User talk:B01010100

Welcome!

Hello, B01010100! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello

[1] Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While i agree to having participated in an edit war as reported, the reasons given for the block are for something completely different. There is "Logging out to edit war". This is simply false, i have never, not once, logged out to edit wikipedia. I have, at times when i didn't have much time, made an edit without logging in first but that is a far cry from "logging out to edit war" which assumes malicious intent. I have also long stopped making edits before logging in first, that was at a time when i wasn't particularly involved with WP yet, the moment i started to get really involved i made sure to always log into my account first. Besides, the reported edit war that i admitted to was from my account only - i've never even edited that page before logging in first. I'm not sure where that "logging out to edit war" is supposed to come from. There is also "adding original research" which was not mentioned in the report and hence it is quite unclear what exactly that original research would be. There was a discussion on the talk page about OR, but the first issue about the german report was simply made up - every single statement was reliably attributed to the sources, and not synthesized or something. The second issue may or may not have been OR (the source stated "Wait. Did we say this was funny?" which i had put in as "implying they think it was funny"), but that seems pretty minor. Given that my intention here, as stated in my comments on the report, is to have the "D" part of "BRD" take place it seems that an editing block is out of place, given that it means that i cannot edit the talk page too. If you're concerned that i'll change the article, don't be, i'm fine with not changing any article for 31 hours - the problem is that the block means that i cannot engage in discussion on the talk page.

Accept reason:

Unblocking per agreement to refrain from edit-warring and Tiptoety's comment below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to cease all edit warring, I am willing to unblock you. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree to cease edit warring, i'm not here to willingly edit war - frustration over long-term ongoing behaviour got the better of me in that instance that ended up being reported, i should have known better than to be led into a full-blown edit war. However, i would like to know what exactly was OR for being one of the reasons for the block.B01010100 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety hasn't edited for a few hours, but since you seem to have agreed to stop edit warring I'm unblocking on his behalf. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S/he might have ceased the edit warring but not the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Their first edit since the block was removed was to jump right into AN/I [2]. And if anyone really believes that a genuine brand new account can just easily find obscure AN/I discussions from 5 years+ ago, which are listed under different, older, usernames, well... I got this wonderful investment opportunity where you convince your friends to join the wonderful investment opportunity... anyone wanna sign up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided relevant evidence that you have a long history of exactly the behaviour that is complained about in that ANI discussion. It's nothing more than putting things in context. Believe me, if this was just WP:BATTLEGROUND as you claim, i would have linked to a lot more. But i didn't, i stuck to evidence that is directly relevant to the discussion, which says enough. As to your continuing ill-founded attempts to discredit me (is shouting "sockpuppet!" at every occassion that doesn't present itself not enough anymore?) i'll just say that maybe you shouldn't project your own research limitations onto others - who may know how to use this thing called the internet.B01010100 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But since you ask so nicely, i'll show you where the information can be found. Remember not much more than two weeks ago you reported LokiiT? Take a look at his statement there, the link to your previous username and case is there. So its your use of the tactic of provoking "disagreeable editors" in an effort to get them blocked/banned that ultimately led to unearthing the information that puts this entire thing in context. You've got to love the irony here.B01010100 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the story that you found the link at the WP:AE report (which did not concern you and it's not exactly clear how you would come across it) is a nudge more believable than the story you were originally telling, which was that you found it following a link from my contributions page or my block log [3]. I guess that one fell apart when it was pointed out that no such link exists because I was never blocked in the first place. And really, veiled threats? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right it wasn't from the block log, my mistake. I was researching along so many lines i misremembered what stuff i got where exactly. But what does it even matter how i got it, for all it matters i may have gotten it in a dream, it is relevant evidence. And what veiled threats are you talking about? If you mean my statement that i would've linked to more if my goal was WP:BATTLEGROUND as you were claiming, it's not a threat but a simple observation that pretty much sinks your claim.B01010100 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, B01010100. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party source needed

Please can you find a third-party source for your statement of Denis Krivosheev's opinion, which you added to at least four articles.[4] For the purpose of the other statements attributed to the Amnesty International article, the Amnesty International article is a good source. However, as Krivosheev works for Amnesty International, the relevance/significance of his statement really ought to have a different (i.e. third-party) source.

Nobody (except possibly Krivosheev) believes that the Red Army should have allowed food convoys to German 6th Army when they were surrounded at Stalingrad - it was good that the Germans were starving to death, it made them surrender. That civilians in Stalingrad also went hungry was unfortunate; starving the civilians was not the purpose of surrounding German 6th Army - even under modern treaties it was not war crime.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official press release by Amnesty International quoting the director of the relevant section of Amnesty International, why would a third party source for relevance be required? Do you believe it irrelevant that in the press release by Amnesty International reporting on the blocking of food aid one of its directors is quoted as stating that it constitutes a war crime? You can disagree with whether it actually is one or not (that's why the statement is attributed as an opinion), but I don't see how it fails to be a relevant or significant aspect of the events.B01010100 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Holodomor genocide question, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
The referenced content you deleted does, in fact, state that Belgium recognises Holodomor as 'genocide'. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:Holodomor genocide question. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor genocide question - Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: The discretionary sanctions described above are still in effect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have not edited any of the relevant pages for years, I'll just consider this par for the course intimidation methods of editors who do not subscribe to the bizarre and racist conspiracy theories which Wikipedia bases its positions on.

