152:
talk pages. Even if I made a mistake four or five years ago, an "indefinite" ban was way too harsh. It is very difficult – practically impossible – to appeal it. If you deny the unblock, bang goes any form of appeal from me, so basically I am damned in eternity. That is not how
Knowledge "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", is supposed to work. I appreciate tht is not carte blanche to edit it badly – and leaving aside slips I do with every edit try to make it better – but as I said five years ago, what it means nowadays in practice is "the encyclopaedia that some people can edit". And that's a pity. I live in Hungary, so I have a lot better knowledge of many Hungarian topics than other editors. I don't edit Hungarian articles much, but often they are written by Hungarians and the wording is not very natural. So I have a special privilege – and obligation – to inform about language differences and so on, as I've done at the discussion about titles with diacritics,
183:. This has got a bit out of control now: that new user spent most of his edits in his sandbox, as he should, then for some reason unknown started to attack me. I have no idea why, he said he reverted a page, I checked every history etc and he hadn't, eventually I tracked it down but he had not reverted it, it was a one-word change in an article for grammar or something; sometimes I hit "Random article" and just see what's there and if there are minor typos etc just fix them. It was so trivial were I a registered user I would have marked as minor edit. I shouldn't be the fall guy of his well-intentioned but misguided behaviour. I did my best to point him in the right direction, politely but firmly, as any good Wikipedian would. To come clean, I did create another account, I can't even remember the user name, Spinach2021 or something (Spinach is the name of my toy monkey, named very briefly in the
697:. It's bloody good, and all of us know we can make it even better. Now I am getting the fallout from someone who explicitly says he has had eight accounts then will edit under IP after his user page explicitly says he regards IP editors as vandals. (I presume that is how he first found my edit, it was a minor edit to an article and I can't remember which, but it was a very minor edit changing a spelling or grammar or something; as IP I can't mark edits as "minor"). I have been open and honest, whereas
868:. I stated this at the 2015 argument, you cannot have it both ways. I release my stuff by CC-SA-3.0. Thet explicitly says I own it, this was the whole business back in 2015 when I was banned for making legal threats. Check the licence. I'm licencing Knowledge, or the Wikmedia Foundation or whatnot, to use my material, I still have ownership of that material. This is why I got banned for legal threats, for saying exactly what the Wikimedia licence says. I am
1036:, when I had put that very draft in my argument to be unbanned. That is stupid. That is silly. I could say much more. It is ridicuolous now I have to defend myself when you deleted my evidence. Guilty until proven innocent... show me any evidence beyond typos that I have ever made Knowledge worse. In real life I would swear and punch, it is absolutely ridiculous that I can't even quote mzself as it is being systematicallz deleted, making articles worse.
160:. Because I hear three or four languages daily, I'm perhaps more attuned to common mistakes or where the English will confuse someone who has English as a second or third language, and where people make common errors in trying to speak English. I don't insult them for it, I am very proud that people want to learn my first language, and it makes them proud that I am trying to learn Hungarian. It's mutual respect. As Knowledge should be. Oh I see
1002:). I made a plain point that the Wikimedia Foundation is not above the law, and for some weird reason got banned for it, and when I appealed, i got totally cut off. That is what happens, when you suggest in any way the Wikimedia Foundation is doing an unlawful act in some jurisdiction you get banned. Guilty until proven innocent, and deleting or scrubbing my text – which I can't restore – is just a
762:. I mentioned the article I was drafting, what happens, it gets deleted. THat took me hours and hours to get into any kind of shape that would be suitable for English Knowledge, because French Knowledge waxes lyrical and we are more concise. Translating the words is not difficult, translating the meaning somewhat harder. What you have done is destroyed my work, simple as that. I have come, as with
18:
693:
Knowledge policy is to respect IP editors. I moved to IP not because I was banned, but because I moved to a new house with a static IP. I have very much hinted that I am SimonTrew, my writing style etc makes that fairly obvious really. I have been personally attacked on my IP address for the last week, and have had to deal with that which has stopped me from doing what I want to do,
310:, which starts with going six months without editing Knowledge (from an account or IP, overtly or covertly). You'd also need to understand why you were banned and what that ban and the previous topic ban mean. I'll say, I could be wrong about this, but I get the sense that there's a number of users who'd like to see you return someday. But that's not going to happen this way.
