User talk:83.142.111.82

AfC help desk advice

Hi! Thanks a lot for helping out at the AfC help desk! However, some of your explanations might be a little bit difficult to parse, or sometimes not always ideal. For instance, this comment might not really help the person understand which criteria were the issue, or what they should do to fix them – and add such one's evidences if available is not a very clear wording. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Chaotic Enby! Thanks for your reply. So you mean I have to be much more detailed and not just noting what editor probably didn't see obvious at decline box? I just trying to be as short as possible as sometimes editors aggro to my detailed review. So do you suggest I have not to limit my attitude to express myself there? :) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe try to explain yourself more clearly? Some of your sentences might not be the easiest to read. And yes, there's a balance to strike between vagueness and unnecessary detail, even if it's not the easiest to reach. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. I'll try to make my english not so poor and follow the balance :) Thank you 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What a nonsense reason of "blocked proxy" provided as it was not a proxy ever. Block is obviously, as I suppose, unreasonable WP:NOPUNISH for my nomination for a quick deletion of 2021 Ligier European Series 2020 Ligier European Series 2022 Ligier European Series 2023 Ligier European Series 2024 Ligier European Series that blocker declined ignoring WP:CSD#Procedure for administrators by not notifying me about quick deletion decline reason. Block obviously, as I suppose, done to just avoid further review of deletion request reasons confidence of exclusively primary sourced articles about seasons (that way not WP:NOTABLE) of the event that even have no article (probably because of not notable). As how no way sourced with WP:RS yearly seasons of not notable event can be notable? Please unblock me as block despite noting a false reason is in fact unreasonable. UPD. Block also a clear WP:BLOCKNO violation. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2025 (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.

83.142.111.82 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! As a guidance, it is best not to try to guess secret intentions behind your block in your unblock request. Maybe your IP was incorrectly flagged as a proxy, and technical errors do happen, but going on a tirade about how you know the blocking admin's secret motivations to silence you will not be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, noting that significance (the criterion for CSD A7) is much lower than notability (the criterion to keep an article at AfD). Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance can be helpful here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but that happened with 2 minutes difference so it's hardly just a guess and I prefer to think that exactly was a real block reason. Also I have only one field to fill the unblock reason so don't think it's enough to tell just "I'm not a proxy!" there.

I understand I could make a mistake at the qd criteria (despite I read whole the WP:SPEEDY before doing it and found it appropriate), but how can I guess it (again returning to your advice about "not to guess" and rule telling to notify the qd-nominator, who is me, about qd decline reason, that was not done ever)

Anyway, thanks (again) for your advice. Hope everything will be resolved soon. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @83.142.111.82, I just wanted to add that proxy checkers can be a little unreliable sometimes - it's possible that there's been a lot of abuse from someone who uses proxies to get away with vandalism & all sorts (there have been death threats recently). Admins have so much to do as volunteers, and have to put up with so much vitriol every day that I think we should do what we can to lessen it, or at least not add more to the pile.

Honestly - it's most likely that the admin did a random check when they came across your edit and it came up positive (perhaps incorrectly, I'm not good at proxies but the checkers can be unreliable sometimes).

Wikipedia thrives on assuming good faith - mainly because this is the internet and Wikipedia would devolve into an absolute mess if we didn't! It's a collaborative project so we need to try our best to work together.

Please try to assume something is a mistake or an error in the first instance, it's much better for your own wellbeing too. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

If anyone will review my contribution (s)he won't see there nor any conlicts nor questionable edits. What you are trying tell me is about I have to assume blocker good faith and not blaim him and assume he made it accidentally. However I would suggest you to read WP:BLOCKNO that blocker violated as blocked me in 2 minutes after, in fact, unreasonable cancelling of my contribution (that was his last contribution for today), that doesn't make me think as you suggest. I don't understand why when I don't allow myself to violate the rules, administrator make it with no doubt. If administrator is tired of his powers, he can always refuse them - as you noted - this is a volunteer project. Fatigue is not a reason to harm editors without reason, especially with advanced powers administrators have.

As of proxy checkers and "coincidences"... I even don't have real IP address and firewalled behind ISP - what exactly can those check? As you can see I never had nor local nor global blocks - so what is that "coincidence" can be based on nothing? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

And, yep, hi ) Sorry for the late one. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey again, I didn't mean that it was accidental, more that they genuinely thought it was a proxy (which cause so many problems here). They came across you in the wild, ran a check, saw a positive result come up & wanted to err on the side of caution.

I think the reason for blocking was probably genuine, whether or not it was misinformed. I've seen them do great work with others every day and I genuinely don't think they're malicious or have any ill intent.

Like I said, I'm not great at proxies but I can't get any online checkers to say this is a proxy so it could be a glitch or iffy result. Another admin will take a look and see what they think, but if you go straight into attacking the blocking admin then it'll put a bad taste in their mouth - there's even a page explaining why it's a bad idea Wikipedia:NOTTHEM.

If it's a mistake then it'll be easy enough for them to fix. People and systems make mistakes sometimes, but what's important is how we deal with it. Any admin can undo any other admins block (within reason, of course!) so if someone else disagrees the block won't be here for long. Your request is on the list, which is where I found it, and it won't go until someone else has taken a look.

On top of that, each admin can only decline an unblock request once, to make sure that no single admin can abuse the process.

