User talk:2001:7D0:81E6:EF80:E4A9:50B5:6CF2:FF1C

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. 2001:7D0:81E6:EF80:E4A9:50B5:6CF2:FF1C block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked with reason "Vandalism", while I'm fairly sure I haven't done anything that resembles vandalism. After digging a little deeper I see that the actual reason appears to be a WD:AN report made against me. I was never notified of this report. Allegedly, per this report, I was trying to introduce a new data structure without consensus. I don't think that the latter is a fair assessment of the situation. I'd think that other users also have/had doubts on validity of this report, considering that it was ignored for 10 days.

As you can see in histories of pretty much all affected pages, I did put an effort to make it clear in edit summaries (e.g. see Special:Diff/1624452381) on what basis I made these edits. I referred to a talk page (Talk:Q65262380) where I explained why previous data structure was simply erroneous (i.e. in conflict with Help:Basic membership properties), and why there is strong reason to believe that consensus to follow this erroneous data structure never really existed. Namely, I referenced comments/edits by at least six users who have commented against previous structure or who already tried to fix it in the past. While there appear to be only two users who explicitly support previous structure (i.e. an inactive user who proposed it in 2017, and Palotabarát who made a report against me). Moreover, I did try to discuss this issue with Palotabarát in particular in their talk and in talk page of another user, but unfortunately in response got mostly nasty accusations and barely anything on the actual issue. Furthermore, I now see that a couple of days ago Palotabarát approached another user on this issue (Topic:Wuinug9dxqvbyqi7). It appears Palotabarát hoped that this another user would support previous structure, but it turned out they didn't support it. @Mahir256: --2001:7D0:81E6:EF80:E4A9:50B5:6CF2:FF1C 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Partially unblocked to allow discussion to take place.Bovlb (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

---

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | svenska | 中文 | +/−

Hopefully Mahir256 and Palotabarát will respond soon. In the meantime, I wanted to pick up one one point that you made: "I was never notified of this report.". For technical reasons, it is very hard for us to communicate with an IPv6 user who jumps from address to address. For example, I have no confidence that you will ever see this reply. For this reason, I strongly recommend that you make an account before attempting any large-scale changes. Bovlb (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I support unblocking the block in the Wikidata namespace so that you can initiate a discussion about the new structure and ask a bot owner to implement the consensus result.

I would point out that in my previous conversations, I have twice suggested to anon to go in this direction: talk to the community (not with me!) And use a bot. With 3,000 items, manual correction makes it impossible to use queries for an unreasonably long time. Palotabarát (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have partially unblocked you so that you can participate in discussion. Please take advantage of it, and please listen to the advice you have been given. Bovlb (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)