Jump to content

User talk:ProofRobust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ProofRobust, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi ProofRobust! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Rights

[edit]

Hi - per the request made at my talk page, and following the comment you made using your Eyebeller account, I've enabled the Extended Confirmed and Rollback user rights on this account. You already know what they do, and what the usage expectations are, so I won't give you the spiel about them being withdrawn if misused etc. Happy editing Girth Summit (blether) 09:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ProofRobust 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References and External Links for Gong Jun Wikipedia page

[edit]

Hi, Thank you for your message through my talk page, I actually going through the references lists and noticed that some links were broken, or not working anymore. I have updated new references links but were reverted by you. So just checking if it is okay for me to undo your reverting. Hope to hear back from you soon :) Thanks User talk: 90.255.28.105

90.255.28.105 Thanks for your message and for the explanation. I see what you are doing now. Sorry for the incorrect reverting on my behalf. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Edit Summaries. This can help to avoid confusion for other editors. I will undo my reverting and the warning I left you on your talk page. ProofRobust 11:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will include explanation next time to avoid confusion.
User talk: 90.255.28.105

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moktan147

[edit]

Moktan147 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Hello I am Ashish Moktan. Yes I have made edits as there are some obvious mistakes. Himalayan Sheepdog is just informal name mostly used in India to denote dogs from Himalayan range in India. Here in Nepal, we call them bhote kukur only. In India there are local names of these dogs such as bhutia, bhotia, gaddi etc. All these dogs registered name is Tibetan Mastiff. Please check the wikipedia of Tibetan Mastiff for more info on these dogs.[reply]

Hello Moktan147. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. In the edit I reverted, you removed a lot of content without any explanation. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Edit Summaries which help you to explain your changes.
For such a significant change, I would recommend commenting on the articles talk page. Thanks. ProofRobust 21:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other mistake I noticed is their life span. They are long life dogs with mostly living above 15 years in good environment.

These are the changes that I have proposed.

ProofRobusr, would you be kind enough to make changes or allow changes ? 

Moktan147 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not make the changes because I have not researcbed enough into the topic to make such a change and even if I deemed such a change to be appropriate I would still post a message on Talk:Himalayan Sheepdog do discuss the proposed change since it is significant. I recommend that you do this. ProofRobust 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reverting my edits

[edit]

Hi @ProofRobust:, I am editing Nasir Aslam Wani. And I had given reason also to various edits. I think you should restore my edit so that I can Copy-edit the article completely. Because this article is about a politician but the infobox used in it was of a person simply. I removed the content which should not be on Wikipedia as per WP:NPOV. I am still editing. Please restore the edits asap. So that I could complete it and fix all errors. GaffarSofi96 (talk)

GaffarSofi96 Why are you removing so many references? Thanks. ProofRobust 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProofRobust Please see again, the references were placed duplicate/repeated in references section. After reflist code. You know better where the citation have to be added. Please restore now. GaffarSofi96 (talk)
GaffarSofi96 I see. I will restore your edits. Happy editing! ProofRobust 16:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProofRobust Thank You So Much. GaffarSofi96 (talk)

FYI

[edit]

Hi ProofRobust, regarding Special:Diff/1037068888, please see WP:BLANKING. Users are allowed to remove notices, including warnings and block notices from their talk page. However, declined unblock requests should not be removed. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I assume that the policy was changed recently then. ProofRobust 10:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

[edit]

Hi ProofRobust. Please stop asking for this user right, it's not going to happen. Your recent messages to Rosguill (1, 2, 3) and subsequent edit warring to remove Rosguill's replies (1, 2) are disruptive and constitute harassment. Please be advised that continuing down his path will result in loss of editing privledges. Thanks, FASTILY 05:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, Rosguill Yes, you're right. With this account it's not going to happen. With a WP:CLEANSTART account, I can get it in 2 months. I am not harassing anyone. I was simply asking for advice and following agreed policy - WP:NPA. Your prejudice against this account is very concerning. You do not read what I am saying. You are firmly set in your ways and do not consider any alternative arguments I have made. You simply ignore them which is even worse. As I have said before, If this is how "exemplary users" behave - users who are supposed to be an example for all other editors then something has gone seriously wrong at the top. I'll leave you to sort it out. ProofRobust 10:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Clean start" means disconnecting and using your new account to do things that are very different from the things that got your old account into trouble. Making a new account with the apparent intention of preventing administrators from evaluating your entire track record when reviewing your next PERM request, after an administrator has told you that continuing to pursue the user right in question might lead to sanctions is not a clean start. That's just evasion of scrutiny. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can assist. The administrators are simply not listening to what I am saying and refuse to give less merit to the actions of 2 years ago. This account will always be prejudiced against. I have laid out my thoughts here: Special:Diff/1128192299. ProofRobust 14:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm imposing a block to prevent you from creating new accounts in an attempt to evade scrutiny, as declared above. This is implemented as a partial block, so it does not affect your ability to edit on this account, but does prevent you from creating new accounts. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I've upped the block to indef. Enough community time has been wasted on ProofRobust's tantrums, and they clearly aren't interested in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia. -FASTILY 08:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I am ready to contribute in a constructive manner, mainly by carrying on with my anti-vandalism work and also potentially creating new articles. I do not have a sockpuppet and promise not to create one. I will not interact with Rosguill or Fastily anymore unless it is appropriate to do so/they interact with me first.