BTW Have you thought about making an account when things are fixed, it'll make it easier to resolve any future issues? Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Let's say I'm quite familiar with this area. And I know for sure that with the current network topology there are no proxies here, unless the provider itself provides such services, however this has literally (ok, let me add here "as I know") never happened from the time of it's (ISP) creation. I will not go into further detail about my confidence, but if I am wrong and he had good reasons to block me - I am ready to apologize for my accusations. But for that I must at least read his arguments, which are not there. Until then - I am more than confident in my words.

I agree that the rules are not made in vain. That's what I like here. But where is the guarantee that they will be followed? ;)

As of account creation - it looks I already answered here 83.142.111.82 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, we both answered at the same time! It's probably best we wait for @Bbb23's input if you want to know the exact reasoning - no-one else can really do that.

In the meantime, are you ok with what Significa liberdade has explained about how to deal with CSD's in future? Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

As of same time: In fact I searched what did you mean but didn't get it With whom did you answered simultaneously? ))

As of Bbb23:Yep, that's a good idea. I am ready to wait for his input.

As of more messages: It looks like I just don't have time eough to track new messages trying to read it from top to the bottom and answer with the same order. And, it looks like I really missed it thinking it was from Chaotic Enby who replied to it. Will read it right now! Thaтks for attracting attention! 83.142.111.82 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and, sure, hi (sorry, emotions) ))) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! As Chaotic Enby stated, assuming bad faith from the person who blocked you is not helpful. The A7 CSDs were declined because a claim to significance exists, even if they may not be notable. This is very different than me creating an article for my cat, for example, who has zero claim to significance.

Further, Administrators are not required to inform you that they have declined a CSD nomination, though it is good practice. I have personally had many CSDs declined without ever being informed of the decline.

Lastly, while it's highly unlikely that you were blocked because an administrator was frustrated with you (that would be an abuse of power), it is possible that they looked into your IP address because they you nominated multiple pages for speedy deletion. As an administrator, I can see basic information about IP editors, and according to the information available to me, "there is a proxy on this IP address", though "this does not mean that all traffic from this IP address belongs to this proxy network".

I will not respond to the unblock request at this moment as proxy blocks are outside my area of expertise. However, I will say that creating an account would be helpful to prevent issues like this moving forward. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also adding that the block is anon. only, account creation blocked, meaning that you should request an account through WP:ACC if you wish to do so. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I see, thank you for advice. But until I have to I don't want to. Anyway, only I like here - an assumption of the following the rules by everyone - prevents me to move out. SO I'll wait to know is it really followed by everyone or have to be followed only by mispowered and will make a further decisions. For my contribution I don't see much difference to do it registered or not and don't really understand what would be different (and why) while current situation (with rqd misunderstanding exactly) if I'd be registered except he could block my account and not ip same with false reason. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Proxy blocks apply to IPs, not to accounts. Regarding claims of a false reason, please look here for more information, and here if that is not enough.

The rules should indeed be followed by everyone, and, when mistakes happen (an admin mistaking your IP for a proxy), there's a way to solve it (creating an account, or politely informing the admin that there was a mistake without immediately jumping to the worst conclusions). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

As of WP:ASPERSIONS, there's clearly said "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion (not available as I'm blocked and his page is edit-protected) , or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page" (isn't the request unblock template is that exact place)?

As of WP:STICK, did he ever discussed with me or gave me a chance? Isn't now not the end of discussion but the step of WP:NEGOTIATE I in fact use while posting a template? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

An important point here is that concerns should be raised in a civil fashion. Immediately assuming that an administrator is punishing you is assuming bad faith on behalf of the admin in question, which does not constitute raising the concern in a civil manner. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't now not the end of discussion: I would say that it is – the fact is that multiple people have already told you to assume good faith, and, if you stop assuming that the admin deliberately blocked you for some shady untold reason, your unblock request might already be a lot more likely to succeed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade @Chaotic Enby, I

I think I already answered to both of your comments at the beginning here.

I'm sorry, but I just can't sincerely accept the requirement to assume a good faith of person who did a nasty stuff to me and gone to sleep (or wherever else) when that person didn't even try to do the same before doing that nasty stuff. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

After looking through your contributions, I want to note that after the speedy deletion nominations were declined, you resubmitted them for speedy deletion. This is considered disruptive editing. If you disagree with or do not understand the reason why an administrator declined deletion nomination, the best practice would be to contact the administrator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah we posted at the same time, thank you so much for looking into this! That explains how they came up on the radar.

@83.142.111.82 please be patient, I'm sure this will be sorted out. Just to check, are you 100% sure you aren't using a proxy/VPN etc? I can send you a guide that might help? Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet: In case you're curious, the tool I use is here. It uses Spur. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Yep, I'm totally sure. Nor proxy, nor VPN. I'm patient (convincing myself ;) ).

Yep, I'm curious. And I read it carefully up to legal information but all what I got it proposes the temporary accounts (do you mean you use it? what is the difference from ordinary one?) and some tool with a little blurry purpose that... will give me access to another temporary accounts IP information (so what a point?). 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Or do you mean that tool is one showing I'm proxy? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That tool is the one showing you're using a proxy. It's a beta add-on for available certain users. If you scroll down to the sections titled "What the feature looks like and who has access to it" and "Information available", you'll see the information people who have the tool can see. Information is sourced from Maxmind and Spur. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, Sooo, was that you under that acc? ))) Is it temporary?

Ok, thanks for the tip!) If I got right, that's some thing that saves my identity based on my device fingerprint to track down my activity and behaviour forever that is not much differ from what registered account do. Is it?

