User talk:Oflander
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I invite any admin examine my IP history and you will find that its consistent with living in Miami (although I am posting this from a trip to the Philippines. I also invite any admin to view the items that I have posted or edited. I am a real human being (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48815810), please take a look at my professional history and you will see that I only write about the things that I know. If there are any further questions, I can be contacted in the real world. @TonyBallioni:
Decline reason:
It's a WP:checkuser block-- please read WP:GAB. What Tony said. I did review your edits. For these reasons, I cannot unblock you. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2018 (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.
- I'm sure you're a real person. You might even be different than those other accounts (heck, I'll believe you are a different person). The issue is that you show obvious signs of promotional editing, were operating on the same IP range as those other accounts, and show very similar behavioral signs with how you deal with the proposed deletion of promotional content. You're either part of the same firm, the same person, or a different freelancer or firm operating for the same clients. Anyway you slice it, you're violating the policy on abuse of multiple accounts, and you're definitely violating the terms of use and local policies on spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dlohcierekim, it isn't a checkuser block but is based on behavior.
- Oflander, you have indicated that you edit from Miami and the technical data supports that. You say that you are in the Philippines now. Do you know what your IP is? It shows you to be somewhere else entirely. Red flag.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC) - Hello User:Berean Hunter (talk) I assure you I am in General Santos City Philippines visiting in-laws https://s17.postimg.org/fcejzpk73/20180307_195826.jpg https://s17.postimg.org/rsb9toqgf/20180307_170905.jpg . I welcome any scrutiny. I'm not a sockpuppet, I don't flag your checkuser, I can confirm or address any questions. Please just ask them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oflander (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Berean Hunter: above ping by Oflander misfired. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello TonyBallioni (talk) I believe that we have established in the peer admin process that I am who I say I am, that I am active in my own IP range in Miami, that I don't flag the checkuser, that your initial concerns of collusion and common IPs with your sock puppet investigation proved to be unfounded, that I write about my professional experience, and that I am responsive to your feedback. I would like to request your personal feedback. Thanks
@TonyBallioni: @Berean Hunter:
- Cheers. Ofander, may we discuss your IPs openly? As a checkuser, we need your permission to do so.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cheers. Ofander, may we discuss your IPs openly? As a checkuser, we need your permission to do so.
- Yes, you have my permission to disclose my IPs or any information that you have that you deem relevant.
@TonyBallioni: @Berean Hunter:
- Without signing your posts with four tildes, ~~~~, the pings wont work. :) They are triggered by a current timestamp that must accompany them. The four tildes will auto-complete for you.
- Your geolocation shows as Nigeria and it doesn't appear to be a proxy. Notice that both independent tools see that IP as the same geolocation. Also, please refer to the whois report which supports the other findings.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC) - Oflander (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Here uis my timestamp
This is the IP when I am connect on wifi. https://s17.postimg.org/ytdib00fz/Screenshot_20180308-023135.png Here is when connected by mobile data. https://s17.postimg.org/brwx5cvof/Screenshot_20180308-023301.png Anything else is erroneous data. Berean Hunter (talk) @Berean Hunter:
Please let me know if the tildes worked.
Regards
- The tildes worked and may be seen right under my signature from my previous post. Use those at the end of your posts for signing.
- I apologize for creating some confusion here. I read the checkuser log and the IPs are listed in the order that I pulled them but those are in reverse chronological order without dates. I mistakenly saw the oldest as the newest. I have just checked again and beginning March 7, you have two newer IPs that proximate to what you have above. Those weren't in my previous check. Your edits from the Nigerian IP were all on January 25. Use of that range is held in common to one of two promotional editor groups in another sockpuppet case. The nature of your promotional edits has allowed for a possible association.