March 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The material you're complaining about involves the Ukrainian conflict which falls under the Eastern Europe topic area. Your assertion that other editors are saying Russia has time travel technology is obviously nonsensical and continues the disruption you have been engaging for years. Blocked indefinitely, first year under discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20956 was submitted on Mar 21, 2018 15:12:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the conspiracy theory is that a crash in July 2014 prompted Russia to "manipulate sources" on the Su-25's flight specifications to show a flight ceiling above 7km, even though those sources were published years before the crash. I'm sorry that you're having such trouble understanding that claiming that a cause happened after its effect implies time travel, but I can't be held responsible for your failure to understand such simple concepts. Your conspiracy theory is debunked, and your block is obviously inspired by an intent to keep the refutation from being presented and discussed "higher-up". This can clearly be seen in that I haven't edited any relevant articles you base your block on (ie articles relating to Eastern Europe, as per the administration enforcement case) but that this is just a panic block because I opened an ArbCom case request clearly showing the ludicrousness of your conspiracy theory.

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).

B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no valid basis for the block. The admin in question appeals to discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern Europe, yet I have not even edited any articles under those restrictions[4] for years. This is nothing but an obvious attempt to subvert the dispute resolution process, given that all I did was open, first, an ANI case[5] and then an ArbCom case[6] presenting evidence debunking the conspiracy theory in question.

Decline reason:

This is no longer an AE block. Like all the other administrators commenting at AE, however, I see no reason to unblock you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As this is an Arbitration Enforcement action, I will copy this to WP:AE for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See here: [5]. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.B01010100 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santamoly

Santamoly since apparently you're the previous one to attempt to talk some sense into the conspiracist crowd and to be blocked for it, I thought you might be interested in the following[6][7][8]. The plot thickens with Russians traveling back in time to "manipulate sources" published long before the crash.

Your recent arbitration case request

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find it a little Kafkaesque to say that there should be a discussion on the talk page given that discussion on the talk page is considered a blockable offense, which is the entire reason the dispute went first to ANI and then ArbCom in the first place?B01010100 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. This was our standard messaging. I'm afraid I can't help you further – I am required to remain impartial, and I accordingly cannot provide feedback about the merits of your request. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False statement by Acroterion on ArbCom case request

The claim by Acroterion[9] is simply false. Immediately after the crash of MH-17 the flight specifications of the Su-25 were widely talked about in the media, and an Su-25 pilot tried to correct the flight ceiling on WP by reverting the earlier (in 2011) change to a lowered ceiling[10]. He was almost immediately set upon and shut down by what could probably best be described as a rabid gang of Russophobic racists. They made a whole fuss about it, and it even got into the papers, which then constitute the sources used by Acroterion to support his claims.

The Popular Science source[11] has this to say about the incident: "On Monday morning, someone from an IP address in Moscow edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to increase the maximum height the plane can reach by about 10,000 feet." It confirms that the Su-25 pilot was editing from Moscow, but in no way supports Acroterion's claims about "manipulation of Wikipedia."

The Economist source[12] has this to say about the incident: "The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so." Which also confirms that people edited from Russia, but also in no way supports the claims about "manipulation of Wikipedia."

Is it not fairly racist and nationalist to suppress/block/ban editors for no other crime than being of a certain nationality, and claiming with no evidentiary basis that they're all involved in some bizarre conspiracy?

The further claim that "The accounts and IPs that have been complaining that they're not being taken seriously have carefully avoided even acknowledging this issue" is now shown false. Perhaps what was meant was "We can keep claiming that the editors in question avoid acknowledging this issue if the editors are conveniently blocked, nudge nudge wink wink."

NeilN's statement on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From NeilN's statement[13]

"B01010100 knows very well that they're editing on a Ukrainian-related topic"

And yet he can not show even one edit by me for years.

"without using article talk pages"

Yet this[14] is what the other involved admin states on the talk page:

"Feel free to discuss this at WP:ANI. You are risking an arbitration enforcement action by pursuing a course of advocacy for content that has been shown by outside sources to have been deliberately falsified to manipulate WIkipedia."

If you dare discuss his conspiracy theory on the talk page then you get blocked, and if you dare follow the instructions and do it at WP:ANI rather than the talk page then you also get blocked. Basically, you get blocked for discussing his conspiracy theory no matter where or what you do.

"may fall just outside the Eastern Europe topic area."

I'm not claiming that ArbCom and ANI are just outside the Eastern Europe topic area, I'm claiming that they are far outside it. Unless you care to show me some edit of mine that wasn't from, like, years ago?

TonyBallioni's statement on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From TonyBalliononi's statement[15]

"I'm not entirely comfortable blocking someone using discretionary sanctions for making an ArbCom case request, even if it was a ridiculous one."