And, if my suggestion is right, yes, that will help wikimedia to differ my exact contribution from something unnatural from my IP that way making me "stand out from the crowd" of other contributions (if any) but what way will it help with, as I suggest< unreasonable blaming I'm an "open proxy"? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's been any temporary account used in this conversation. Me, Significa liberdade, Blue-Sonnet and Bbb23 are four different people. Regarding the IP tool, from what I understand, it only looks at the IP itself, and doesn't fingerprint your activity.

Noting that activity data on registered accounts isn't tracked down forever, but discarded after 90 days, and only accessible to a very small set of trusted users. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Specific types of activity which devices have engaged in or have been previously affiliated with, using this IP address. meant @here indirectly means it, also it is based on SPUR, where (by the link nearby the "greened" above text on the target location) exactly mentioned things' data set to be saved provided.

Hm, I didn't ever know there's no archives over 3 months. Thanks for clarification!

However you noting only about registered users but not unregistered ones that probably can have a wider timelapse. And issue for me it's just ostensibly another option of registration still doing the same tracking. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As of checkusers - I have seen some cases of abuse of rights ('an abuse of power" as you called it earlier) on their part, which have never been nor stopped nor even evaluated by anyone despite complaints up to m:Board. Taking in view their wide privileges that is not limited with i.e. only languaged wikipedia (as i.e. anyone local including administrators), but are global ones, that's still the issue for me as I have a reasonable doubt exactly all of them will follow the strict rules they have to follow with no exceptions (at least rules says so), and only one who won't can harm excessively. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Taking in view their wide privileges that is not limited with i.e. only languaged wikipedia (as i.e. anyone local including administrators), but are global ones. No, checkusers are local groups, and can only check the underlying IP used by an account on their local project. Complaints should go to ArbCom, which appoints checkusers – the WMF Board is an administrative entity and doesn't run local wikis.

Regarding unregistered users, their IP is by definition always visible to everyone, so I don't think it makes sense to talk about a timelapse there.

The IP Info tool you link is very different from the CheckUser tool. IP Info is global and much more widely available, although it is still being developed. Its access is legally regulated and its uses are logged, and reports of abuse should go to the WMF Trust & Safety or Ombuds (again, not to the Board, that's just not their purview). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain in detail:

1. I don't mean that exact wiki but some others.
2. arbcom was in the middle of one of the mentioned case I studied - they simply refused to review the checkuser's violations (and one of arbcom members, who most desired to still review such violations considering the accusations to be justified, was later indefinitely blocked (coincidence? ;))) )
3. While Russo-Ukrainian War goes on it's not a good idea to make me being any way tracked taking in view, let's say, my ip's location.

So such a tool is not an option for me.

Is it clear enough now?

Please focus most on here - I bet that's critical for unblock request (current or future) itself. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're concerned about your IP address being tracked, it would be better for you to have an account. At present, everyone can see your IP address. If you created an account, only certain people would be able to access information about your IP address and only under very specific circumstances (such as looking for block evasion). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I am, but not IP and device. Until I'm not registered or using that tool, as I know, set of data collected when I edit wikipedia is much less.

If under 'certain people' you mean checkusers please look here after "As of checkusers...". However that's not a matter taking in view curent post from beginning (I am convinced registered is being tracked same way as ip with a tool). 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that everyone in the world can track you and know your approximate location when you're editing with an IP address. By contrast, only very specific, verified users (check-users) can know your IP address when you're editing using an account. Is there specific information you're concerned about having tracked? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, they can see the IP and therefore can track down a location of it, I got it. But it hardly possible to track me down if I'll change the IP (yeah yeah you can track me by behaviour similarity, but registering won't help that any way )))

But when I'm tracked via device - that's much more dangerous as how many IP (including at different locations) I'd not change I'll be tracked. Even if I'm not editing the wikipedia but just read it.

As I already mentioned above - I am not confident about checkusers (I don't mean all of, but only such one acting out of strict rules will be enough for "unreverting" activity) based on some connected cases I researched. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And, yes, I really thought all CUs have global rights, but, as it looks like according Wikipedia:CheckUser it really differs. Though it looks like there's still such ones exists. But, yep, that quite another from what I thought earlier. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I also want to add that per WP:PROXY, individuals using a proxy may be blocked on sight without notice. If Bbb23 uses the same tool I use, they would have seen you're using a proxy. This is another reason to create an account: you're unlikely to be mistaken for just another IP vandal. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh. What a secret tool do you use that nor Bing (nothing found) nor google (2 links with trivial unrelated to proxy info found) show anything such one about my IP? I'd happy to download and look onto it. Or do you mean some kind of port scanner?

I already answered about registration. But thank you.

Also you use "If Bbb23". here is a good idea about it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

First time not nomination itself were declined but rollbacked whole my contribution to these articles including appropriate problems' templates and other stuff that I asked the rollbacker about you probably missed. As he didn't answer I made a WP:BOLD with appropriate comment. That was not a disruptive editing from my side but it's correction I hope you won't deny.

There was no any talk (even via omment) about my AFQD reasons' evaluation, so that couldn't be reason to block me. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I notice you repeatedly call it AFQD, but speedy deletion is not similar to AFD: if someone reviewing the tag disagrees with the speedy deletion criterion, they can remove it. The bar for speedy deletion (significance) is also much lower than notability.

