User talk:Rudraaac

Hello, Rudraaac, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as RudraaC (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections before editing further. Thank you. Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hikaru Nakamura have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Hikaru Nakamura was changed by Rudraaac (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.914063 on 2026-06-05T06:04:47+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop over-explaining short descriptions. Additional details could be understood by reading the articles. You've been previously warned for the same matter.. Vestrian24Bio 10:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio Which short description did I over-explain? Rudraaac (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them.. Vestrian24Bio 10:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio You have to explain a little about an article, also I have not crossed the word limit Rudraaac (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vestrian24Bio 10:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing of short descriptions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Over-explaining short description, flags violating MOS, BRD behaviour. Please reply..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe I have submitted an unblock request stating my points Rudraaac (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I tried to explain an article's short description a little more as the explanation provided were very short, I also added flags for sports persons which according to me is the right thing. I explained cricket related articles where players who represent a country should have a flag to represent and also umpires should also have flags as it is there in the officials section of a tournament in an article. I did not disrupt any article intensionally, if anything is not right according to the manual of editting, it is a mistake from my side Rudraaac (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were repeatedly advised about this and chose to disregard the advice. Indeed, a mistake from your side. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

1. I tried to explain an article's short description a little more as the explanation provided were very short - short descriptions are indeed supposed to be short, it's pretty much in the name. Also it's not supposed repeat what's already on the article's title.
2. I also added flags for sports persons which according to me is the right thing - things should be based on WP:Policies, not personal opinions.
3. cricket related articles where players who represent a country should have a flag to represent - only for instances within the scope of MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS.
4. umpires should also have flags as it is there in the officials section of a tournament in an article - only in that section is enough. They're not representing their countries, they play a neutral role.

Vestrian24Bio 16:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also comparing 2026 FIFA World Cup is a mislead since the articles you've edited yesterday were match articles. If anything 2022 FIFA World Cup final is the correct one to compare which indeed doesn't have flags in front of Messi or the officials. Vestrian24Bio 04:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio Who will ask me to see which article for an example, you? Who are you? Rudraaac (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are going to be ignorant than there is no point in this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 05:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio See the World Chess Championship article, it is written "to determine the World Chess Champion", that's the same I have written for Cricket matches.

And for the FIFA World Cup one, a person will obviously take the 2026 one as an example, which I had done for matches, what is wrong in that? I have done quite a research and read many articles and came to the conclusion of doing what I did. You have no right to block me for these naive reasons, we are working together, show some respect. Point out my mistakes directly, unblock me as I did nothing wrong Rudraaac (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Match articles and tournament articles are not the same, see 2026 FIFA World Cup final if you must, but it'll be the same as well. Vestrian24Bio 06:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

reason: I accept that I did some mistakes while doing some editing. It will not be done by me again. Unblock me now

Decline reason:

Badgering other editors about the block while simultaneously showing no awareness of the issue. I have broadened the block. Rudraaac, you're being disruptive. Please stop or you'll also lose talk page access. Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Rudraaac (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you make too many poor-quality appeals, you may lose access to your Talk page or your block may even be escalated. You need to read through the Guide to appealing blocks to understand what a good appeal looks like.

You need to show a full understanding of why your actions were disruptive and be able to explain how you will avoid doing the same thing if you are unblocked. This appeal does none of those things - if you don't understand what you did wrong, you'll just do it again. If you don't know what you should be doing instead, you'll never be able to edit Wikipedia properly.

You've only been partially blocked - you can still submit edit requests for experienced editors to review and make on your behalf. Once you've had a good number of requests accepted, you'll be in a much stronger position to appeal the block. I strongly urge you to delete your open (blue) appeal before it's declined, as I don't think it's likely to succeed right now.

Being very honest, admins could have fully blocked you but chose to give you a chance by making good-quality edit suggestions and building your way back to bring able to fully edit again.

If you wish to continue with appealing, you will need a much better appeal. Here are some things you'll need to address, you can reply to this comment with your responses as it'll be easier for you:

1. Which of your edits led to your block and what problems did they cause for other Wikipedia editors?
2. For each problematic edit, what will you do differently to make sure you don't end up in the same situation in the future?
3. Why do you need full access to edit Wikipedia articles directly instead of submitting edit requests?

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet

1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely.

2) and 3) I don't want to continue further editting, you can permanently close my account

Thank you for listening Rudraaac (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for coming back to me! Accounts can't be closed unfortunately, there's just no way to do it.

If you choose to return in future, please read up on the Standard offer - editing another Wikimedia project in the meantime can really improve the strength of any future block appeals, so if another project looks interesting to you then I encourage you to give it a shot.

I wish you all the best for the future. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Glad that someone tried to transparently listen to my points. I will think about what you said. Thank you once again Rudraaac (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help! Feel free to ping me if/when you decide to return, if you aren't sure how to go about appealing.

Some blocked editors choose to edit Simple English Wikipedia because it's so similar, just be aware that blocked editors on other projects are subject to a one-strike rule at Simple; they consider that you've already been warned, so be super careful if you choose to work over there. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I will note that demanding to be unblocked, while continuing to deny having done anything wrong and leaving what could be consdered personal attacks (What is wrong with you all), on the talk pages of admins who have declined your unblocks previously, is a bold strategy, Cotton. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I accept that I did some mistakes while editting. I am not trying to perform any personal attacks. I want to quit further editting. You can permanently close my account. Thank you Rudraaac (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger

Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Hope that someone will try to transparently listen to my points.

1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely.

2) I TRULY UNDERSTAND MY MISTAKE and hope I will be unblocked

3) I will do better edits next time, will not indulge into overexplaining short descriptions or adding extra points. I RESPECT all other editors and DO NOT WANT TO HURT anyone.