Decline reason:

Frankly, this isn't convincing. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2022 (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.

Yamla, What can I do to convince you? ProofRobust 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed your request so won't be reviewing your next request. What I'd expect the next reviewing admin will want to see, though, is you directly addressing the concerns around WP:IDHT and WP:CIR and your harassment. Why did it take a block to get you to pay attention? How can we be sure you won't harass anyone going forward? Basically, you need to demonstrate and convince us you plan to take a totally different approach to Wikipedia going forward. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia. I have examined my actions and found that I did not act appropriately - especially with me continuing to press Fastily to give me NPP permisssions. I have already explained the reasons I did this (and I do still believe they are valid reasons), however those reasons do not justify my actions. The block has allowed me to take a step back, pause and reflect on my behaviour. I have read WP:IDHT and WP:CIR and realise that per those guidelines, me continuing to press for permissions (or anything else for that matter once agreed) constitutes disruptive editing. If unblocked, I will adhere to those guidelines and not press for my viewpoints. I hope you give me a chance. ProofRobust 10:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not clear on what contributions you want to make instead of what you did before. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2023 (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.

"I did not act appropriately" you possibly mean "I did act appropriately". This is unclear. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I have re-read my unblock request and see no reason to change anything. What exactly is unclear please? ProofRobust 11:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I was mistaken. I hadn't had enough coffee and misread what you wrote. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm not the target of your harassment. You should start by apologizing to Rosguill. -FASTILY 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, I apologise with the way I have dealt with you. I hope we can move on and communicate in a peaceful manner, if you so wish. ProofRobust 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to apologies extracted under duress, nor did I really want an apology in the first place. As I've been pinged here, I will say I am concerned about the framing of "viewpoints" in the unblock request, and would want to see evidence that you actually understand the extent to which your behavior has been disruptive by identifying the advice you have repeatedly ignored, as well as the reasons for which your requests for advanced permissions have been declined. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "viewpoints" I am not referring to anything specific, just any opinions when consensus has already been agreed. The reasons for NPP permissions being declined was because I didn't do so well at NPP School and the advice I have ignored was to move on to other areas of editing. ProofRobust 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not demonstrate to me that you understand the reasons that NPP was declined, and identifies only a single, relatively minor aspect of the advice you have been given. I'm left with the sense that the problems from your original block as Eyebeller in 2021 persist. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reason was your concern as to how I would treat new editors and whether I would bite them or be harsh with them. Anyways, I really do want to be a helpful editor. I think it is quite obvious that I need some help/guidance - but I don't feel like I'm getting it and have no clue how I would ask for this. Trial period - shutdown. Asking for advice - shutdown. Perhaps I should stick with the stuff I know and am good at then e.g. anti vandalism as I can't convince anyone to let me have a go at anything else. If no one wants to have anything to do with me - fine. I'm not forcing anyone. Just unblock me and let me carry on as I was before, doing anti vandalism work. ProofRobust 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Fastily, Any update? ProofRobust 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProofRobust, I've taken a chance on you by taking you on as a student twice already; I find your continued sense of entitlement astounding. I think it's pretty clear that this has been a poor use of my time thus far and I'm not interested in pursuing it further. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking to be taken on as a student, this is an unblock request which had no activity for 6 days. Therefore, I was asking for an update. Plus, no matter how many times I am a student of yours, I fail to see how that, or anything else, will convince you that I won't bite new editors. ProofRobust 23:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProofRobust, I think you should have patience. Obviously, admins who review unblock requests have their own doubts about unblocking you after reading this discussion. But the fact that you are not unblocked should be balanced by the fact that your unblock request hasn't been quickly denied either. Admins who review these requests are probably weighing the costs vs. benefits on unblocking you and will come to their own decision on their own time. I wouldn't be in a hurry if I were you. Instead, I'd advise you to spend some time working on other Wikimedia projects which can demonstrate that you are a productive editor elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I was simply trying to get things moving as I do not want this request to turn into one of the ones that is left pending for months. I have no interest in participating on other Wikimedia project at the moment. Fastily, as the blocking admin, can you respond to this please? ProofRobust 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, as I mentioned in my previous unblock request, I want to carry on with my anti-vandalism work and potentially create new articles. ProofRobust 23:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that comment, which was pretty general; what topics might you create articles about, or perhaps edit existing articles about? 331dot (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I have not thought about specific topics that I might create new articles on. That is not going to be my main focus. My main focus will be to continue with my anti-vandalism work. ProofRobust 00:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Are you going to review this or do I need to open another unblock request? ProofRobust 09:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please make a new request. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #68784

[edit]

is closed. Came here from there. Not convinced either way. My sense is to decline the unblock request as not ready yet, but I'll leave it open for review by someone more open minded. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

See previous 2 unblock requests

Decline reason:

After reading the above, and the circumstances that led to the block, I have chosen to decline this request. The block came after the editor demonstrated impatience with getting additional permissions. In the unblock request, they again demonstrate this impatience by pinging editors to get responses. Furthermore, when asked what articles the user would like to edit, they replied that they are interested in counter-vandalism, which might require more user rights to pursue this. Wikipedia is firstly an encyclopedia, codified as the first pillar. While it is noble that this editor wants to perform counter-vandalism patrol, this is too close to NPP that was repeatedly denied to this user and the user demonstrated the same behaviour that led to the block. My suggestion is that the editor takes a couple months away from Wikipedia and request an unblock when they find an article they would like to improve. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (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.