While they should definitely have been more explicit and replied to you, someone disagreeing with your speedy deletion nomination is enough of a reason to not put it back. If it's even contested by one person, then speedy deletion is not appropriate, and it should go to a full AFD discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby: I noticed the references to AFQD as well and wondered if they were referring to "quick deletion" as it's called on Simple Wiki. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was thinking about too. Maybe other projects also call it "quick deletion" or their language equivalent, so I wasn't sure, and I can't check their global contributions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, in fact I really don't understand the difference between significance and notability. Testing my english knowledge I even used google translate to process your last 3 posts and realized even google translated with the same word. Despite I don't think my language is that poor to not have different words for shades of meaning of despite written different still synonymatic words, and taking in view

I presume here's some misunderstanding about what's the difference on global level (taking in view even gt thinks the same as me). So what is it (the difference)?

P.S. Both @Significa liberdade and you claim there's a "much difference". I really confused not understanding the one, despite I don't think I'm stupid.

P.P.S. Even WP:N uses it as synonymic (while searching through the page "signif" is meeting 21 times when "notab" - 120 times). Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT (that is the same as WP:GNG redirects to the same part of Wikipedia:Notability which (as I understand it) means the next:

1. That's clear synonyms.
2. Significance is no way more important for wikipedia (that way I agreed with you), but look onto #1.

83.142.111.82 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"Significance" as used in WP:N refers to "significant coverage", which isn't a guarantee of notability by itself. Significant coverage is an attribute of a source, while notability is an attribute of the topic as a whole. While the word is also used in WP:CSD#A7, it explicitly refers to a weaker definition, and links to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance which explains it in detail.

I'm a bit puzzled that WP:SIGNIFICANT redirects to WP:GNG, as it definitely has the potential to confuse reader, since we use the two terms in different ways. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby will start from the end:

'puzzled': ;))) That way you start to understand my point of view )

'significance': I don't quite understand the explanations for this criterion, exactly two last sentences there on of you mention:

1. when the claim of significance or importance is not credible, and any article with a patently false claim may be submitted for prompt removal as a hoax
2. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance...

However there's nowhere told what to do if there's no any such claim in the article so it's not clear is it applicable in such case or not and/or what exact CSD criteria is usable in that case. so I decided it as applicable.

To not puff the topic let's focus on separate example of it to understand what I mean.

What any claim of significance or importance do you see there exactly?

What exact CSD criteria or what exactly deletion request process I had to use when there's no any WP:SIGNIFICANCE in the article indicated as what I see there is clear WP:PROMOTION (many trivial information based on exclusively not only self-published but also primary sources with no any significance indicated) so have no any right to be published at wikipedia as WP:NOT claims?

@Significa liberdade Please join here also as declining the unblock request you noted I have to 'understand what you have been blocked for' I think I still not. But that's the way to make me understand it clearly. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As one as @Blue-Sonnet and @Bbb23 and anyone else are welcome. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What any claim of significance or importance do you see there exactly? I wasn't the one who declined it, so I don't know what their reasoning was, but the fact that multiple notable racing drivers took part in it on multiple notable circuits could be one. Again, significance is a very low bar, it's mostly there to avoid articles about random people/products that have zero chance of actually being notable.

What exact CSD criteria or what exactly deletion request process I had to use: if someone disagrees with you that there is no claim of significance, then it should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than CSD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who declined it, so I don't know what their reasoning was so How could I if that's the blocking issue? Is it the good idea to block me instead of at least letting me know what's wrong at my nomination if CSD A7 is no way clear about it (telling nor 'no' nor 'yes' to be appicable there)? Here's mostly about what was told above: Administrators are not required to inform you that they have declined a CSD nomination despite it's strongly recommended by both the rule and guideline ("2. Consider notifying the nominator,...)) that not talking would clearly follow the WP:EDITCONSENSUS also could avoid both CSD misunderstanding and block that way saving everyone's time and (at least mine) nerves and therefore still making wikipedia a better place for editors. But no, it've never happened (rhytoric:why?).

if someone disagrees... so did I something wrong to not follow that advice when only one who noticed (by both only deleting the qd nomination template itself and at least edit comment) he did not agree with nomination was blocker himself 2 minutes before blocking me on his own not even giving me a chance to nominate me the articles right way via WP:AfD(following your advice above)? Isn't Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith you tried to impose me regarding a blocker had to be applied on that exact step but vice versa? Why wasn't it and I still have to regarding person who ignored it but whose out of the rules activity you still defend?

. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Consider notifying the nominator does not mean that notifying the person who nominated the article is strongly recommended. Rather, the phrasing of "consider" means that the administrator should think about doing it because it'd be good practice to do, but they are not required by any means.

Regardless, you were not blocked after nominating the articles for speedy deletion the first time. Rather, your nomination for speedy deletion was declined, meaning that someone else thought there was a claim to significance--basically meaning it's possible that topic could meet notability guidelines. Concerns regarding promotional tone and inappropriate sourcing are separate issues that can be improved. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it's constantly in a state of improvement, and some articles need more work than others. In this case, after the speedy deletion nomination was declined, it would have been better to tag the article as needing improvement (such as adding {{primary sources}} or {{promo}}) or nominate the article for deletion via AFD after doing a WP:BEFORE search. Instead of doing either, however, you decided to re-nominate the article for deletion, which is disruptive and leans toward edit warring. You were then blocked because our on-wiki tool (Spur) shows that this IP address is associated with a proxy. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, hello again. I understood this from your first explanation. What I meant above is that in the current situation a turning point was the administrators' refusal to follow this "good practice" that further led to the current situation and it could have been avoided otherwise. That's not a blame but obvious (at least for me) Cause-effect relationship you don't want to admit.

