User talk:Woxic1589

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok I get blocked for literally trying to to save a page from a user who keeps reverting back edits back to back without even using the talk page while I clearly asked for it. I understand it now, thanks. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahahaha, you can’t make this up. I get blocked but the user I reported doesn’t? Calling someone a Kurdish TikTok troll is acceptable now on Wikipedia? Reverting back edits of mine while I clearly asked the user to use the talk page gets me banned? Okay, I guess thats how Wikipedia works nowadays. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually read my comment at ANI correctly. Ectnoel1 was absolutely wrong to call you a Kurdish Tiktok vandal, and if you hadn't responded by calling them a pro-Assyrian vandal they would probably be blocked at the moment. You continued to edit war not once but twice against two different editors, after I had responded to your ANI thread to tell you in no uncertain terms that you and the other editor were both out of line and needed to stop edit warring immediately. Cool off, review the edit warring policy and come back when you're ready to follow them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I’m not planning to edit much more than this. Just trying to correct a page thats being misused by a group of users (possibly using multiple accounts considering another RV with the same reason). He also called someone else to be a sort of a tiktok troll here ^[1] but nothing seems to be have done to him since then. Not sure how Wikipedia is gonna stay a safe place when users are allowed to behave like that. Me calling the user a pro-Assyrian was wrong indeed but a response to their disruptive behavior against anything that seems to be ‘’Kurdish’’. Will wait till mine block is gone and use the talk page. But if the other user doesn’t respond again (on the article page) then I assume he will get blocked instead of me, right? Woxic1589 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to be entirely clear: nobody is blocked because of civility. Both of you were uncivil to each other. Both of you have been admonished for it. Blocks are preventitive, not punitive, and as you are both now aware (and, presumably, acknowledge) that you were uncivil to each other, and thus will presumably avoid doing so again in the future accordingly, there's nothing to prevent there. You're blocked because you edit-warred, and continued to edit-war, after being warned about edit-warring. If, following your block, you intiate a discussion, and the other editor doesn't respond and continues editing anyway, additional sanctions may then be considered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

While you two still keep telling me that, the same user is using a second account to revert back my edit again, see Termen28. Isn’t the use of multiple accounts considered disruptive behavior? ^[2] Why is he not getting blocked but I do? Woxic1589 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

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

asilvering (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezprocasnita; you can read through the prior cases to see why I think that this is not Etcnoel1. If you would like to request that your user talk page be protected from editing by IPs and accounts with less than autoconfirmed, I'd be willing to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think thats a good idea for now. Woxic1589 (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware that all articles related to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are subject to an extended confirmed restriction. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Bogazicili (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Your edits at First Zeitun Resistance here and here are in violation of the General Sanctions on this topic area. Specifically, politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.. As this topic involves a conflict between Armenians and the Ottoman Empire, this falls under the extended confirmed restriction, and your account is not extended confirmed. Continuing to edit in this topic area without being extended confirmed will result in your account being blocked from editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, didn’t know that. Especially considering the fact that both were minor edits/corrections, I will leave editing those pages for now then. Woxic1589 (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:Woxic1589. Regarding the content dispute on the Russo-Crimean Wars article, you may find the Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution pages helpful. Kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about a asking a third editor for support because we clearly can’t get a agreement and understand each other. Thanks. Woxic1589 (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. You currently are edit warring. And your RfC was not phrased neutrally nor asked a question. It also escalated the process. See Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE and Wikipedia:RFCNEUTRAL.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Umh no I’m currently not edit warring. I’m literally trying to reach an consensus on the Talk:Russo-Crimean Wars page as the editor, User:Skibidi36, who removed all the content I added twice, is not responding anymore. So I opened a RfC. In case its not neutral, I will try to make it more neutral then. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You edit warred two days ago, which is recent enough for it to be considered current, if you continue. I appreciate that you have paused revising and reverting and instead are trying to reach a consensus on the talk page.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I just wait and see what opinions other editors have. I have no interest to get banned due to a edit war with a user who’s not even responding anymore on the talk page. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is pursuant to resolving user conduct disputes.

I have concerns that you keep removing content in the lead of Istanbul . This was also discussed in Talk:Istanbul#Istanbul_vulnerable_to_earthquakes

One of your reasons for removing content in the lead seems to be "Its already fully writing down below at the Geography and environment section"

See WP:LEAD: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic

The fact that something is repeated in the body of the article is not reason enough to delete something from the lead.