- Setting the above aside for a moment, have you read and understood the conflict of interest guidelines? Behaviorally, this appears to be an issue. As an example, the Sarah Bachrodt article was created on January 15 and you pulled the PROD tag off the same day. How did you know that this article had been written?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Setting the above aside for a moment, have you read and understood the conflict of interest guidelines? Behaviorally, this appears to be an issue. As an example, the Sarah Bachrodt article was created on January 15 and you pulled the PROD tag off the same day. How did you know that this article had been written?
- Hello TonyBallioni (talk) *Berean Hunter @TonyBallioni: @Berean Hunter:
@TonyBallioni: @Berean Hunter Thank you for being patient in my response as I’ve been traveling back from the Philippines to Miami. I would like to see if I can assuage any and all of your concerns at once.
I would like to speak to the genesis of my contributions to this date, as well as my intended scope of future contributions. Firstly, if you examine my CV https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronasherlester/ , you will see that I have written only about items that I am familiar with in items pertaining to my previous career and current career. The purpose of my contributions are not for any materiel gain, but that the art industry, and the art fair industry is in a state of change similar to industrialization in the United States. There are events, properties, companies, and stories that go back as fair as Navy Pier (the first commercial exhibition of art in what we consider an ‘Art Fair’) are coming to a close. If I do not serve as the witness, this history will be lost.
I have contributed to the page: Art Palm Beach. I have no current commercial interest of any kind in this event. I contributed mainly additional sources from the The New York Times, Palm Beach Daily News, Quebec Daily Examiner, Artnet.
I have created the foundation for an article for Accurate Event Group. This may seem to sit below the notability cloud, but I assure you that as the history is developed, the reader will see how this company grew for a time in its history to be the near exclusive security contractor for all events in South Florida at its peak and that this company’s history is intertwined with Art Basel and the entire story of the convention industry of Florida as well the history of its decline.
I provided a number of edits to Bitwage. I am personally aware of this company and I am aware that the article is a skewed representation of the facts. In fact, the article is plainly authored by ‘Jonathanericchester’ the Key Person - President - Jonathan Chester of this company. I patrolled this page and noted several dead links or self-published materiel in the clear.
The last article that I’ve contributed seems to be the contentious issue, namely Sarah Bachrodt . I personally know the art dealer that represents this artist. I have stood in their booth at their exhibition as an art fair and I can personally attest to the facts presented in the article. I have witnessed the exhibition of this artist at a juried art fair where all works have been vetted by museum professionals to a much higher standard than Wiki notability. I removed the PROD tag, as I was aware of the article within a very small community in the fine arts, and I could personally attest to the voracity of the article.
I believe there is a question about posting from Nigeria. I assure you I have never been to Africa. I do have employees in the Philippines, Kenya, Portugal, India, and of course the United States. We do have some intermingled VPN connectivity for authentication to ActiveDirectory, but it generally does not change the physical address of the user at its not a default gateway and only for internal traffic. In my current role in Devops, I routinely examine ip logs on servers narratives begin to form in my mind of DDOS attacks, black hats, and bots. The reality, every time, is far from that exciting. Sometimes, its just service providers re-using RIPE, ARIN, or other blocks similar to GCE, which always seems to place my servers in Brazil.
What I can say, is that just like corporate security, we can be caught in our own wilderness of mirrors, and see bad actors at every turn. I hope by this post, I have cleared the Prima facie air before being lost in the wilderness of mirrors. I intend to contribute further on the exhibition industry from 1910 to the present, the art exhibition industry from 1989 to the present, and contemporary art and the art industry post-war to the present. With the next needed article in this history – Art Miami (1991 – Present). This was the fair with its sister fair Art Hong Kong (1994 – 1997) that were the predicate events to Art Basel , the universally preeminent events of contemporary art in the world.
Berean Hunter– I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently. I am by no means a professional art critic. However, I am uniquely qualified on the subject by profession. In this case I was aware of the movement to document this artist. Nearly four months later, this article has stood the test of peer review.