It is also completely unclear why this ("Consider notifying the nominator...") is specified in the rule if no one follows it? Why not to delete it, if it is useless?

What you tell about "Rather.." etc. is in fact just repeating of what I claimed at request you denied accusing me what I wrote there "does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons".

So... Why if we both think the same (the real reason was my CSD nomination) you deny me to tell it but allow yourself. I'm sorry, but it really look ridiculous for me taking in view you insisted on avoiding by me such statements, because if it (what YOU already tell) were true my block was exactly WP:NOPUNISH and nothing more that is "an abuse of power" as you noted.

About improvement templates etc. - Why are you so selective in your observations? didn't I do it initially, but that was unreasonably rollbacked I already told you above?

AFD would be exactly next step right after I'd understand that was not some sort of WP:ROLLBACK agony and exactly only my nomination decline that I was preliminary asking about but that was never answered until now.

So where am I wrong you try to convince me so actively?

All later told above by you is just WP:ASPERSIONS based on your incomplete set of information perception I explained right above.

But what is interesting, based on your words, the exclusive reason for my blocking that only is indicated as "blocking proxy" is pre-released untested tool mistake of which you took it as truth that, again, looks ridiculous taking in view on so many rules mostly deny any automated activity. And you use it to silently decide the fates of innocent editors. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, @Chaotic Enby. As of AFQD. Do you mean you were trying to find my behavioral similarity based on that with someone who violated rules or do you suppose my bad English?

As you see I wasn't sure what to use to make to understand I mean WP:SPEEDY (I was also writing rq, rqd even while current conversation). Case is I so much used to use these cute abbreviatios (afc etc.) that all I got on my mind that is "request for a quick deletion" (why not? isn't template set means that exactly?). Partly it for sure conditioned not by simple english wiki, but with my own language where WP:SPEEDY is called exactly (if translated) as "quick deletion" and word "speedy" sounds some way weird (that I'm not used to) for me, despite I clearly understand it meaning based on translating of "speed", which still sound for me synonymatically.

Or do you mean creating the appropriate redirect (WP:AfQD or WP:RfQD etc., sad WP:QUICK is busy) is a good idea? I bet it really is. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As of AFQD. Do you mean you were trying to find my behavioral similarity based on that with someone who violated rules or do you suppose my bad English? Neither? Just wondering if you might have come here from Simple English Wikipedia which uses this wording, as the details of the speedy deletion process aren't exactly the same. No suspicions of you being anyone else here.

Here on en.wiki, "quick deletion" might just mean a deletion that takes place quickly (say, a WP:SNOW close), so using the specific term "speedy deletion" avoids ambiguity. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow I missed a lot today! Just finished work where I spent an hour arguing with a customer that "lost" isn't a synonym for "got very drunk and wandered off to throw up in a corner, leaving my bag filled with very expensive items completely unattended."

Am I right in thinking we've still got to address the proxy results to get the block lifted? Is the deletion also a concern or just being discussed? I think everyone has things well in hand but thought I'd check in anyway. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and use a WP:SNOW essay to deal with such a customers )))

However - better please don't - as that CAN (but not obliged to) be a some kind of synonymatic mean. Details are important (at least according to WP:BLP) )))

I would focus only on the fact that I am supposedly a proxy (only block reason provided), but thing is declining reason stating I have to do all next 3 things:

1. understand what I have been blocked for
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

that supposely mean I made something wrong content-related exactly and only I have in mind is that exact rfqd nomination.

So, now we roll ))) To know what exactly I missed or done wrong with articles content exactly. Any ideas? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And, sure, welcome back and hello @Blue-Sonnet ) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't come from here and didn't even edit it ever (in fact don't really understand a point of it's existence, is that some kind of artificial language like as esperanto? what countries does it used at?). So that's the one what can be called as clear coincidence :)

So many ambiguities I don't mind the difference between and perceive them as complete synonyms...

And we were told that our language is more complex than English ;) probably these are remnants of the previously imposed greatness ;)

about snow clause essay: but there's no any 'quick' word in the text but speedy (in fact "speedily deletion" - what a new weird phrase! )) ) deletion exactly ))) so... That's still exact synonyms? Or no? However it already out of current topic ) Thank you for making me smiling ))) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, if you prefer to use your native language, you are widely encouraged to contribute on its Wikipedia! Other language editions are independent of the English one, and you can find them at www.wikipedia.org. Quick links to the Ukrainian and Russian main pages, as you mentioned that region before. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I know both of it ) Thanks ) But it looks like there's everyone is too much affected by a war that makes following neutrality almost impossible and for sure causes unprovoked aggression. I doubt I like it. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Significa liberdade!

As of "faith":I partially changed the request, but how do you see it as more successful still saving a balance between claiming the absence of reasons to block me and not indicating the probable reasons for the erroneous blocking?

As of CSD:I think in full I already answered here

And I don't mind asking the reason if it didn't happen, but I can't do it when I'm blocked.

I don't know where you got your information about "there is a proxy on this IP address" but that's really surprising and very curious for me not talking covered by not a rule.

As of registration: I got it and I really appreciate your advice, but I already answered here 83.142.111.82 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade

Let me be clear about that exact WP:CSD#Procedure for administrators "Consider notifying" we are arguing about how to mean it as "requirement" or "strong recommendation" or "should think" or "good practice" etc. just in void.