Also see WP:WEIGHT, WP:Proportion and MOS:LEADREL

As I mentioned in the article talk page, if you have a valid reason per WP:PAGs, you can remove the material. But "Its already fully writing down below at the Geography and environment section" is not a valid reason. You can also try WP:DR Bogazicili (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Woxic1589! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Fall of Constantinople several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Fall of Constantinople, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I asked User:Beshogur to do so, bu he just ignores it and removed the content again by claiming that no one cares about it. and It was there for like years long and he just removes it without having discussed anything. He’s the one who started removing content to begin with. How is that even allowed when not having reached consensus nor asked anything on the Talk Page? Woxic1589 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if you got a warning because of me. But that's pretty wrong. Why do we need a consensus? It's pretty much anachronistic to talk about these in an article that's only about the conquest. The article doesn't even mention them. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, thus making it irrelevant. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Jcgaylor (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bestiality with a donkey, you may be blocked from editing. Kaotao (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I already opened a talk page section. You can go reply there instead of my own talk

page. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I would advise you to rather leave this message on your own talk page, considering you are just openly ignoring parts of my comments on the talk page of FIVB Volleyball Men's World Cup. You also removed, earlier, lots of content that should have never been removed to begin with. Woxic1589 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2023 FIVB Volleyball Women's Olympic Qualification Tournaments shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 18:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I already used the talk page on that article, yet the user who reverted back my edit didn’t mention nor react with anything there. I don’t think that I’m doing anything wrong there to begin with when I already explained the content I added back (it was wrongly removed at first). Woxic1589 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Alsp note: the other user removed the content earlier as well, with no explanation/reason at his edit summary: . I would appreciate it if you could restore it, without me causing a new edit war. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Woxic1589. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I want to explain faults in your arguments. First of all, you cannot list him as KIA if you have behind his name two linked sources that discuss him being missing, not killed, including one academic source. You need to first remove those sources - what itself need explenation. Second, this is what you wrote: "See Battle of Varna: ‘’where Władysław was reportedly killed [it is ME who added word 'reportedly' on the bases of source by Jaczynowski - specifically to point out that his fate remained presumed, not confirmed] in a heroic cavalry charge against the Sultan’’, most sources point out that the Polish king was declared dead during the battle. Wheter his body remained missing is a different story. The fact is that he likely was killed during the final phase of the battle."
Being 'likely killed' is exactly what consitues person being MIA. Per wikipedia definition: "Missing in action (MIA) is a casualty classification assigned to combatants, military chaplains, combat medics, and prisoners of war who are reported missing during wartime or ceasefire. They may have been killed, wounded, captured, executed, or deserted. If deceased, neither their remains nor their grave have been positively identified." - This is exactly what happened to Władysław III; his remains nor grave was identified, regardless if he died on battle, was executed in captivity or escaped.
"Most sources used on this page give different stories on how he was possibly killed, and during which phase of the battle. If most sources claim that he was ‘’killed’’ during battle, then there is no reason to add him as a ‘’missing in action’’ person. Him being killed caused him to be a ‘’missing in action’’ person as his body was never found."
- If he was not confirmed to be killed, you cannot claim he was killed. Anyone who does, makes factual mistake. Stating any disputing thing as fact is mistake. As analogy, you have historical figures of disputed parentage, like Tutankhamun. Many books him son of Akhenaten - but it is factual mistake. Akhenaten was not confirmed to be his father, as some sources stating this as fact doesn't mean he was, it just means authors of those poistion believed this to be most likely option. In extensive study on Tutankhamun's parentage you can find informations that Akhenaten, why likely, is not at all confirmed to be a father. Authors who casually states Władysław III 'died in battle' does not make it true, it's them stating theory they believe to be most likely. Extensive articles on topic - like the one by Jaczynowski - dwelve in more depth in subject.
This source that was used in article before and which I myself added to infobox >>> Jaczynowski, Lech (2017). Supposed Gravesites of Władysław III of Varna (PDF). Wydawnictwo im. Stanisława Podobińskiego Akademii im. Jana Długosza. p. 188. ISBN 9788374555265. Retrieved 21 December 2017.</ref>
It discusses extensively primary sources about fate of Władysław, and recognizes there is many doubts. Even if his death on battlefield is most likely, fact remains that his remains were not found. There is possibility mentioned in article by Janczykowski that Władysław was taken captive and executed (which would mean he was not KIA, as his death would happened outside of battlefield) or that he survived altogether and opted not to return to his subjects. My goal is not to claim his survival. My goal to is to be accurate - and accurate fact is that what happened of Władysław III during battle is unknown. Even if he died on battlefield, the absence of his remains still renders him MIA, as MIA include people who died on battlefield but were not found, people executed in captivity and people who deserted: each of those things could be fate of Władysław III. Fact is that he disappeared during battle and his body was not found. Him not returning is why most historians assume he died, but this is assumption, and not undisputed fact. Sobek2000 (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are trying to tell me here, but my point is that this goes for many other battle pages as well. Many who didn’t return from the battle, or who were never seen again, were considered to be ‘’killed in combat’’ (see Siege of Constantinople, the last Byzantine Emperor). There were no eyewitnesses who saw the body of the last Emperor, yet he’s considered to have fell in combat. Thats what I was trying to explain there, at the Battle of Varna, as well. But I don’t really care that much how it gets called now. I just thought that that is a more accurate description in the infobox. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think that many people described as KIA, should in fact labelled be MIA. Anyway, I don't know detail of last Byzantine emperor's last recorded moments, but in case of Władysław claims of his survival and speculations have continued past battle and to this day, and even if those are only speculations I think it's enough to label his death date as 'disputed'. And since it is disupted, then it's more correct to label him MIA, rather than KIA. Sobek2000 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Woxic1589,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

happy new year!! Ahmed1674 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New year! Woxic1589 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

hey! İt's a short word for holy Roman empire, just saying :) Ahmed1674 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I understood that. But I think it is unnecessary to add that next to the full name. My question was actually about the question mark (?) and why it was placed there. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

i generally don't know too. İ know the HRE stopped paying tribute after the long Turkish war. i might have place it since it there, but I really don't remember. Also HRE i putted it there since some people might be lazy, to type the full name. I'm one of them at the moment lol Ahmed1674 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the ping didn’t work - just letting you know there’s a discussion at Talk:Battle of Manzikert. Sulaimanl (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

if you edit again the page in 1638 ottoman expedition against Kelmendi you will get blocked because we showed the sources that it was albanian victory in the page of the frenhc historian which is 129-131 Karderri Qtu (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure that you are the exact same sockpuppet account, again. Good luck with that. Woxic1589 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 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).

Woxic1589 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello there, I’m appealing for a unblock. This is just unbelievable and sad. My 1 year long hard work on this site is sadly being punished with a block due to a long, ongoing SPI launched against me by a user who literally showed disruptive behavior against me (see SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gala19000). I have just been blocked because of ‘’behavioural evidence is compelling’’ and being a ‘’suspected sockpuppet account’’. But how? Because I used some similar wording, and edited pages that were sock edited several years ago? Not even my edit numbers, summaries nor most edited pages match with the socks, yet I’m being accused of being their sock because I edited previously sock edited pages. Do I need to prove with my IP address, or IRL identification, that I’m not a sock of any of those accounts? If possible, I’m willing to verify/identify myself with any sort of a way (even outside of Wikipedia, if even possible). How am I being punished as a sock of an account I didn’t even know about? How easy is it to lose all of your hard work to improve Wikipedia, like this? I never knew it was this easy to get a indefinite block on Wikipedia. I’m just shocked. Surely a second or deeper investigation could be launched to prevent this from happening. I have been working almost daily to improve dozens of Wikipedia pages and to prevent daily vandalism, disruptions, grammar improvements etc. And now I’m blocked for something I can’t even do anything about? I have never felt so helpless as right now as I can’t do anything right now other than this request, knowing I’m not a sockpuppet. I’m literally not the person or related to whoever is behind those other sockpuppet accounts (see SPI above). Like what else do I even need to say here? If this request is not enough or convincing, I’m willing to take a (legal) step further to prove my innocence. My only goal on Wikipedia is to help it to improve and help other users with questions at the talk pages. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully a admin can help me with this case and review my request. And if all of this won’t help me, I would very much appreciate it to know if I have any other steps I can take for this case. Sincerely, Woxic1589 Woxic1589 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this request, as you have made a legal threat, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. We cannot stop you from taking legal action, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor can you edit if you have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country using its legal system or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both at the same time. As for what you can do, you can explain why your editing pattern matches the other account; you can also agree to completely abandon efforts to edit in the relevant topic areas(though it doesn't sound like you want to do that). 331dot (talk) 09:41, 13 February 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.