1176:
839:: I am appealing the ban and this is evidence of my good work and good faith, now you have deleted it. I'm guilty until proven innocent, and you and other editrices who are deleting my work as "banned editor" are taking away all my evidence of making Knowledge better. This was in draft space, I would have moved it over
525:, removes his (no, sorry, the anonymous IP that he said he won't use) comments from my talk page, and when I restore them, removes them again? I told him that Knowledge keeps a history of every edit, he didn't seem to understand that. I make small edits, and together with another editor we put together the essay
521:
pushing it. He personally attacked me exactly because I was the first IP he had seen, I dealt with it. Are you surprised I do not have an account when I get this abuse from a registered editor? Who then goes on to edit anonymously against exactly what he stated at his user page? Who then, which is pure
997:
edit and never have in violation of the ban or block. The block was for making legal threats, unjust as it happens but somehow I said
Knowledge is ultimately responsible for its actions, and someone on the legal team didn't like it. (It is true, in British law the publisher is resonsible, that is why
831:
you didn't say so. I'm appealing the ban. I have worked very hard on that draft, I know it is not finished in any way, not good enough yet for EN:WP. I'm translating but the quotations are very much in the French literary style, so I am quoting the French text verbatim and then my translation under.
561:
Simon Trew are you", of course I replied that I wasn't but that I know how you mean. He is patently notable, sometimes rarely he is on telly on military programmes. I phoned him once, got his secretary, I said "Hello I am Simon Trew, may I speak to Simon Trew please" and she had a double-take :) but
130:
been going around switching IP addresses to evade a ban. The ban was unjust in the first place. The thing I dislike with these blocks is no valid reason is really given. I'm technically evading a block – so what? Have I made the
Knowledge better or worse? Look through my edits – yes I make slips and
120:
getting threats like that, so I switched to IP editing. As it happens, my IP address is very stable (if you click through the lookup it says "Probably static", and I imagine it is, since I don't even need a password on my modem so it's not doing a DHCP request to connect). I have not pretended to be
959:
Please do not delete draft articles that I put the link to in my nomination. That is queering the pitch. You deleted my draft article, a translation I was only halfway through, and I put that as part of my argument why I should not be banned. By deleting it you have pulled the rug from under me and
520:
In section "Redrafting is not anonymous", I dunno if I can do a section link from a permalink. Immediately below, "Redrafting will never change his username": OK, but edit on an IP address instead, and elsewhere say you have had eight usernames? All the while I kept good faith, but come on, that is
365:
and I didn't think less of
Thryduulf for my mistaken G8, actually I thought of Thryduulf well for being so polite, having the courtesy to inform me and the rest of RfD, and we just carried on. That is how it should be. I've been a technical editor for over thirty years amongst other things, and am
151:
and then that person using an IP address. I do not know why they picked on me, since I never saw that user at any page I ever visited, but they kept mucking arouond with the this page. I know technically I don't "own" this page but it's fairly well established what one can and cannot do at others'
517:
I swore never to be anonymous in
Knowledge nor other websites, as being anonymous can make lots of confusion, I do not wish to cause any suspicion. People who are Anonymous are known as suspicious people who may cause trouble. In Knowledge, using IP address is similar to being anonymous since you
484:
now, so I'll have to trace the history, but several times I asked politely but firmly not to delete or restore things at my talk page. I have at all times been polite, but firm. I have not accused the editor of anything personal, I have stated matter-of-fact where his actions are out of line with
331:
That ban was for "making legal threats" five or six years ago, and was indefinite (which does not mean infinite). It was not for anything to do with content. It was a stupid ban in the first place, I was trying to explain that just because
Knowledge is the encyclopaedia "anyone can edit" does not
174:
my name, and apart from Simon Trew a military historian at
Sandhurst, who has published many books (and is mentioned at our article 59th_(Staffordshire)_Infantry_Division]], but not referenced there), I am very identifiable just from my name. I think it is reasonable then that I don't use my real
164:
has struck anything I wrote there. To be fair that user has not actually deleted it, only struck it. That user is wrong that I am a sockpuppet. I moved to an IP address because of personal attacks. I do try to make it reasonably clear, in subtle ways, I am the same editor – indeed if I didn't you
692:
and all that. I could (but won't, except to prove a point) log in under my mobile phone address. What has happened with editing under IP is exactly what WP:ANON says, I am MORE visible than those editors who have registered accounts. There are arguments for allowing IPs to edit etc, and against.
