90.224.197.111

Quick deletion of Fuck off simple wiki

The page you wrote, Fuck off simple wiki, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Hockeycatcat (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Your recent changes, like those to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, are vandalism and are not acceptable on any Wikipedia. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia. --Ferien (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account so you can avoid notices that are not for you.

Quick deletion of Dsgijnisjg

The page you wrote, Dsgijnisjg, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Ely - Talk 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent changes, like those you made to "Dsgijnisjg", are vandalism, and this shows that you want to harm Wikipedia. This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia. --Ferien (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the change, consider creating an account so you can avoid notices that are not for you.

unfairly blocked again

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

90.224.197.111 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

@Eptalon I haven't made any bad pages. i just marked them for deletion when an IP had spam/advertising and one other that had nonsense/vandalism. That should not need a block. The other IP 2600:1009:B044:5EA4:90F2:6460:F3BB:E2C1 should be blocked and that user was the user who did made the bad pages with nonsense and spam, I did not make the bad pages. i just marked them for deletion. --90.224.197.111 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block has already expired. Ferien (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like this guy was actually combating vandalism, unless i am wrong. Dingothegorg 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Other users' unblock requests

Please don't remove other users' unblock requests, even if they aren't valid requests. Especially leave them if the user keeps putting the request back -- repeated removing and restoring isn't helpful. Give the admins the chance to see the requests. Often the admins will decide to remove a user's talk page access if the see bad requests, but they can't do that if the bad request has been removed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: i did not remove the unblock request I just declined it because it was not valid and had bad words. --90.224.197.111 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Only admins should be declining requests. Even if, that could be at least justified if you were a trusted user but it seems you're not. SHB2000 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You removed the unblock request from the page. And, as SHB2000 said, only admins can accept or decline an unblock request. It's usually best not to police other users' talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6 AND @SHB2000: See [1] I did not remove the unblock request I declined it. IP users or other non-admins should decline it if it looks bad. Next time this happens I will not do that again.--90.224.197.111 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

yes, as I said, only admins can accept or decline unblock requests. SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The only good reason I can see for an non admin removing an unblock request is if it contained private, non public information which was outed. SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Any admin could just create an abuse filter that disallowed non-admin or IP reviewing unblock requests. --90.224.197.111 (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why though? Abuse filters are only used in really exceptional circumstances. SHB2000 (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

i think that on enwiki they had abuse filte rthat disallowed or just logged that non-admin reviewing unblock requests. I think we should have that.--90.224.197.111 (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia......

But abuse filters are mainly up to admins to decide and I'm not an admin here SHB2000 (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see. It was obscured by the fact that you didn't just decline the request, you also restored other content to the page. In any case, please do not accept or decline unblock requests. That is an admin's decision. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)