331dot Thats not what I meant to say with ‘’ I’m willing to take a (legal) step further to prove my innocence.’’. I meant in a legal way to prove I’m not a sock puppet for Wikipedia, so in accordance with the privacy rules of Wikipedia (how else can I verify myself to Wikipedia etc). I wasn’t taking you to court (didn’t even know thats possible). Wheter my editing pattern matches some of the sockpuppet accounts is nothing I could have done about nor did I do it willingly. For example, at the page of Operation Spring Shield, I went back to the edit history to add back some removed information from the infobox. As far as I know, goodwill edits, even if originating from sockpuppet accounts, should not always immediately deleted. But if abandoning this way of editing is the only way to get back, then I’m willing to do so. I’m just a Wikipedia editor with 1 year of edit experience and have no bad intentions at all. Woxic1589 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: the admin, who blocked me, now updated his block reason with the following: ‘’FWIW CU data is consistent with this account coming from same location as previous ones.’’ - So I live in the same region or country with the previously blocked sockpuppets from years ago? (I currently live in the Netherlands, a pretty small country, if that says or means anything) So I think I can forget about a unblock now? This is pretty much insane to me. Never experienced something as like this in my entire internet life. Like my IP, identity, e-mail etc can’t be the same as that sock from years ago, right? How can I prove that I’m not a sockpuppet of any of those accounts I’m being accused of? Like what am I supposed to do? Can a admin please help me? Woxic1589 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Then apologies for my misunderstanding regarding the legal comment. You may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I just did. But whilst I’m wrongfully banned and waiting right now, this user called Mr.User200 is just removing every single goodwill edit of mine, see here: , ,, , , , . I first get wrongfully banned, and now the same editor who accused me with these sockpuppet allegations is removing every single edits of mine? Even fully sourced, explained, goodwill ones? Surely this isn’t normal? I literally was right earlier as well. He wanted me to get banned so that he can keep those pages as he wants to. He doesn’t want any ‘’Turkish sourced’’ information on any of those pages. This is just disruption at its highest levels. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, just look at this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Spring_Shield&curid=63252002&diff=1338366030&oldid=1328963991 . He just falsely places ‘’update’’ at his edit summary and removes fuly sourced information. Surely this isn’t how Wikipedia works, right? Woxic1589 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I will respond because I have been named and tagged. Instead of accepting your fault on using multiple accounts and editing disruptively the same controvertial topics, you keep accusing other users of wrongdoing. Also despite being banned, you use your talk page space for canvassing (WP:CANVASS) instead of acepting your fault and moving on.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not accepting anything here because I know that I am not a sockpuppet, which is why I mentioned this as prove to my earlier claim about you wanting me to get blocked so that you could revert back fully sourced information, as you simply don’t want any of those pages to get edited. I will remove the tag of the other editor from my reply. But not because of you, but due to respect to the Wikipedia rules. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

And yep, he just continues doing the same thing over and over again: . Getting a user blocked with false sockpuppet accusations and then continuing with disruptive editing/reverting goodwill edits. Just unbelievable. Woxic1589 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. Under WP:EVASION, any editor in good standing may revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block. Another editor in good standing may choose then to restore those edits, but those edits then becomes their responsibility, as if they made them themself. That editor may not, however, restore those edits on behalf of the banned/blocked editor, as that is considered WP:PROXYING and could lead to them being blocked as well.

In any event, your talk page access only remains solely so you can constructively discuss your block. Straying into arguing about whether certain edits should be kept or not runs you the risk of having your talk page access revoked, and I'd advise you to avoid that; it makes getting unblocked that much more difficult. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I first get blocked because for being a suspected ‘’sockpuppet’’ (already requested a second unblock request as I know that I am not), and now my goodwill edits are being removed as well? I would assume that that would mean that 1,900+ edits of mine would have to get removed now from hundreds of pages? Go ahead then, if that somehow makes Wikipedia a better place. I understand that Wikipedia has its strict rules, but how is this logical? I will only respect the rules here, so I removed that other editor tag. I requested a second unblock, and if thats not being accepted either, then there is no point in staying here anyway, so I won’t continue. Because apparently certain users seems to get their way by getting a 1 years old user blocked with false accusations, for simply having a few wording similarities at some edit summaries and edited pages. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No, they don't have be removed, but any good faith editor can make the choice to do so. Unfortunately, I cannot do anything about the rest, but I did want to clarify what the rules are here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Woxic1589 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

This is my third unblock request. Omg… I’m not a sockpuppet! How do a few edit summary wording/grammar similarities make me a sockpuppet! I literally have 1,800+ edits on hundreds of pages. Just because I added some content back makes me a sockpuppet of them? I have asked for any other way to verify myself to Wikipedia, yet nothing. No answer to any of my requests and questions. I’m just being blocked because a disruptive user wanted me to get blocked so that he could revert back a dozens of my sourced (see above the earlier unblock requests), well explained edits. How is a site like Wikipedia being misused like this? Is any of this normal? How is being blocked like this after 1 year of hard work considered to be normal here? What else can I do to prove that I’m not a sockpuppet??? How is a similar edit summary like ‘’add source’’ compelling when multiple other users have used the exact same language as well?