As wikipedia history is eternal it's quite easy to track it's predecessor's evolution, but for most intrigue I'll start from now:

1. "If speedy deletion is inappropriate" part is being copied from WP:Deletion process#Speedy deletion for in fact for unknown reason (that way probably out of WP:CONSENSUS however WP:SNOW)
2. "Consider notifying" is being added to Wikipedia:Deletion process based on proposal to "Merge Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators into the current section" based on... no objections as one as only approvement, literally the next:
   • Well, it has been over a week with no objections, so ... silence = consensus? :-)
   • Guess so (support)

   despite proposal was lightly changed with unclarified much description of "Although my proposal would involve editing the venue-specific instructions" that noone much noticed (who cared then? as that was not even the rule change but some outstanding page).

   Case is that moment Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators contained the next:

   • Also, in some cases the article's creator should be notified. (that was that way phrased alittle earlier as one as "Procedure for administrators" section itself added already having 3 exactly "should" words).

   but, yep, didn't contain any information about procedure "If a page is not appropriate..." that's what adding for I'm grateful to Black Falcon and NativeForeigner as only changes approvement voice.

What I mean here is not I'm right and you are not and I understand that won't affect current block any way, but isn't it a time for community to discuss what exactly means that questionable term "Consider notifying" and should it have be changed to i.e. "should notify" exactly, as it mentioned for any procedures for administrations there usually from the scratch or be deleted to not confuse everyone with undefiancecertainty? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the diffs you linked are relevant here:

1. This appears to be moving content from one page to another so that all information about the procedure for handling speedy deletion nominations include what to do if a nomination is declined.
2. This is a discussion about the organization of a specific page and which information should be on which page. You're pointing to a section where they state the administrative procedure for handling speedy deletion nominations should be merged from WP:SD. The SD page at the time doesn't mention "decl" (search here), so this merge seems irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. I believe what you're referencing is that the article's creator should be notified when a page is nominated for deletion, and the edit summary should state why the article has been nominated for deletion.

Regardless, if you believe any editor has done something wrong, the appropriate action in most cases is to bring it up with the editor either on their talk page or on the article's talk page--not to immediately restore the edit you believe to be correct (see WP:EDITWAR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade

Diffs just show the term evolution and what it was growing from without any doubt or speculations.

What I exactly mean is wrote at the last paragaph - there's no need guessing.

It looks like you are always closing eyes when reading my these messages (1 2), so I will ask again: didn't I do it that you in fact blame me as not done? So, still taking in view that fact what did I wrong? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see that you did reach out to Explicit. I apologize for the mistake. However, there appears to be a patience issue. You first nominated 2020 Ligier European Series for speedy deletion at 13:29 UTC. Explicit declined the nomination at 14:12 UTC, and you asked them about why they reverted the article at 15:08 UTC. You then re-added the nomination at 15:29 UTC. When asking someone a question about their behaviour on Wikipedia, you need to give people more than 11 minutes to respond. If a speedy deletion nomination is rejected, you should never renominate it for speedy deletion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

21 minute, but no matter. Main here (was also mentioned here already) is it've never been answered and WP:CONSENSUS does not mean eternal waiting telling the next "When talk page discussions fail—..."

Furthermore I didn't Took that rollback as justified action. especially I didn't took it as my exact nomination denial as there was reverted much more then it. So I did not consider myself obliged to follow the subsequent (after the declining QD nomination) rules of the WP:CSD.

More on it is already answered below same time as you posted your message above. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

not really understood what did you mean telling "The SD page at the time doesn't mention "decl"" however probably it's not so important for topic. Just curious what does it mean. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The speedy deletion page doesn't include the word "decline". As such, there's no information about what administrators should do if they decline a speedy deletion nomination. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I know that. And I never claimed otherwise. That was provided just for a term history understanding. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Between posting a request to rollbacker and further reverting his unjustified edits (not only nomination topic, but also the improvement tag templates and other contribution staff I made there) 21 minute passed - that is quite enough for answer on your own talk page, you know, at least if you are intended to. Or do you mean I had to wait for his answer forever especially when he didn't answer till now? I doubt any rules means that.

Even more so WP:WAR#Administrator guidance tells clearly "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense;" So why is that a week? Why that fact does not confuse you? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Editors are not required to check their notifications every 15 minutes. All editors--including administrators--are volunteers who do this in their free time. That said, Explicit wasn't online when you left a message on their talk page. They were inactive between 14:55 UTC and 23:57 UTC. They were not ignoring you. They were likely sleeping or working. As for why they haven't yet responded: others have answered your question. The articles have a credible claim of significance. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand you. (Mostly rhytoric: Do you have some setting of to find a reason to blame the person asking to unblock her at least for anything whatever will be a cost just to avoid admitting the blocker's guilt in unreasonable block if it is still have place and sometimes even obvious?)