Thank you for listening

1) I over explained short descriptions and used flags which were not necessary. These things make an article more complex to read.

2) As per the policies, short descriptions are meant to be short, I will follow these. And as per the policy of using flags in infoboxes, these will only be used when referring to sports like football and the Olympics, not anywhere else, I will follow these Rudraaac (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Rudraaac (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I have understood my mistakes and assure you that it will not be done again. I have submitted an unblock request. Please unblock me now. Thank you. Rudraaac (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping people. As @Blue Sonnet advised you, your request is in the queue. It is important to you, but it is no more important than any other pending request.

FWIW, I would advocate against accepting as this behavior since the block is the same underlying issue that led to the block. Inability to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 17:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to give them too much guidance (which is why I've stopped asking further questions), but I was really hoping for more of a focus on their behaviour - especially post TBAN - since that's what concerned me the most.

Editors can learn how to edit properly, but collaboration and civility is much harder if it's something they've had difficulty with in the past. It takes a lot of self-reflection and introspection to get there, starting with gaining an understanding of why it happened in the first place, learning your triggers and putting steps in place to avoid it happening again. I don't think we're there yet. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Yeah, I accept to hear others and do it collaborately Rudraaac (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I've asked you not to ping and your response is.. to ping. This is exactly the broader issues @Rudraaac. I am not declining the unblock and while I think TP should be removed, not removing it allows you to continue showing you are unable or unwilling to take on any feedback you've received. Final warning, you are being disruptive. Please stop Star Mississippi 18:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know what is meant by pinging, this time replying to let you know Rudraaac (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You can write people's names down in plain text, but don't link to them or @ them, ok? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know what is meant by pinging. Thank you for explaining Rudraaac (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Hope that someone will try to transparently listen to my points.

1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely.

2) I TRULY UNDERSTAND MY MISTAKE and hope I will be unblocked

3) I will do better edits next time, will not indulge into overexplaining short descriptions or adding extra points. I RESPECT all other editors and DO NOT WANT TO HURT anyone.

Thank you for listening

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Hope that someone will try to transparently listen to my points. 1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely. 2) I TRULY UNDERSTAND MY MISTAKE and hope I will be unblocked 3) I will do better edits next time, will not indulge into overexplaining short descriptions or adding extra points. I RESPECT all other editors and DO NOT WANT TO HURT anyone. Thank you for listening |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Hope that someone will try to transparently listen to my points. 1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely. 2) I TRULY UNDERSTAND MY MISTAKE and hope I will be unblocked 3) I will do better edits next time, will not indulge into overexplaining short descriptions or adding extra points. I RESPECT all other editors and DO NOT WANT TO HURT anyone. Thank you for listening |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Editting was one of my hobbies. You can go and check some of my edits I did, it really helped other readers. Unfortunately, I can do nothing about this matter. But, I can swear I did not want to disrupt any article nor did I want to personally attack any editor. Atleast, I myself know that I did not intensionally do anything wrong. Mistakes do happen. Hope that someone will try to transparently listen to my points. 1) I was editting some sports articles while thinking it might help the readers understand the articles better. The other editors thought that I was disrupting the articles which was not being done by me. I respect their decisions as they are doing their jobs wisely. 2) I TRULY UNDERSTAND MY MISTAKE and hope I will be unblocked 3) I will do better edits next time, will not indulge into overexplaining short descriptions or adding extra points. I RESPECT all other editors and DO NOT WANT TO HURT anyone. Thank you for listening |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Rudraaac (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that administrators won't unblock an account for the purposes of vanishing, Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and can only be done on accounts "in good standing", so removing a block to allow vanishing doesn't alter the underlying reason for the block, if that makes sense.

It also means that future appeals couldn't be considered because there's no account to link it to - which also means it could be possible for someone to "vanish" and reappear under a new account, they would then be incredibly hard to spot! The risk is just too high to allow that for any editor.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I have changed those requests Rudraaac (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Great! To help bolster your appeal, can you please reply to this post with your answers to some questions? Just a normal reply will be fine, you've kind of answered one already, but writing it out clearly will help a lot. Take your time to answer as best you can, look up dispute resolution processes and read up on the links in the block notices.

Blocks are preventative so administrators need to be reassured that the same thing won't happen again if you're unblocked, these questions can help you do that:

• Can you explain why your previous behaviour was disruptive? Which of your actions specifically led to your block? Why was that a problem?
• If you were unblocked and faced the same situation in future, what would you do differently? Try to refer to specific Wikipedia policies or processes and explain how you would use them.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet

1) I over explained short descriptions and used flags which were not necessary. These things make an article more complex to read.

2) As per the policies, short descriptions are meant to be short, I will follow these. And as per the policy of using flags in infoboxes, these will only be used when referring to sports like football and the Olympics, not anywhere else, I will follow these Rudraaac (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you also please take a look at this post and give your answer for that too? Since it started with a partial block and then escalated, it was in two "halves" so it's best to address everything. I've got work shortly (and some personal stuff later on) so haven't been able to look over your reply fully, but I'll do my best to check back in again after I've finished. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I gave my answers at that post also Rudraaac (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Hey! Have you seen my reply? Please unblock me if you can or ask an administrator to do so Rudraaac (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're in the queue for your case to be reviewed by an admin. They're also volunteers and there are a lot of cases at the moment so please bear with them, but this won't go anywhere until an admin has dealt with it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Thank you but how much time will it take? Rudraaac (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure, I know that cases should be closed after two weeks so it should be less than that. There's no set timeframe so all I can promise is that it will be dealt with asap.

I'm not an admin but I'll set myself a reminder to check in here regularly in case I can do anything to help. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)