TonyBallioni – By now, you know that I am who I say I am. My contributions are wholly related to my professional background. I appear to somehow tangentially be related to your sock puppet investigation. If I was a ‘sock puppet’ I would certainly not be so adamite to retain my Oflander account. I don’t have any other accounts, I am not in the content business, and we all are to some degree behaviorally similar in action to each other in anything that we do. I ask you again, personally, to look at my contributions and background as a whole and see that I am exactly what I appear to be.
Thank you both for your time and your cooperation. I would like to request both of your assents and cooperation in a request initiated by me after your consideration in retaining my privileges to contribute. Oflander (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I think you're a individual who works in outsourcing, which is actually the perfect fit for what you have been blocked for. I'll let Berean Hunter comment on the technical data part, but if you were sharing a similar range to other agency accounts (all of whom I'd also be more than willing to bet were also likely distinct individuals), showing similar behavior in trying to prevent the deletion obscure articles about likely non-notable individuals quickly after they have been nominated for deletion. Whether you are an employee, outsourcing partner, or independent white label firm doesn't really matter much to me. Removing a PROD off of an article created by a sockpuppet and then also sharing a range from the same VPN with a paid editing firm doesn't give me much confidence here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello TonyBallioni,talk, thank you for your quick reply. I am new to PRODs as well as 'paid editing firms' which is a new term for me. It would seem to me that a paid editing firm would write any article about any subject, sort of like a Wiki mercenary. I am writing exactly about the things that I am qualified to write about. In all deference to you as a qualified editor, unless you are a subject matter expert in the fine arts, you are not the person to discern what is obscure within the realm of the fine arts. As an example, there are a number of post-war, Soviet era Romainian artists that are just now being documented for the first time and being critically accepted as equals to Western modern masters that are extremely important to the arts although there are probably less than twenty qualified professionals to write the history.
When it comes to the tech, you are beginning with a supposition, then a narrative, then a conclusion and creating a straw man argument. 'If he works in tech, then he must work in outsourcing, all people who work in outsourcing must be 'paid editors'. I assure you, that I have no outside actors within our mpls network, period. Its intended only for authentication. The only reason I mentioned it is again in the spirit of transparency.
Let's make things simpler. What would you like to know about me? What would you like to know about my current or past profession? What would you like me to open my house and provide to you?
Lets start with my ARIN ORG: Org ID: VNL-51 Name: Vinculum Networks LLC I assure you that you will find that there is no tangential relationship between our networks and your sockpuppets.
@TonyBallioni: Oflander (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Second and Comprehensive Appeal to Unblock
[edit]Hello and regards. I believe that I have addressed each item of contention or concern in the statements provided above this section and the summaries in this section. I ask that you ‘assume good faith’ and in the absence of any further contention or any actual specific issue, to please reconsider and remove the block. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Issue: ‘It's a WP:checkuser block-‘
It has in fact been determined and detailed on this talk page that is was not a WP:checkuser block. @Dlohcierekim, you have reviewed my edits, but without the context and detail that I have subsequently provided here on this talk page. No fellow editor has questioned the context.
Issue: ‘You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts.’
It has been detailed here by numerous editors that I am an actual person, that I am not a sock-puppet user, that I have distinct areas of qualification of which to contribute subject matter content. There has been some question of some extra-superficial tangential non-specific, non-detailed, non-substantiated relationship with some other unspecified third party. To provide all editors complete transparency, I have since enumerated every edit, and how each absolutely relate to my subject matter knowledge and experience. I have provided sufficient time for a response or for this information to be detailed and Berean Hunter has chosen not to supply any further response. I have provided sufficient time for TonyBallioni to provide a response, and he has chosen not to continue any challenge. There have been no challenges to these facts or further communication.
The voracity of Contributions is not in question
On this Talk page, I have enumerated every contribution, each contribution’s genesis, and what specific professional knowledge or professional experience relates to each contribution. For the purposes of peer review in subject matter contributions there have been no edits to my contributions. The voracity of sources has met peer review over a period of months. No editor has questioned any aspect of my CV as well as any individual edit.