ProofRobust 11:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you for your comments. Not sure how much you know about me but I have been doing anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia, on and off, for over 2 years. The rollback rights that I have are sufficient for this. There have never been any major significant issues with my counter-vandalism work. On the contrary, I have been thanked for it instead. I have already taken a 2 month break as my block was made in late December. Please let me know your thoughts. ProofRobust 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel confident that unblocking you for counter-vandalism work is a good idea. Counter-vandalism involves interacting with editors, and part of this block concerned your interactions with other editors. Furthermore, many reasons you flunked NPP school are related to counter-vandalism work, so I would not be confident that you could assess harder-to-determine cases of vandalism. I would suggest seeking to be unblocked so that you can learn the basics of editing Wikipedia by actually editing and adding prose to articles. Once that is mastered, advanced permissions can be sought after. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I have a good amount of experience with counter-vandalism and have graduated from the CVUA with very high marks. I have never had any major issues with my anti-vandalism work but rather have been thanked time and time again. I have been trusted with the rollback right for 2 years, it has never been withdrawn from me. I have experience dealing with new users, and abusive users, treating them appropriately on a case by case basis. The fact that my rollback right had never been withdrawn should prove to be a good testament. Please consider this. ProofRobust 17:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already declined this request and stated my opinion above, and I do not wish to reverse it. I recommend that you take a couple months away from Wikipedia before filing your next unblock request. When you are ready, you can post a new unblock request below and another administrator will access it. Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. I do not see what another break will achieve in addition to the already 2 month break I have already taken. I will be posting another unblock request shortly. ProofRobust 17:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Per my previous unblock requests, I have acknowledged that my behaviour has caused disruption. I wish to continue editing in a helpful manner by doing anti-vandalism work. This is an area that I have experience in and where all my editing has been trouble free. ProofRobust 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2023 (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.

Unblock 2

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I ask that you please consider my unblock request and give me another chance. I have now been blocked for 3 months. This has been an excellent opportunity to cool down, collect my thoughts, and return to contribute constructively. I recognise that my previous behaviour that I was blocked for constituted disruption. I should have recognised this earlier though which is why I was blocked. In areas where I do not have much experience, such as NPP, I should defer to other editors who have more experience and listen to their advice and feedback. I should not pester or repeatedly ping editors for permissions, but rather focus on what I should do to contribute more usefully. I have read WP:ICHY and WP:CIR multiple times and will ensure that any future contributions are not considered disruptive. As I have already mentioned, one of the ways I will do this is my taking advice from more experienced editors. I will also stay away from NPP. Rather, I will focus on anti-vandalism. I have been trusted with the rollback right and this has never been withdrawn for me. I have also graduated from the WP:CVUA with very high marks only a few months after originally joining Wikipedia. My anti-vandalism work is not controversial and I am competent in this area so I believe I will be able to contribute in a useful manner without being disruptive. Please unblock me so I can do this. ProofRobust 20:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The blocking administrator is unwilling at this time to unblock. They are particularly concerned that you are overly aggressive, to the point of abuse, with the UTRS system and with repeated, frequent unblock requests. Please read Wikipedia:Standard Offer and follow the directions there before requesting an unblock. Jayron32 12:21, 8 May 2023 (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.

UTRS appeal #72652

[edit]

is declined and ProofRobust is strongly cautioned to stop abusing UTRS. This is the fourth such abuse of UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I was not aware that this was considered “abuse” and will not use UTRS for this purpose anymore. ProofRobust 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

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

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

Request reason:

Standard offer request. It has now been close to 12 months since my block. I have had a chance to reflect on my behaviour and I hope to return and contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I have read WP:IDHT and WP:CIR and promise not to be disruptive. If unblocked, I will be doing anti-vandalism work. My editing in this regard has been mostly issue-free and I hope I can continue contributing this way. ProofRobust 6:21 pm, 10 October 2023, Tuesday (2 months, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily - any objections to giving this user another chance? Girth Summit (blether) 13:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Rosguill is also one of the blocking admins. Looks like the sequence of blocks was Rosguill full block -> Rosguill downgraded to partial block -> Fastily upgraded back to full block. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily, Rosguill, and Yamla: Ok to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still no evidence of recent block evasion (good). I think this user should be closely monitored if unblocked, but other than that, I have no objections. --Yamla (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it to, on the condition that any repeat of the same behavior that led to the original block will result in an immediate re-block -Fastily 22:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked. Welcome back -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ProofRobust&oldid=1189943540"