125:
account and for some time just abandoned WIkipedia. I do occasionally edit from my mobile phone, while it is in the house it connects to my WiFi and those will be under the same IP address, but I don't edit much from it. Were I trying to evade a ban I could easily switch to using its 4G internet
529:
and his counter-argument to that, both in good faith (he contributed the picture to my essay) and we both contributed to each other's. For me to be accused of vandalism, being rude, by an editor only registered sixteen days ago, is pushing it. I took that as a personal attack, which it was, and
614:
I'm pretty sure my IP is a static IP and so are the WHOIS lookups etc. (They say "Likely static IP"). The modem does not go through DHCP, I can't be entirely sure, neither can the lookups, but it is very likely that my ISP has assigned me a static IP address. I do not think I can be accused of
665:
did, but if Tazmin did it is out of order, if Sonic did it was fine. Sonic had changed his signature (not his username) to be "Soenic" after some Eubot redirect we were dicussing that had changed "ö" to "oe" when it was not
Germanic, and I found that very funny and said so very briefly. I can
210:) and so on. This user has stated quite clearly he wanted a new account, has changed it eight times. I've never changed my username, I did create a new account the other day specifically to avoid his personal attacks on me, but I don't think I ever used it, but mention it here as coming with
832:
I'd like to make it clear the
English is my translation, not from a reliable source etc (I think in one or two places it is, but not many) and I don't know how to make that distinction, but to put the French without the English would confound many readers, and that's what we're here for.
1138:
Edits made by blocked/banned users are not allowed to stand, as doing so would defeat the purpose of the block. If you want your edits to stand, you need to stop the block evasion and request unblock under your original account. I am now removing access to this page.
340:
removed his "Important" section of my talk page saying what his IP address was, as I felt him naive to go giving that out; I easily found out which ISP etc he was living at, and pointed out to him the essays about anonymous editing (that you're not really anonymous),
1023:
deleting a page that I had in my unblock is bang out of order, that is bad faith and you bloody well know it. I know it is "Piss off Simon Trew Day" or something, that is bang out of order. I provided many references to articles I have made better, that draft was a
727:. The bot says my edit is unconstructive. I don't know why my translation, about a third done, and in draft, is unconstructive. Deleting it is unconstructive. I spent days here on there on that and it is about third finished, it was tagged from the outset with
169:
reason I don't use my real name, which I use quite happily in real life without any problems, is that I get personal attacks on
Knowledge when I do. That's Knowledge's problem, not mine. It was perhaps naive to think I could use my real name here, but it
476:. I replied, I don't write test edits. I make mistakes but it is not a test edit. Can you please tell me which edit it is. This went on for a few days with him not telling me which edit he believed was a test – ultimately he did say,it's not on either
156:, again a discussion carried out with respect by all editors contributing to it, as it should be: I ssaid so there, it is a pleasure to see it. Because I speak several languages and am an "immigrant" it also informs me, indirectly, about how to keep
199:
I really don’t hate my username so changing it is out of the question. Long ago, I changed my username a lot and at the end result, I couldn’t remember my username since I changed it 8 times. I do not want to deal with this problem on a new, fresh
782:
let it stand. It is not doing any harm in Draft space, and I put it there so any other editrix could contribute, I did not put it in my own User pages as we used to do. This is quite frankly "beat Simon Trew to death" which I had five years ago.
666:
understand Sonic reverting/removing that as cruft, as it was just a passing remark: but if Tamzin has removed it as part of this dicussion, it's out of order. I'm probably getting on my high horse, but now I have any contribution I have made to
1094:. That iis not in violation of any WP policy and I am entitled to protect myself againt what I saw as personal threats. They probably weren't, that user has been banned indefintely, but I am the fall guy for his bad behaviour. That's not fair.
