User talk:GLORIARUSSIYA

July 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. R0paire 18:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

so instead of allowing for unbiased information to be disseminated, you just are the arbiter assigned by Wikipedia as to determine which edits are "disruptive"? I would consider the propagation of Ukrainian and other Pro-NATO propaganda to be far more "disruptive" than providing an unbiased prospective that would generate more donations from individuals especially concerned given the recent attacks on Freedom of Speech in America for example? Just a matter of attention to you to ensure you are actually enforcing the proper actions... GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:policies. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you commit to a factual basis when conducting journalism. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not journalism. And please be constructive instead of promoting your viewpoint. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Then say you think Wikipedia is a joke and simply move on with your life? GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, either. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting the idea that someone is making any of those claims, but okay!

~~it appears that as long as you have 500 edits, you can make as many controversial edits as you want!~~ GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The only thing you need to have is Reliable Sourced material - do not put your own two cents (or rubles) into the equation - your POV is less than useless to Wikipedia. We use Reliable Sources to improve the articles. Also, verifiability is above "truth" ... -HammerFilmFan ~2026-40913-29 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, GLORIARUSSIYA, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

this makes it even harder to make constructive edits when you remove what little privileges I had to begin with GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Time of Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives during the Second World War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. R0paire 18:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

keeping the sentence as it stands is also a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as you will soon find out. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. ~HammerFilmFan ~2026-20513-58 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

you are incorrect, I'm glad we agree on something for once. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War

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 the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Additionally, the following restriction(s) apply to this topic area: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. 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.

nil ^nz 04:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

For just one example, On "War in Donbas", it says that the current status of the conflict is a stalemate, however Russia controls much more than 50% of the Donbas. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for for repeat violations of the WP:ECR restriction which applies to Russo-Ukrainian War topics as well as WP:LOUTSOCKing in this topic area, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

WP:RUSUKR is under extended confirmed restrictions. Editors who are not extended confirmed are allowed to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. The posts by this account and the TA that is blatantly this account logged out are not that. When this block expires please edit only from this account when logged in, and only in other topic areas until you are extended confirmed. Note also that calling for editors who report your policy violations to be banned is inadvisable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are going to ignore everything I posted? I request another review by another Administrator because I cannot be banned simply because you believe I am pro-Russia, as that is against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Policy. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't violate any policy, and as I have already stated, the user that opened the WP:LOUTSOCKing claim did so AFTER I requested an unrelated investigation, which as I understood to be a violation of policy to which you have not responded to whatsoever. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

so it would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_NZ 's misunderstanding, not mine. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:SEEKHELP

WP:SEEKINPUT

Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests

If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from interested editors uninvolved in the discussion, to build consensus for your changes. Several venues are available, listed below, to find editors who may be able to assist. But be mindful that after a couple of editors decline to provide input, you may want to consider going to the next step or disengaging altogether. This is because if you keep seeking input, it may look to others like you are disruptive editing or forum shopping.

Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate. However, discussion can still proceed—and consensus may be reached—without the input of a non-participating editor. Also, administrators and the community may take into consideration the degree and nature of an editor's participation in dispute resolution when deciding if an editor's activities have been productive. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

in the alternative, I requested another Administrator because blocking me for two weeks for merely posting the FACT "For just one example, On "War in Donbas", it says that the current status of the conflict is a stalemate, however Russia controls much more than 50% of the Donbas." and also because you may be acting out of the belief I am only pro-Russian, that would be against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Policy. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

any Homo sapien with a cerebral connection would be able to notice the following comment:

"Yes I edited my own comment, something needs to be done about the obviously Pro-Ukrainian bias as this violates the "neutral point of view policy". Therefore, I petition further that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R0paire-wiki be banned for violation of this policy and reverting my own edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbas done on my behalf by ~2026-16974-91 without permission or discussion from me. Further, this creates an environment of attack which it says should not be propagated by users.

Further, I suggest that a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry" investigation be done into some of the accounts listed above and review their edits; besides this discussion and this edit I have not utilized multiple accounts as it should not be done unless absolutely necessary according to Wikipedia's policies. Nevertheless, an unnecessary ban by rogue moderators or otherwise would certainly fall in this category. However, coordination of edits and suppression of others' ideas by multiple accounts IS a violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, it is my opinion that an investigation needs to be conducted to review possible further potential violations to these aims. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)"

which was posted wayyy before the following comment:

"The TA is currently blocked as an AE action for violating ECR in RUS-UKR topic area. Based on their edits, its obvious that GLORIARUSSIYA has been using the TA to LOUTSOCK, and is now logged back in to bypass the TAs block. See [9][10][11], in which GR swaps between accounts, and see also the replies on behalf of the TA on their talk page [12][13]. nil nz 05:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)"

At which point will you realize you are only creating more work for yourselves? GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

a request to open an investigation has been open for almost 8 hours and they have been allowed to continue unenforced... while I am needlessly blocked GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Ridiculous

sounds like a Ukrainian duck quacking into a megaphone to me. "Wikipedia is not a forum where people are free to post their thoughts—talk pages would soon look like Twitter if that were allowed. Article talk pages are to discuss actionable changes to content. They are not a place to express dissatisfaction. If there is some wording in the article that you believe should be changed, explain what. I don't see "subsumption" in this article or its recent history—you might be referring to War in Donbas which should be discussed on its talk page." that was the article I was quoting, which is why the two articles need to be merged into one new article...

"GLORIARUSSIYA is also not extended confirmed and is also not allowed to edit the WP:RUSUKR topic area - note that both the named account and the TA have gone well beyond constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area in their talk page comments. User(s) blocked: GLORIARUSSIYA (talk · contribs). for the same time period as the TA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)" GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

this is ridiculous, how many admins do i need to contact? GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

my mentor is away on vacation and i can't contact the new one because some genius rogue mods blocked me GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions in the block notice to make an unblock request. You need to write a statement for community consideration that either explains why the block is in error, or that explains you understand the reason for the block and will not repeat it. It's plainly clear you violated the restrictions, so for the block to be removed early the only way forward is likely to convince us you will not further edit in the topic area. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  331dot (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you disregarded my instructions and are disruptively clicking "reply" and making help tags, I have removed access. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 11:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't attack, please do not mischaracterize my posts as 331dot and others have already done. I was merely replying to an ad hominem by a disruptive wiki editor. (do your job) GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

so you're just going to continue to ignore the disruptive posts I presume, but anytime I make a post grounded in fact it is a "contentious topic" and grounds to be blocked. In the alternative, ... (do your job) GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You did attack, and your other posts are belligerent too. Knock it off or you'll find yourself blocked again. — Czello ^(music) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for discussing your blocks, but how to improve the article. Also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You might also need to read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continuing to violate WP:ECR around the Russo-Ukrainian War, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

331dot (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."