User talk:82.79.211.8
June 2023
[edit]
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for block evasion.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 June 2023 (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.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
82.79.211.8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia has gone full-pro-Ukronazi mode 82.79.211.8 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2023 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
- @ToBeFree: Could you please guide me toward the policy that states unblock requests must not be removed? Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...Nythar, perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators. You can start removing unblock requests after passing RfA, and doing so before is highly likely to decrease the chance of doing so later. There is also generally little point in removing calls for the exactly the administrative attention needed in the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to disruptive or vandalistic unblock requests (including requests that are much worse than the one above). But anyway, I'll refrain from doing so and wait for an administrator to handle them. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, there are of course situations in which removing an unblock request is… justifiable at least. When it's clear that oversighting is needed, for example, and that any additional eyes before an oversighter's could be problematic, I'm sure noone would complain about a user removing the request while also sending an e-mail to the oversighters. It would then also be problematic for anyone else including other administrators to restore the request. But even in such a situation, having the attention of one administrator who looks at the page, revokes talk page access and perhaps removes what you have already reported to oversighters wouldn't really hurt. It would be really really hard to construct a scenario where even that is undesirable. Thus, while the discussion started about policies, I think the strongest argument is actually the pointlessness of such a revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Alright then, I will take note of that. Thanks for clarifying. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, there are of course situations in which removing an unblock request is… justifiable at least. When it's clear that oversighting is needed, for example, and that any additional eyes before an oversighter's could be problematic, I'm sure noone would complain about a user removing the request while also sending an e-mail to the oversighters. It would then also be problematic for anyone else including other administrators to restore the request. But even in such a situation, having the attention of one administrator who looks at the page, revokes talk page access and perhaps removes what you have already reported to oversighters wouldn't really hurt. It would be really really hard to construct a scenario where even that is undesirable. Thus, while the discussion started about policies, I think the strongest argument is actually the pointlessness of such a revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring to disruptive or vandalistic unblock requests (including requests that are much worse than the one above). But anyway, I'll refrain from doing so and wait for an administrator to handle them. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...Nythar, perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators. You can start removing unblock requests after passing RfA, and doing so before is highly likely to decrease the chance of doing so later. There is also generally little point in removing calls for the exactly the administrative attention needed in the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |