User talk:Coutin-Kelikaku

Hello - - - W e l c o m e -  t o   -  m y  -  T A L K  -  P A G E ! - Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC) The test editing from anonymous ip address. Not from Tor. This is a test. Can I edit this page? B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

=
=========================

Attention: User:GeneralizationsAreBad & User:Just Chilling I Have Been Blocked From Editing From Both My VPN and From Tor - Even When Logged In?
Hello User:GeneralizationsAreBad, and User:Just Chilling

I followed the instructions on how to edit from an anonymous ip and Tor node, and submitted an unblock request. You can see a version of this request above, right here, on this talk page.

I was denied and would like instructions on if and how to proceed from here, so (since this is the only page I can edit) I am making this notation and request here on my talk page.

The response was from User:Just Chilling and was in the form of an email, transcribed below: --- Hello Coutin-Kelikaku,

''Looking at our logs, the IP address you're editing from belongs to a webhosting service. Open or anonymising proxies, including VPN, Tor and web hosting services, are blocked from editing Wikipedia. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through a webhost.''

''Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies and webhosts are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Anonymizing services allow malicious users to rapidly change and disguise IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns.''

''Unfortunately, you won't be able to edit while using this webhost or using a VPN. Your edit history is insufficient for any form of exemption.''

Just Chilling, English Wikipedia Administrator -

I don't understand how the rationale works. I didn't request the ability to make raw edits from an anonymized ip, I only requested that when logged in to my account that I have the ability to edit. I can see that it's perceived that there's still a danger of my vandalizing Wikipedia in this manner, and even blocking my account (User:Coutin-Kelikaku) might not seem to be an effective way to safeguard the wonderful service that Wikipedia provides. Can this perspective, in any way, possibly be explained to me, at least on this, my talk page?

The end of the email suggested there is an issue with my edit history. My edit history has no record of abuse. I have been editing without logging in for several years now, and since I began using an anonymous VPN and also using Tor, I had come to the incorrect conclusion that I would need to start logging in if I was to continue editing Wikipedia (now that my internet access procedures have increased security). This is apparently not as simple as I had assumed.

I don't see how my edit history is an issue, in other words. Can also someone give the rationale behind this? I do see that edit history is an issue - in cases of vandalism or accounts that have been blocked for edit warring or other issues. How would this apply in my case, since there has been no vandalism, and I never participate in edit wars? Shortly after creating this account, I created a biographical stub (which did not get deleted) which is still online: Rich Fisher (news anchor). Most of my edits subsequently were made without logging in, since I didn't need to unless I was authoring more pages.

I do not also, see, if I provided you with a contrived history of the edits I made from ip addresses without logging in will be of any use, since, obviously, I do not think that there is any easy way to show that I was actually the one who made these edits. Additionally, if I were to show you only edits that were positive, one might assume that I was sanitizing my history that might include other edits that are not positive. I know there were only a few ip addresses that I was assigned by my provider, which didn't change very many times over the years, and there are no issues of edit warring nor vandalism from them. Although, again, how you would know that the edits were actually mine, without having logged in, is beyond me.

The last few edits I made were in participation with the discussion on whether to delete, keep or merge the article on Firefox version history which made me realize that I would benefit from logging in, in the future. My provider changed my ip a few times during my participation in the discussion, and the resulting decision mentioned me, in that, among the participants who posted in favor of "to keep," there was an edit (or several) in which the ip address's only entry was (my) participation in the discussion. So that's, in part, why I made the unblock request, even though it was also noted that a single edit from an ip address would be given the same weight as other editors.

Also I have, again, increased my internet security, by utilizing a VPN and by using the Tor browser. I knew already that this issue with Wikipedia was something I needed to deal with, soon, so here we are. I need to deal with this.

To reiterate, I am not appealing the response to the unblock request here. I only would like the answer to two questions:

1) What is the rationale to block/danger from logged in, verified accounts, who utilize Tor and/or who utilize a VPN service?

2) What factor is an edit history that is "clean" and with no negative issues regarding the account holders edits, in a denial of an unblock request?

So, I think the Wikipedia system flags you that your username is mentioned in this talk entry, so you both should be able to read this. You both were mentioned because User:Just Chilling was the account holder that issued the unblock response, and User:GeneralizationsAreBad was the account holder that blocked the ip address that I was assigned when I logged into Wikipedia this morning.

I have changed my password to be very difficult to crack, Wikipedia allows me to submit a password of over 100 characters, so my new password is a combination of letters and numbers that is 100 characters long. For what it's worth.

Thanks for your time and attention. I realize all this folderol is a bit verbose, but I would really like to resolve this some time in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Have a wonderful day, and thank you both, for all the work you do as administrators in one of the best websites on the internet.