Well that's a new one, make your conspiracy theory so ridiculous (such as requiring Russians to have traveled back in time) and then of course any mere description of it will sound ridiculous, and you can just handwave the glaring issues with your theory away by saying that it all "sounds ridiculous". Well yeah, if your theory is ridiculous then it will sound ridiculous, duh.

"the animosity towards Acroterion in particular is concerning"

Oh please, you might as well talk about how "the animosity towards Alex Jones in particular is concerning." In all this Acroterion has done nothing but make insinuations and accuse me of being involved in his bizarre conspiracy theories, such as being involved in some "gaslighting campaign" or the "resurrection" of such, as well as "offsite coordination" (presumably with co-conspirators) and a range of other things. All without even a shred of evidence for any of it, of course.

None of this of course has anything to do with the core issue, that discussing the admin's conspiracy theory[16] is apparently a blockable offense both on the talk page of the article and outside of it. But inquiring minds want to know, how did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record of sources, if not through time travel?

From subsequent edit[17]

"I think the comments about Acroterion, especially the parts highlighted by NeilN"

And what comments exactly would that be? The "parts highlighted by NeilN" being where I said Acroterion's statement is false? Yes, how dare I say that his statement is false and provide diffs to prove it, we can't have any of that, can we? Or is it the description of "rabid gang of Russophobic racists"? Because that wasn't about Acroterion but about some of the strongest-shouting editors at the time of the incident who were previously involved with the EEML cabal and for whom rabid Russophobia was hence no stranger indeed. Let's remember here for a moment that the only evidence Acroterion presents for his entire theory is that some people from Russia edited wikipedia to revert changed information back to its previous state. There is nothing whatsoever supporting these theories of "manipulation" or "gaslighting campaigns" other than that the nationality of some editors was Russian. Since when is being Russian, in and of itself, such a crime?

On Sandstein's statement on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

In response to [18]:

How did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record from before the crash, if not through time travel? No amount of handwaving makes the question go away. Blocking anyone daring to ask such questions (or indeed discuss the conspiracy theory in question at all) doesn't really make it go away either, it just hides it.

As to me not being a benefit to "this project": I completely agree. Personally I care about things like empirical evidence, physical reality and basic Causality. I'm not really into the crazy conspiracy stuff, so I wouldn't be much benefit to "this project" indeed. Something I realized back in 2015 which, as you correctly noticed, prompted me to stop editing. So how about this, you can keep me blocked but at least answer the question about that conspiracy theory[19]: How did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record from before the crash?

I just find it really amazing how this entire conspiracy can be determined from nothing more than two newspaper articles which prove nothing more than that at least some of Wikipedia's editors can be suspected of being Russian (as determined by IP location). I'm really interested in how the theory proposes the retroactive change to the historical record has occurred.

On various other statements on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Courcelles [20]: "simply too much bad behaviour"

Where "bad behaviour" = "disputing a conspiracy theory". Let's recall, again, that any discussion of the conspiracy theory is considered a blockable offense[21][22] etc irrespective of "good" or "bad" behaviour.

From Acroterion [23]: "It appears that they took it upon themselves to go to ANI, then to arbitration".

Let's recall, for the umpteenth time, that it is Acroterion himself[24] who stated that it should be discussed in ANI and that it is a blockable offense to discuss his conspiracy theory on the article's talk page. And then of course goes on to give "He took it to ANI" as the reason for another block. What a nice little two-pronged system (discuss on talk page => block, discuss outside of talkpage => block), it's almost like someone desperately doesn't want his conspiracy theory discussed no matter what.

From Acroterion [25]: " disruptive editing is fine too, they've wasted plenty of time with all this running from one noticeboard to another."

See paragraph above, it's Acroterion himself who said that his conspiracy theory must be discussed at noticeboards, and that discussing it on the article's talk page is a blockable offense.

From Alex Shih [26]: "If the user is willing to articulate their content dispute in a rational manner without being extremely pointy".

How about we recall yet again that any discussion of the admins' conspiracy theory in any manner is considered a blockable offense. Also, I've been more than rational, which is a lot more than can be said about the conspiracy theorist admins. I'm not the one claiming that Russians "deliberately falsify" sources (even backwards in time!) with no other evidence than that some of the editors on Wikipedia can be suspected of being Russian (as determined by their IP location). Maybe you can answer this then: How did the Russians manage to "deliberately falsify" the historical record from before the crash, if not through time travel?

Anyway, the consensus seems to go that it should be "NOTANYWHERE". Well, of course they hide it behind "NOTHERE" but if you apply "NOTHERE" to every part of wikipedia then of course it just becomes "NOTANYWHERE". How unexpected, the conspiracy theory is Absolute Truth and anyone caught disputing it is to be blocked. If they dispute it on the article's talk page? Well, that's a NOTHERE and an obvious block. If they dispute it in some dispute resolution noticeboard? Well, that's obviously a "NOTHERE" as well and deserving of a block.B01010100 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to a regular indefinite block per appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

B01010100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20971 was submitted on Mar 22, 2018 14:30:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]