405:
Redrafting's personal abuse, and his action on this edit was to revert my talk page to put all the talkbacks and his own comments back again. I could have been less subtle and just deleted his personal attacks on me, leaving the talkbacks, I
627:
were it not for the stupid ban five years ago, which I remind you says "indefinite", not "infinite". Were I want to be a sockpuppet, I could just use my mobile phone and get a new IP address every time. That is exactly what I
582:
either.) This whole farrago is because that well-meaning but misguided editor has made my life a misery for a week. I've given you plenty of evidence. I have been using this IP since about June last year, when I moved here to
741:
would probably be better but not perfect). Now without any say-so you have deleted my hard work translating a French article, on the basis I am banned. I'm appealing that ban, so restore it. It is evidence of my good faith.
450:
talk pages, I am perfectly entitled to do so on mine, and I bet all of you regularly clean out your talk pages one way or another, whether it's archivnig them or blanking them or whatever. The user completely misunderstood
214:. I don't think I have ever edited on that account, I don't know the password for it, I created it because I was so angry with the personal attacks I was getting at my talk page. Look through the history of this page:
400:
restored my blanked page. To be clear: I frequently blank my talk page as many other editors do as I get talkback cruft etc and it is routine to delete those after responding. That is all there was on the talk page
297:
I'm striking, hatting, or removing your RM comments because they were made in violation of a ban. There's nothing "technical" about this, and it has nothing to do with editing under your real name or not: You were
107:
I was blocked several years ago, for making legal threats. I wasn't making any legal threats even at that time, but pointing out that since I was using my real name ("Simon Trew") some remarks made to me (not by
135:, I said it would take me a few days to translate that in bits and pieces, and it has done, but once I move that over I'll just copy-paste it, so the long edit history is for my benefit while drafting. Look at
964:, excuse me I a contesting a ban. One bit of good-faith evidence is I spent days translating that draft and am nowhere near finished before it is good enough for main. WHat you have done is deleted something
928:. I have to take the fallout of his nonsense? THat is pure hypocrisy. If you don't like me, say so. Check my edit history, I have done nothing wrong. I encouraged, welcomed, Redrafting into our community.
1086:
Well whaddaya know, an administrator refused the ban without reading what I said. I am disgusted at Knowledge admins who don't read what is written. G5 does not apply, since I have not ever
306:
No administrator can unblock you right now without your ban being overturned first. If you'd like to appeal your ban, your best course of action would be following the course of the
332:
mean that users (registered or not) can make legal threats against others. Now I seem to be caught up in that again because of the well-meaning but misguided contributions by
619:(except for a couple of very minor edits from my mobile phone when I have been passing the time on the train: at home it connects to my WiFi) has been on this address, as
436:
tag on it, at the bottom, and had from the first draft). I would have been doing a lot quicker with it had I not had the bollox from Redrafting/23.28.64.124. When you get
1123:
later iater as IP ed, and I said so in my nomination. To find my evidence being deleted is just not right, not fair, well I will say in my cockney, a pile of bollocks.
116:
unique in Hungary, I am the only Simon Trew in Hungary, as "Trew" is not a surname here. So very easily anyone could find out who i was and where I lived, and I
916:, I'll translate it from FR:WP. The translation right now is shit, which is why I didn't move it into mainspace but kept it in draft. You were wrong to delete,
538:
been a vandal here, nor in real life. I don't swear even in real life. I had parents who would wash my mouth out with soap and water if I said a "dirty word".
474:
I want to tell you that your message was deleted because it was rude. Anyway, I will tell you the edit that looks like a test. Please write a message nicely.
282:
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.
361:
politely said at RfD "I am denying that" (I forget the exact word, refusing maybe) because it is under discussion" and my reply was "Fair enough". That is
892:
but we must paraphrase it to make it good English in a running sentence. It's ridiculous to assume that I am not doing the same at the deleted draft for
562:
that was just to confirm he was who we have at articles, he has published many books in his name, but keeps a low profile, so I was going to do a bio at
920:(a non-admin) was wrong to strike out every contribution, this is "Beat Simon Trew to death day" or what? I use an IP because I got personal attacks at
1090:. How could I? IP editors cannot create pages. What I have done, is to use my IP address instead of my account, to avoid getting personal attacks from
557:. As far as I know, he and I were the only two Simon Trews in the UK: I added a lot about Hungarian military history and someone asked me "you're not
58:
147:
etc, but conducted in good faith by good editors on all sides, nobody was "blaming" anyone. Over the last few days I have had personal attacks from
187:
books) but have never used it; I created it specifically not because I wanted to sockpuppet but because I was getting personal attacks from
553:
There were two Simon Trews in the UK, the first an eminent military historian at Sandhurst, mentioned in many military articles, such as
530:
responded politely but firmly. Show me any edit I have made is vandalism. I make typos and mistakes, other editors may disagree, that is
267:
1124:
1095:
1070:
1045:
1007:
969:
945:
848:
784:
743:
702:
675:
633:
539:
497:
458:
375:
53:
1194:
349:
get banned. Show me one edit – leaving aside stupid typos etc – where I have made the Wikpedia worse. Sure, somewhat misguidedly a
112:
who has blocked me now) were personal attacks, not just on Knowledge but in real life. My name is not unique, but very rare and it
202:. The Redrafting account was created on 29 September this year: perhaps this is trivial but note the bad grammar, no knowledge of
1111:
I am very angry now. Other editrices are deleting anything I added, without thought. THat makes the wikipedia worse. Try banning
512:
179:
of a sockpuppet in that I make it as clear as possible who I am while trying not to get personal attacks as I did this week from
595:, I presume you know the debate about those well-intentioned but misguided mass creation of redirects, assuming every "ö" was a
446:, patently that well-intentioned but misguided user has lost the plot somewhere. No, I can't or shouldn't delete messages on
1069:. I have acted all the while in good faith. Now I am being punished for another editor's bad behaviour. That is not fair.
345:
etc. In short, I have acted entirels in good faith encouraging the editor to follow WP's guidelines and policies and then
733:
with the permalink version numbers for version and insertversion. I could have just copied and pasted it over mainspace
244:
under your account name to make a statement for the community to consider in a discussion, which will be transferred to
136:
1237:
72:
30:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
485:
policies or guidelines and pointed him to them. I think as experienced editors it is our duty to do so. What I do
430:
and so on. So because I am not bad at French, I started translating the article from French (which does have the
153:
31:
584:
1189:. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
808:
If you can get your original account unblocked, let me know and I'm happy to un-delete the article you wrote. ~
307:
25:
518:
didn’t verify yourself. This is in my perspective and I’m not trying to encourage people to create a account.
1225:
570:
the only Simon Trew and I know that as a fact, having had to go through various paperwork to establish my
481:
1066:
893:
724:
415:
132:
814:
592:
367:
140:
36:
865:
571:
921:
843:
in article space once I felt it was worth other editrices to cast an eye over. What you have done is
611:
that, said we can handle it: I was wrong, as they're still cropping up now every week or so at RfD).
477:
1256:
1203:
901:
522:
1251:
738:
917:
554:
1119:
I would have t his hassle. I use IP because I have had over the last week personal attacks from
968:
so that now no other editor can read what i did there. If that's not bad faith I'm a dutchman.
805:
is quite clear. Articles written by blocked users who are evading their block are not accepted.
1190:
526:
1158:
1144:
826:
809:
718:
579:
452:
276:
253:
184:
1261:
987:
This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block
1182:
1120:
1091:
990:
925:
864:
And all my improvements to Knowledge are being deleted. OK, then, delete my stuff off of
763:
698:
596:
575:
397:
371:
333:
188:
180:
148:
900:. My intent was once I had it even vaguely in English raher than French, to move it over
1175:
607:
a discussion about whether we needed a speedy delete criterion for them, and I actually
1116:
937:
913:
771:
689:
624:
620:
600:
493:
358:
342:
241:
237:
157:
122:
104:
496:. It's been five years or six since I was banned on that name, surely that is enough.
1062:
1033:
999:
909:
905:
840:
836:
802:
767:
734:
662:
654:
531:
411:
362:
350:
303:
983:
961:
889:
881:
566:
but really found nothing beyond his published works, which are many. In Hungary, I
354:
245:
203:
1241:
1209:
1154:
1140:
933:
877:
759:
671:
658:
314:
249:
211:
207:
161:
1246:
1186:
1039:
1003:
929:
688:
It's sheer hypocrisy. I edit under a stable IP address that is easily traced,
604:
588:
563:
414:). This whole furore really is the fallout of his ban. I was happily drafting
109:
989:. Did you read it? I am editing under IP because I had personal attacks from
880:
does not own it and has said so explicitly. My original work may come under
121:
anyone other than me, but I was getting personal attacks and threats on the
1215:
1162:
1148:
1132:
1103:
1078:
1053:
1015:
977:
953:
856:
819:
792:
766:, in good faith. Now I find my work being destroyed. It did not go through
751:
710:
683:
641:
547:
505:
466:
383:
322:
257:
1230:
896:, it is very much in infancy and that is why it is in draft. Deleting it
219:
where I had blanked the page so his IP was not known to all and sundry,
1028:
and I didn't think anywhere near good enough for main, to delete it is
1088:
created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block
143:. That conversation, like many others, I was firm I don't always say
248:
for discussion. No administrator may unilaterally lift the block.
924:, now in the last week I am getting personal attacks from banned
779:
674:. That is starting to look like bad faith, I'm sorry to say so.
410:
to save him shame (I'm confident that user is male, and dislike
191:
and then after he "resigned" from his IP he started to use. See
165:
wouldn't have found me. I cannot be a sockpuppet of myself. The
801:
You asked a question of me here, so I will answer. Simply put,
1170:
944:. And what is the result? I get banned for his bad behaviour.
427:
423:
419:
884:
and there's the crux, to make Knowledge better we must write
701:
has not, yet I have to suffer his sentence? That's not fair.
623:
says, IPs are not very anonymous. I would happily edit under
1115:. I didn't realise that simply by pretty much stating i was
16:
1153:
The ban is on you as an individual, not just your account.
1065:
all last week that prevented me from finishing translating
489:
expect is to be banned because of another's bad behaviour.
225:
where I restored a message from Redrafting that he deleted
1006:. Knowledge, the encylopaedia that a few people can edit.
578:
I am "Trew Simon", pronounced "Trev Shimon", but I am not
240:, but if you want the ban and block removed, you must use
264:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
737:
which we discussed at RfD, well not the journal/review (
284:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
131:
am hasty, but all have been made in good faith. Look at
1220:
872:
Knowledge to use my material, the Knowledge Foundation
649:
438:
392:
299:
221:
216:
193:
154:
Talk:Sobibór_(village)#Requested_move_30_September_2021
86:
82:
76:
67:
63:
49:
45:
41:
904:
in mainspace. That was not some kind of subversion of
300:
banned by the English Knowledge community from editing
24:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
370:. But I was accused of vandalism and being rude by
603:I think for mass listing them at RfD, we had with
670:being struck out without any say-so by non-admin
778:I am a banned user, I am appealing that ban, so
1193:to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
657:. Now that has been reverted. I don't know if
492:What you can do is lift the indefinite ban on
126:connection – for a while. My point is that I
8:
912:about "Sic", "SIC", "Sic" etc and I thought
336:, who then went on to use an IP account. I
103:Well that is a bit of a surprise. As under
206:and so on, saying "8" instead of "eight" (
1185:for an IP user, identified by the user's
444:Do not delete messages on your talk page.
304:Bans apply to all editing, good and bad.
455:that we shouldn't delete messages from
1087:
986:
516:
473:
443:
198:
194:this message at Redrafting's talk page
139:, where I have found a serious bug in
7:
847:. That is not what I come here for.
511:See here at the banned user's page:
966:I specifically put in my nomination
835:I still feel your action is a bit
14:
1038:Knowledge, the encylopaedia that
960:are acting in bad faith. Oh yeah
374:. Nobody likes personal attacks.
1174:
175:name. Most users don't. I'm the
1032:. That was absolutely against
723:explain to me why you deleted
599:– this is why I got banned by
418:which arose from an RfD about
1:
774:or anything, it went because
591:did not get around to making
555:Operation Goodwood#Casualties
1197:also hides your IP address.
