISP, It may or not help to you. So It may help this or convince you to unblock me. Royiswariii Talk! 09:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, 331dot! I'm noticing you again and to let you know if you agree for checkuser review to my account? Or at least see my suggestions to confirm my identity. Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 03:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot the request was declined as premature, but you may see the questions here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Kenneth Kho I didn't actively "refuse" anything(i.e. a specific statement that I was not answering their questions). I can't give or deny permission for a checkuser to do anything. I already told the user what they could do, I didn't think it necessary to pile on further. I wish the user had come to me first or at least used the correct forum with their grievance. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we just disagree on what "refuse" means, and "I can't give or deny permission for a checkuser to do anything" was the reason I don't think the case was out of process. Clearly arbs disagreed, so it is dismissed here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: - it looks from the above that Royiswariii asked you twice for clarification on your comments, and you never responded, so your assertion that they didn't approach you it discuss with you is untrue. I also think your initial comments were unnecessarily assuming of bad faith on an relatively new editor with a good history of editing. It was a poor joke, certainly, and hopefully Roy has learned their lesson, but as Ivan vector says above, it was nothing rising to the level of a need for instant blocking or outright refusal to entertain an unblock. This isn't an issue that needs to go to arbcom or anywhere else, I think a line has been drawn under it, but I do think a mild WP:TROUT is owed to yourself for being less than collegiate on this occasion. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Happy to be trouted, but I respectfully disagree that I was not "collegiate" or anything other than polite and civil. As I said, I didn't think I should pile on further by repeating what I had already said, and I can't give or deny permission to a CU(who I thought would take up the matter). It seems to me that my choice here was to 1) turn loose a potentially compromised account and risk my reputation or 2) tell them to use the means described at WP:COMPROMISED to establish they were in control. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding checkuser: generally we're not permitted to check an account at the account's request, that is a carve-out in the English checkuser policy (the global policy allows it but English checkusers cannot). Royiswariii pinged me with that request and I declined. I didn't notice until later that 331dot also had suggested it, which might have led me to a different approach, and we do check unblock requests where violations of the multiple accounts policy are in play. I still opted not to check since a) I had already declined; b) checkuser isn't really all that useful in detecting this sort of compromise where someone shares their account with someone they know; but really c) I've been chasing a particularly nasty troll all week who earns a new deserved block about every five minutes, and it put me in a bad mood to see someone who really wants to contribute backed into a corner from procedural hand-wringing. I was probably unduly harsh in my unblock rationale, and I apologize for that.

Anyway, I dislike blame-seeking exercises, they don't really help anyone and distract from the work of building the encyclopedia. At the end of the day I think that everyone tried to do the right thing here, but sometimes we need reminding that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and has no firm rules. Let's all go fix a "citation needed" tag. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cherry on Top (Bini song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cherry on Top (Bini song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RFNirmala -- RFNirmala (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser Review

Hello, Ivanvector! I'm requesting to checkuser review to my account due to blocking of my violation of WP:NOSHARING. If you have any questions to my account, I will try my best to answer as I can. Thank you very much! Royiswariii Talk! 22:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the local policy does not permit us to check accounts by request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand.

But thanks for unblock me and seek a attention to me because it takes too long to review my account whether if i violated or not. I really apprciated it! Royiswariii Talk! 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cherry on Top (BiniMo Remix).webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cherry on Top (BiniMo Remix).webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case request declined

Hi Royiswariii,

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can then ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard or the administrative action review page for the action to be reviewed.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. SilverLocust 💬 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Turma do Folclore

Hello Royiswariii, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Turma do Folclore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]