‘’ I also note that, even if this were to be demonstrated to not have been sockpuppetry, this is a transparently misleading edit without justification, which is a serious concern in a contentious topic‘’, because I forgot to add a edit summary? Are you serious? The person who reported me at the SPI page literally never used the edit summary to begin with!

If I was a sockpuppet I would have made a new account weeks ago and continued editing. This is just completely unbelievable. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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=This is my third unblock request. Omg… I’m not a sockpuppet! How do a few edit summary wording/grammar similarities make me a sockpuppet! I literally have 1,800+ edits on hundreds of pages. Just because I added some content back makes me a sockpuppet of them? I have asked for any other way to verify myself to Wikipedia, yet nothing. No answer to any of my requests and questions. I’m just being blocked because a disruptive user wanted me to get blocked so that he could revert back a dozens of my sourced (see above the earlier unblock requests), well explained edits. How is a site like Wikipedia being misused like this? Is any of this normal? How is being blocked like this after 1 year of hard work considered to be normal here? What else can I do to prove that I’m not a sockpuppet??? How is a similar edit summary like ‘’add source’’ compelling when multiple other users have used the exact same language as well? ‘’ I also note that, even if this were to be demonstrated to not have been sockpuppetry, this is a transparently misleading edit without justification, which is a serious concern in a contentious topic‘’, because I forgot to add a edit summary? Are you serious? The person who reported me at the SPI page literally never used the edit summary to begin with! If I was a sockpuppet I would have made a new account weeks ago and continued editing. This is just completely unbelievable. [[User:Woxic1589|Woxic1589]] ([[User talk:Woxic1589#top|talk]]) 18:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |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=This is my third unblock request. Omg… I’m not a sockpuppet! How do a few edit summary wording/grammar similarities make me a sockpuppet! I literally have 1,800+ edits on hundreds of pages. Just because I added some content back makes me a sockpuppet of them? I have asked for any other way to verify myself to Wikipedia, yet nothing. No answer to any of my requests and questions. I’m just being blocked because a disruptive user wanted me to get blocked so that he could revert back a dozens of my sourced (see above the earlier unblock requests), well explained edits. How is a site like Wikipedia being misused like this? Is any of this normal? How is being blocked like this after 1 year of hard work considered to be normal here? What else can I do to prove that I’m not a sockpuppet??? How is a similar edit summary like ‘’add source’’ compelling when multiple other users have used the exact same language as well? ‘’ I also note that, even if this were to be demonstrated to not have been sockpuppetry, this is a transparently misleading edit without justification, which is a serious concern in a contentious topic‘’, because I forgot to add a edit summary? Are you serious? The person who reported me at the SPI page literally never used the edit summary to begin with! If I was a sockpuppet I would have made a new account weeks ago and continued editing. This is just completely unbelievable. [[User:Woxic1589|Woxic1589]] ([[User talk:Woxic1589#top|talk]]) 18:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |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=This is my third unblock request. Omg… I’m not a sockpuppet! How do a few edit summary wording/grammar similarities make me a sockpuppet! I literally have 1,800+ edits on hundreds of pages. Just because I added some content back makes me a sockpuppet of them? I have asked for any other way to verify myself to Wikipedia, yet nothing. No answer to any of my requests and questions. I’m just being blocked because a disruptive user wanted me to get blocked so that he could revert back a dozens of my sourced (see above the earlier unblock requests), well explained edits. How is a site like Wikipedia being misused like this? Is any of this normal? How is being blocked like this after 1 year of hard work considered to be normal here? What else can I do to prove that I’m not a sockpuppet??? How is a similar edit summary like ‘’add source’’ compelling when multiple other users have used the exact same language as well? ‘’ I also note that, even if this were to be demonstrated to not have been sockpuppetry, this is a transparently misleading edit without justification, which is a serious concern in a contentious topic‘’, because I forgot to add a edit summary? Are you serious? The person who reported me at the SPI page literally never used the edit summary to begin with! If I was a sockpuppet I would have made a new account weeks ago and continued editing. This is just completely unbelievable. [[User:Woxic1589|Woxic1589]] ([[User talk:Woxic1589#top|talk]]) 18:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Woxic1589 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)