1163:09:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1149:09:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1133:09:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1104:09:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1079:08:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1054:08:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1016:08:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
978:08:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
954:08:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
908:, there was a discussion at
857:07:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
820:07:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
793:06:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
752:06:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
711:06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
684:06:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
642:05:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
548:05:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
513:Special:Permalink/1049410471
506:05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
467:05:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
384:04:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
323:04:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
258:08:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
137:Template talk:Requested move
1191:create an account or log in
28:, who declined the request.
1284:
886:some words about something
293:Non-administrator comment
268:guide to appealing blocks
1128:
1099:
1074:
1049:
1011:
973:
949:
852:
788:
747:
706:
679:
637:
543:
501:
462:
439:that user adding it back
379:
238:not read everything here
1262:Latin America/Caribbean
1061:Review it again. I had
888:. We reference it from
1030:making Knowledge worse
758:I have come here with
647:For example my thanks
617:every edit I have made
482:User talk:23.28.64.124
21:
668:make Knowledge better
661:has reverted that or
457:other's' talk pages.
141:Module:Requested move
73:change block settings
20:
1231:Global contributions
898:made Knowledge worse
845:made Knowledge worse
695:make wikpedia better
615:sockpuppetry, since
478:User talk:Redrafting
1067:Draft:SIC (journal)
894:Draft:SIC (journal)
776:in your own opinion
730:{{translated page}}
725:Draft:SIC (journal)
433:{{translated page}}
416:Draft:SIC (journal)
133:Draft:SIC (journal)
593:Toeroekszentmiklos
472:In the diff above
22:
1271:
1270:
818:
296:
1275:
1178:
1171:
1063:personal attacks
866:WikiMedia comons
830:
812:
732:
731:
722:
652:
585:Törökszentmiklós
580:Trevor and Simon
572:immigrant status
441:
435:
434:
395:
366:ruthless with a
357:with something,
321:
319:
317:
294:
290:
281:
275:
224:
218:
196:
185:nigel molesworth
92:
90:
79:
61:
59:deleted contribs
19:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1198:
1183:discussion page
1169:
1167:
1121:User:Redrafting
1092:User:Redrafting
991:User:Redrafting
926:User:Redrafting
922:User:Simon Trew
874:does not own it
824:
764:User:Redrafting
729:
728:
716:
699:User:Redrafting
648:
597:germanic umlaut
576:Hungarian names
437:
432:
431:
398:User:Redrafting
391:
372:User:Redrafting
334:User:Redrafting
315:
312:
311:
292:
287:
279:
273:
272:, then use the
261:
227:
220:
215:
192:
189:User:Redrafting
181:User:Redrafting
149:User:Redrafting
80:
70:
56:
39:
32:blocking policy
17:
12:
11:
5:
1281:
1279:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1254:
1249:
1244:
1234:
1228:
1223:
1221:Current blocks
1218:
1213:
1207:
1199:
1179:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1151:
1117:User:SimonTrew
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
981:
980:
938:User:Thryduulf
862:
861:
860:
859:
833:
822:
806:
796:
795:
756:
755:
754:
713:
663:User:Sonic678
625:User:SimonTrew
601:User:Thryduulf
551:
550:
494:User:SimonTrew
442:, with the ES
389:
388:
387:
386:
359:User:Thryduulf
326:
325:
308:standard offer
262:
234:
230:Decline reason
123:User:SimonTrew
105:User:SimonTrew
101:
97:Request reason
94:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1280:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1216:Proxy Checker
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1041:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:libel tourism