Please read that as an answer and line 6 (AFD...) of that as my good faith you continue to doubt in somewhy despite I've never gave you any reason. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

Let's try again. same way as you suggested - being brief and according to exclusively the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 83.142.111.82. I will make a step by step description of what I made according to WP:GAB an it's impact. Step 1 Blocker was invited repeatedly by both not me and me (1, 2, 3) to clarify the detailed reason for blocking but ignored it despite answer was being expected. Step 2: block was not needed as I've never been a proxy. Step 3 I can't clearly understand why I was blocked except the indicated reason I denied above because of blocker never made his input regarding it. My additional assumptions about probable reason, as practice above showed, lead only to unblock request denial, therefore I won't according to WP:ASPERSIONS to not raise a WP:AVALANCHE that can affect my request negatively, as I don't see any valuable reason to justify the block based exclusively on my contribution. Step 4 I don't really know how can I advertise myself for you to like me except I had no ever any questionable contribution and if had any misunderstanding with someone or on my own - always was asking first and/or searching for WP:CONSENSUS. As an addiition have to declare the reason given claiming I'm a 'blocked proxy' is falsely, but I don't have any clue how I can prove this to you. Step 5 I can't understand the concerns of the blocker about my contribution (if any) though a long discussion above he missed in. And won't assume here. Step 6 I didn't ever betray anyone's trust - including wikipedia editors. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Multiple sources (spur.us and Wikipedia itself) indicate this is a proxy. Wikipedia indicates this IP address has engaged in file sharing, is running LUMINATI_PROXY, PROXYAM_PROXY, and has 2 users on this IP address. Yamla (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2025 (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.

Yamla, I still have some questions. Can you please clarify? Here it is:

1. does it mean it have no sense to even continue waiting until block will expire as you will block me again for the same and have to abandon editing wikipedia until I'll change my ISP having such IP's pool (and I'll not)? I don't want to lose my time waiting in void.
2. Isn't WP:PROXY have to be blocked indefinitely or at least for an year? Or do you mean in a week what was a proxy won't be it?
3. "engaged in file sharing" - what does it mean? Even windows making a file share while updating to lower microsoft server load (yeah, some, but modified, type of BitTorrent [no I don't use it, but it's widely known] connections) proof: "Microsoft states at his FAQ that not entire update is downloaded from other PCs" primary source "Peer Update is set to ON and to allow updates to be sent to PCs on the local network AND PCs connected over the Internet.". And yes, as a most of the rest of world, I have a windows. So why do you state it as reason to count my IP as WP:PROXY? For that criteria I think quite a big amount of IPs (where windows update is working) will be counted as a proxy.
4. "is running LUMINATI_PROXY, PROXYAM_PROXY" I don't have a clue what is it but, as it some sort of network service working worldwide, I guess for it to be operable here I have to have access to real IP address and I don't. So why that is I'm ostensibly a proxy criteria? Or do you mean these services working here just right now?
5. "has 2 users on this IP address." do you mean registered users? Or my computer and my phone? Is it a crime to have 2 devices working via same router via wifi and that automatically means that IP is a WP:PROXY?

Please respond asap. Thank you in advance. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If the proxy/proxies are shut down, the block will not be renewed. No, proxies are not blocked indefinitely. This has nothing to do with Windows Update and it's not remotely clear to me why you think it does. Your comment, "I have to have access to real IP address and I don't" is nonsense. 83.142.111.82 is a real IP address and I have no idea why you think it isn't. As to the number of users on the IP address, no, I don't mean registered Wikipedia users. It's not a crime (nobody's accusing you of a crime), it's just an indication that this may be a proxy. Note this is my only response to you. Please don't ping me again. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you, your answer is quite capacious to roll on. What I meant is that ISP uses IP masquerading to provide me internet but do not provide any port forwarding services - therefore - I do not control real IP by myself meaning I can't provide some proxy service on that IP with just turning some software on or off onto my devices. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Requests for unblock category Summary of pending on-wiki appeals table update bug

@AmandaNP Can you please tell me why does my unblock request is not being added to the User:AmandaNP/unblock table that is used at Category:Requests for unblock for a better requests review? Is it because it's not first on a page but second one? That way probably your bot works wrong, taking in view time when request was created and not including it while already numerous further updates. Can you please fix that? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Can you please advice do you see my unblocking request where you usually look onto it or not? I confused with is it visible at some list or not for administrators and other editors taking in view bug mentioned above. Thank you in advance. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry 83.142, I don't use the category system for RFU so can't confirm either way on this. @AmandaNP is good with all the tech stuff and they can probably confirm Star Mississippi 18:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I don't mean to check category itself - that was just explanation why I'm at worry. I mean do yuo see... Ok, I'll rephrase. How do you usually personally see any new unblock requests have place if not from that table at the category page? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't patrol unblock requests 83.142, so I can't help you here unfortunately Star Mississippi 19:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. Anyway thanks. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@331dot, hello! Can you confirm you can see my pending unblock request on list of ones administrators use or can't? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Your request is open and visible. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks ;) Now I'm calm. 83.142.111.82 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I can see it too - I came across it here but there are tailored searches that we can use as well.

Your case won't go anywhere until it's been formally accepted or declined by an admin, but this page will give you an idea of how many are outstanding right now. There is a backlog and only a handful of volunteer admins patrol these requests regularly.

If an admin has declined your appeal they can't do it a second time, so you'll always get someone with fresh eyes (but it also means it takes longer if you have any previous declined requests!) Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Now I see it too there ) But case it is appeared there more then 4 hours later then I created it and in fact double out of 15 min schedule which probably means that AmandaNP read the topic and fixed the bug. Ave AmandaNP )) But what was the reason?

I understand that, but I bet most of editors used to look exatly to that table to see such new requests and not use any other alternative way. That way my request was 4 hours in fact out of sight of those who used to use it and was online then only. Now they probably gone to sleep or work - so I probably have to wait day more. for same could happend in that 4 hours.

As you noted fact of strict rules make waiting even longer.