I would ask that you follow this principal in this case. I have been, continue to be, commit in the future to complete transparency, as well as contributing within the areas of which by professional and academic experience affords.
Nobody is Perfect
I freely accept that I can improve as well as take any constructive criticism. If you have any feedback that you wish to impart on me. I solemnly pledge to consider, respect and adopt any guidance.
And so .. in short
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I. Please view comprehensive response II. Reason for block, It's a WP:checkuser block, Established it was not a checkuser block III.’ You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts.’ – Established that my edits are my own and I am a human being IV. No supplied evidence to the contrary V. No further communication from admins VI. If you have any guidance on how to to better, how to improve, how to aleviate admin concerns, how to remediate any specific issue, please inform me. – Thanks for your consideration Oflander (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is very likely that, knowingly or unknowingly, you are editing on behalf of some of the same clients who have also been represented by other editors, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry, but I shall leave that aside and consider other problems with your editing, which are clearly visible in your editing.
- Your editing has frequently been promotional in character. Whether that is because you are acting to promote your clients or not, that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Since you work in marketing it is actually possible that you are so used to reading and writing marketing copy that you have become desensitised to it, and genuinely can't see that your writing is promotional, in which case you are unlikely ever to be able to stop writing in that way. However, whether that is so or not, an editor whose editing is promotional is editing contrary to Wikipedia policy.
- Your own statements show unambiguously that you are editing with the purpose of using Wikipedia to publicise certain subjects which so far have not received substantial coverage, so that they do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and moreover that you are doing so, at least in part, because those subjects do not have such coverage, not despite the fact that they don't. For example, you say "If I do not serve as the witness, this history will be lost." That unequivocally means that you are editing for the purpose of publicising or promoting subjects which do not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Another example is this: "In all deference to you as a qualified editor, unless you are a subject matter expert in the fine arts, you are not the person to discern what is obscure within the realm of the fine arts. As an example, there are a number of post-war, Soviet era Romainian artists that are just now being documented for the first time and being critically accepted as equals to Western modern masters that are extremely important to the arts although there are probably less than twenty qualified professionals to write the history." If they are only now beginning to be documented and there are fewer than 20 people in the world who know enough about them to write about them, then they do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We are therefore talking about the possibility of unblocking an editor not only much of whose editing is promotional, but who has unequivocally stated intentions which are contrary to Wikipedia policy (whether knowingly so or not).
- The above would be sufficient reason to decline your unblock request, but I think I should also state that I am very far from convinced that you are not editing as part of your paid work. You say various things round and about the subject of paid editing, clearly designed to give the impression that you are not doing so, but at no point do you directly state that you have not edited about or on behalf of your clients. That is exactly a kind of behaviour which is very common from people who are trying to be deceptive but are reluctant to tell a direct lie. At least some of your editing certainly has been about one or more of your present or past clients. Although you have not directly denied that, you have also failed to directly say that it is so, even though you know that the question of paid editing makes it relevant. You are being either deliberately evasive or blind to the nature of what you are doing.
- I could go on, but I have already written far more than I intended to, and more than enough to indicate that both the way you have been editing and what you have said about your editing indicate that unblocking you would not be likely to be to the benefit of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2018 (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.
Oflander (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello @JamesBWatson (talk)
- I'm sorry that my response was less than crystalline. I have never, nor do I ever intend to enter into any relationship that is related to paid editing. I have not received compensation, nor any third party direction or suggestions as to article topics. I did not state this directly simply because I was responding to the specific reasons why I was blocked by an administrator.
- I was blocked due to a concern that my account was an artificial account used in Sock Puppetry. We have established that this is not the case. I appealed this and the decline reason was that it was a check user block. We have established that it was not a checkuser block. I appealed once again. I am being made to feel that the bar will always change. This time, I was denied because the editor felt that I was not a Sock Puppet, nor a Checkuser Block account, but a paid editor because I did not directly state this. I have now done so.