996:
992:
988:
985:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
958:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:Sic (journal)
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:SIC (journal)
838:
837:trigger-happy
834:
828:
823:
821:
816:
811:
807:
804:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
740:
736:
735:SIC (journal)
726:
720:
714:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
691:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
660:
656:
655:User:Sonic678
651:
646:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
622:
618:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
519:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
495:
490:
488:
483:
479:
475:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
454:
449:
445:
440:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:singular they
409:
404:
399:
394:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
318:
309:
305:
301:
289:
288:
286:
285:
278:
271:
269:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
233:
231:
226:
223:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
195:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
168:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
145:pretty please
142:
138:
134:
129:
124:
119:
115:
111:
106:
100:
98:
93:
88:
84:
78:
74:
69:
65:
60:
55:
51:
50:global blocks
47:
46:active blocks
43:
38:
33:
29:
27:
26:administrator
1252:Asia-Pacific
1181:This is the
1125:85.67.32.244
1112:
1110:
1096:85.67.32.244
1071:85.67.32.244
1060:
1046:85.67.32.244
1037:
1029:
1025:
1008:85.67.32.244
994:
982:
970:85.67.32.244
965:
946:85.67.32.244
941:
897:
885:
873:
869:
863:
849:85.67.32.244
844:
785:85.67.32.244
775:
744:85.67.32.244
739:SIC (review)
703:85.67.32.244
694:
676:85.67.32.244
667:
634:85.67.32.244
629:
616:
613:
608:
567:
558:
552:
540:85.67.32.244
535:
523:WP:VANDALISM
498:85.67.32.244
491:
486:
471:
459:85.67.32.244
456:
447:
408:deliberately
407:
402:
390:
376:85.67.32.244
346:
338:deliberately
337:
283:
265:
263:
235:
229:
228:
204:MOS:STRAIGHT
176:
171:
166:
144:
127:
117:
113:
102:
96:
95:
68:creation log
37:85.67.32.244
35:
23:
1195:Registering
1042:cannot edit
934:User:Tamzin
918:User:Tazmin
878:Jimmy Wales
827:Anachronist
810:Anachronist
760:clean hands
719:Anachronist
672:User:Tamzin
659:User:Tamzin
368:blue pencil
212:clean hands
208:MOS:SPELL09
162:User:Tamzin
1187:IP address
1040:hoi polloi
1004:witch hunt
930:User:Tavix
605:User:Tavix
589:User:Eubot
564:Simon Trew
527:WP:OWNFEET
353:I went to
320:(she/they)
110:User:Tavix
64:filter log
1210:Geolocate
870:licensing
803:WP:CSD#G5
587:, (which
534:. I have
453:WP:REMOVE
396:is where
302:in 2017.
266:read the
83:checkuser
42:block log
998:we have
993:. I did
940:didn't.
936:didn't.
932:didn't.
574:. (With
200:account.
177:opposite
128:have not
54:contribs
1247:America
914:WP:BOLD
772:WP:PROD
690:WP:ANON
621:WP:ANON
609:opposed
448:other's
343:WP:ANON
277:unblock
242:WP:UTRS
236:I have
158:WP:NPOV
77:unblock
1257:Europe
1242:Africa
1226:XTools
1212:
1206:
1155:331dot
1141:331dot
1034:WP:AGF
910:WP:RFD
906:WP:AFC
768:WP:CSD
532:WP:BRD
403:except
363:WP:BRD
351:WP:RfD
316:Tamzin
250:331dot
1204:WHOIS
1026:draft
984:WP:G5
962:WP:G5
942:I did
890:WP:RS
882:WP:OR
653:, to
630:don't
536:never
355:WP:G8
270:first
246:WP:AN
1238:RIRs
1159:talk
1145:talk
1129:talk
1113:them
1100:talk
1075:talk
1050:talk
1012:talk
974:talk
950:talk
853:talk
815:talk
789:talk
780:stet
748:talk
707:talk
680:talk
650:here
638:talk
632:do.
544:talk
502:talk
463:talk
393:here
380:talk
254:talk
222:here
167:only
995:not
770:or
715:OK
559:the
487:not
480:or
428:sic
424:SiC
420:SIC
313:--
118:was
87:log
34:).
1240::
1161:)
1147:)
1131:)
1102:)
1077:)
1052:)
1044:.
1014:)
976:)
952:)
876:,
855:)
791:)
750:)
709:)
682:)
640:)
568:am
546:)
515:.
504:)
465:)
426:,
422:,
382:)
280:}}
274:{{
256:)
232::
197:,
172:is
114:is
99::
81:•
75:•
71:•
66:•
62:•
57:•
52:•
48:•
44:•
1264:)
1236:(
1233:)
1202:(
1157:(
1143:(
1127:(
1098:(
1073:(
1048:(
1010:(
972:(
948:(
851:(
829::
825:@
817:)
813:(
787:(
746:(
721::
717:@
705:(
678:(
636:(
542:(
500:(
461:(
378:(
347:I
295:)
291:(
252:(
91:)
89:)
85:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.