Will go to sleep. have a nice... day/night time! 83.142.111.82 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been sent some bespoke searches by admins, a lot of them look for for the most recent changes to make sure they're dealt with in order (I can see whenever anyone makes a new comment as I have both open at once). But there are lots of different people using different methods, each has different experience & knowledge so it makes sense that they'll each have different preferences for looking at requests - goodnight! Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet thank you for your concern) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been permanently fixed, and thank you for highlighting the concern. Without giving a crash course in computer programing, this was the fix for the most part. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@AmandaNP

Ahhahah I was already looking there starting from your bot page to find the project by myself wanting to find the issue on my own and help you resolve it but forgot to click to repositories sadly noting only overview where it was absent )))

Woah, a new information! ) THanks !)))

I don't need the course as... no matter )

Or need that ) I was looking onto it for about an hour to understand. Still didn't get it in full but it looks like my guess about my unblock request was the 2nd on a page but was... No, I'm not sure what was the exact issue (probably initial section same naming but it does not look like you parsing some exact diff but current page "wikisource" content, so I doubt that's the one) except someting empty (or above mentioned request denial template) was overrided my 2nd one. Probably I still need the course )))

I'd be happy for you to make me understand clearly as there so many unrelated to my exact case mess (As I got you made global changes for similar cases out of only requests for initial unblock request templates) ))) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock request 3

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 83.142.111.82 and I mean it based on some online checking tool shows me the next:

February 18, 2025, 7:59 AM 83.142.111.82(This is your IP)
Unlock Full Results
Country Region VPN PROXY
Ukraine Odessa No No
ISP Hostname ASN TOR
LLC Global-City-Net at-pool-82 AS15713 LLC... No

Oh, here's also an appropiate online report you can see on your own have place here Block was not necessary, since such a state of the IP address, which I also do not control (since I have masqueraded IP), did not change and was the same: as indirect evidence, you can trace my consistent contribution both before and after the blocking So please unblock me as I provided a clear evidences of I am not a WP:PROXY - both direct and indirect ones you can check on your own. P.S. If to suppose (based on similarity of indicated "(spur.us and Wikipedia itself)" and described "currently, our feature uses Maxmind, Spur, and on-wiki information") previous request denial was based on mw:IP Info tool there's clearly said that information collected there is "not guaranteed to be correct" as one as dependant from exclusively volunteer external and uncheckable notifications that can be no more then a black PR. Therefore it's a bad source of information to solve someone's fate at wikipedia. Therefore it hardly can be rated more important then any other external online tool, like as provided by me above that tells literally the next: *IPQS fraud scoring algorithms have rated this IP address as low risk, scoring 0 out of 100. Can you please do rate my IP exclusively on my IP contribution and logs [including global ones] of wikimedia, when you make such a serious claim that I'm a proxy and not use any external evidences that are "not guaranteed to be correct" and show where exactly I can read about what you claim about my IP-address is true? Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; now blocked directly for disruptive editing. Yamla (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2025 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) I've noticed you're blocked - I was getting a bit worried that you were starting to overwhelm your Talk page & withdrew from the discussion for a bit.

If you're blocked, your Talk page can only be used to discuss a prospective unblock. Pinging editors/admins with lots of questions & suggestions is disruptive in itself, as it can make it really difficult to find the information needed to address your block. They're all incredibly busy & need to concentrate on performing their respective roles, since everything they do on Wikipedia is in their own time as a volunteer.

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help and hope that things eventually get resolved for you.

BTW You're probably already aware, but I'd hate to see this escalate so I'll mention it anyway: please don't edit under another IP (including replying to this post) as this will be seen as socking and just make everything that much more complicated! Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Poetry inspired by a block

What a wonderful quest to fight windmills

proving everyone that you are not a deer

Not to be confused with Not-deer.

83.142.111.82 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Requests for unblock category Summary of pending on-wiki appeals table update bug (revision hidden content exception)

@AmandaNP, you have a bug when your bot makes an exception when any of revisions' content made after revision when request was posted or right before it (you use it @findunblocktime). Now you have chance to fix it as it right now being applied with exception to User talk:Toketaa setting to the table "Request time" as "Unknown" despite it is clearly known as "2025-02-10T14:51:09Z". Why don't you just make some changes to your last commit changing lines 134 and 135 to something like:

       try:revision['slots']['main']['texthidden']
       except:
           try:content = revision['slots']['main']['*']
           except:return "Unknown"
       else:continue

to both fix the current bug and save exception for future unknowns. That will let miss hidden revisions... More details about why it will work here (I got last 8 of above mentioned page revisions there exactly as you process it, where 6,7 are just hidden).

And until Toketaa's request won't be processed you can still test it live ))

And, forgot to tell you answering to your previous bug topic reply above - I was glad to help )) 83.142.111.82 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Requests for unblock category Summary of pending on-wiki appeals table update bug (talk page only revision available)

@AmandaNP, new bug when bot can't set a Request time right (leaving the empty field) can be seen here when request was done via talk page first ever revision

Probably inclusion of:

   if timebefore=="": timebefore=time

between:

   except UnboundLocalError:timebefore = findunblocktime(pagename, id, limit, True)
   return timebefore

will help 83.142.111.82 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. The system was not designed to be foolproof in terms of the time. I have spent countless hours before trying to account for each condition of that time factor that can ever occur. It's a void that is a time waste. The chart is meant to be an overall quick reference guide for admins, not a down to the minute exact update chart. If you want to suggest pull requests on the git repo with the solution, that is fine, and I will look at them when I have time - time that I don't currently have. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I won't ping you. but how will you know I'll write some new suggestion otherwise if that's still a good idea? Or you mean to make it exclusively on git if any and not here? 83.142.111.82 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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.  Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---