- @JamesBWatson - In terms of subject matter - Its my intention to write about the history of the American fine arts industry such as Art Basel, Art Miami, Art Hong Kong (now Art Basel Hong Kong), and related topics. I have already stated this intent. Please Google these topics and you will find that these are highly notable topics. In the section that you extrapolated from my response I was giving you an extreme example.
- @JamesBWatson, I request that you respond to this response to your unblock response. It seems that your reason was a departure from the original block of Sock Puppetry, a departure from the second issue of a checkuser, and now you have created new concerns that I have now addressed.
- I also would request guidance on how to avoid the issue in the future, which I believe is a courtesy commonly afforded in this situation.
- Lastly, let me state again: I have never, nor do I ever intend to enter into any relationship that is related to paid editing. I have not received compensation, nor any third party direction or suggestions as to article topics.
Oflander (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- You indicated your career and Oflander Dockhiemer who are
- "Bringing Fine Art Marketing to the Art World
- We believe businesses across all industries should be able to reap the benefits of successful digital marketing. With nearly 30 years in the art industry, our Fine Art Marketing team knows how to successfully implement the latest digital marketing practices and help art businesses thrive. Our Fine Arts Sector offers digital services to clients in this industry. Our Fine Art Marketing team will help manage artist reputations, conduct inbound marketing campaigns, while also designing websites that drive engagement and increase sales. What’s more, we know art fairs are an integral part of the success of galleries and artists. This is why we develop unique fine art marketing plans and strategies that prepare clients for upcoming fairs and will help them get the most out of their participation." Attribution to you? "©2018 Oflander"
- Art Palm Beach are a client of Oflander Dockhiemer. You have a commercial interest there. You are active with Oflander Dockhiemer and not retired.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello @Berean Hunter (talk)
- I am retired from International Fine Art Expositions, a company that no longer exists and whose assets are now with other firms. I am also retired from the exposition industry. This is what I stated before.
- The items that you have enumerated are portfolio pieces only. The portfolio items are professional items related to operations with a separation date of March 2012.
- I am glad that you have taken the extra time to view the services that I work on now. As you can see plainly, that there are no services offered related to content, writing, Wikipedia, copywriting, or anything related to editing, or whatever you may expect. My staff are all software developers with no other type of skill other than technical. The services offered are related to CRM deployments, Remarketing Campaigns. If you examine the entire site, you will see exactly what my present firm does and does not do.
- You can also see that I am an actual person, that I have a published relationship and professional skill set in the industry in which I have edited, and that I am based in Miami. I believe, once again, that you have proved the argument for me that I am not connected to a Sockpuppet situation. @Berean Hunter, it was you that pointed out that I was not flagged by checkuser. These were the reasons listed for a block and the appeal.
- @Berean Hunter - I take your comment to imply that since you are only discussing a new concern that I have answered all previous questions and concerns to your satisfaction. Thank you for that. Thank you also for checking the Oflander website and noticing that there are no services listed related to Wikipedia or content creation. Once again, if you would like to offer any guidance I would gladly follow your guidance in the future.
Oflander (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Accurate Event Group moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Accurate Event Group, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
[edit]Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21080 was submitted on Apr 02, 2018 22:36:24. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked
[edit]Your block has been reviewed by multiple administrators. It has been explained to you that you are likely violating our policy on multiple accounts, even if you are a distinct person. It has been explained to you why it is obvious you are here to promote your own interests. You are currently just arguing with administrators and not making a good faith attempt to address the actual concerns with your behavior here. I'm revoking your talk page access as this has gone on long enough on-wiki. You are free to make future appeals through WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21179 was submitted on Apr 11, 2018 17:53:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21201 was submitted on Apr 12, 2018 23:59:09. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
[edit]Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
[edit]Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22568 was submitted on Sep 06, 2018 18:17:06. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Oflander (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23213 was submitted on Nov 10, 2018 21:14:24. This review is now closed.