Kelikaku --- EDIT: Apparently, just mentioning a username might not be enough to issue a communication, according to WP:GAPB I am intended to: '  ... If you need to attract the attention of an administrator, you can write   in your comment and they will get a notice, provided that you sign your edit with four tildes (~) .'' ''' So, that said, here goes (I forgot to sign this before anyway):

--- Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tor Nodes are automatically hardblocked by software, means, it counts as an admin blocked that IP without the "Anon. Only" option. Open Proxies are automatically blocked by bots, often for 1 year. See also Open proxies. Is there any reason why you need to use ay proxy (e.g. that you would otherwise be prevented by the great chinese firewall)? that would help considering. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. I don't believe you're one of the users that were pinged? What enters you into this matter?


 * "... counts as an admin blocked that IP without the "Anon. Only" option. Open Proxies are automatically blocked ..." In any case, to address YOUR question, the link you provided, and several other pages, were thoroughly studied days ago, BEFORE I made my application. Yes, I actually read that stuff. In fact,  WP:NOP, and Open proxies which is the same link that you provided, were two of the sources that led me to the application procedure, which I pursued above. Believe it or not, I actually wanted to link to Open proxies in the application, but I didn't because I didn't want to use an external link, and I didn't know how to link to it in the way you just showed, in your response here.


 * " ... any reason why you need to use ay proxy ... " As far as why, it's in the application above. As I stated, I am not presently on the boat that would lead to the island of reconsideration. I don't even understand actually what is going on, what the reasoning is for the application response to have resulted in the way that it did.


 * I may even AGREE with the result, once I understand it, and if I were unblocked prefunctorily, I might be in a situation that I'm not ethically comfortable with. So, as I say, I really want the rationale behind all this, first. When you can come up with an answer to the two specific issues that were brought out in my above post - LABELED 1) & 2), I think that would be progress.


 * But, I am not completely certain that an answer from you would necessarily have much voracity, whether accurate or not, since I didn't address the two questions to you, obviously. For example, if I asked you "what kind of dog food does your dog prefer?" and 30 minutes later, I'm at the gas station, getting gas, and some random fellow comes up to me, seemingly for no reason, and tells me that "Victor Schmidt's dog likes Hallo Dog Food, and why did you even want to know?", I would be confused and perhaps not even trust the answer because, 1) I do not know how the fellow knew I wanted to know about Victor Schmidt's dog's food preferences; and 2) I do not know if the fellow even knows who Victor Schmidt is, or even what kind of dog he has, since he's provided me no credentials. The truth is, I asked Victor Schmidt the question, and here is this fellow, coming up to me, asking me "why do I want to know what kind of food the dog likes?"


 * So, Victor, thanks for your participation. I appreciate it very much. I am not reapplying for an unblock presently. I am not ready to provide any more information - there is ample material for consideration in my original application, and the actual answer to your question is also addressed in the original application. I would only expand on what's already up there at a point which I am going to issue another appeal for an unblock. Not just to satisfy your curiosity, and not to answer random questions on why I did this or why I do that.


 * My question to YOU is, do you hazard to guess that one or the other of the two admins will be able to give me some kind of response in the next few days or weeks? Also, again, my first question as well, is: what enters you into this matter? B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Requesting WP:IPBE might be an option, perhaps? GABgab 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh hello GAB! Thanks for joining in here. I just finished answering Victor Schmidt. To respond now. Yes, I actually thought that WP:IPBE was one of the options of a possible response to the unblock request? WP:IPBE? Although I'm unfamiliar with what that would entail. B'H.Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, if I am correct, a WP:IPBE would allow the VPN ip's that I utilize to be cleared for my logging into Wikipedia, using my registered username, Coutin-Kelikaku? Also, such an exception, would not allow me to make raw edits without logging in. In order for me to use this, I would have to be logged in. As I am logged in now. 1) Do I understand this correctly?; 2) Also, wasn't this what I was already applying for, or should I have made a different sort of application? B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, IPBE is the user flag that you want. It allows you to bypass both Tor blocks, and VPN/Webhost blocks. It would not work, nor help while logged out however. The instructions on how to request it can be found at WP:IPECPROXY. I'm not a functionary - so I don't have access to the email list. I wouldn't be able to say if you had emailed them to request it already or not. SQL Query me!  19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, SQL. I didn't email anyone. I am becoming pretty certain that this procedure is more than just a perfunctory process. In any case, I only applied through the   system. I don't fully understand the stringencies involved here, and no one seems very interested in explaining them. I'm a bit apprehensive that if I fully understood, I might not have wanted to even get into this in the first place. What danger is there from a registered, logged in user, who is editing Wikipedia, whether it's from one IP or another? Why is it an issue at all? If the user is logged in, and turns out to be a vandal, which I am certain is happening many times a day, within minutes that user is warned, and subsequently blocked from editing. The IP address isn't any factor at all, is it? It's the username's log in ID that gets blocked. So, what issue is there whether the IP is an anonymized one or not, in the case of a logged in, registered user? Especially users that are in good standing? Can you answer this question? Because it's beginning to seem as if this is some kind of secret information, I'm sorry to say. B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I will be "off grid" for a few days. Estimated time of return will be my time Saturday night or Sunday morning. Thanks to all for every iota of attention that you, collectively, are giving this issue, which has very little to do with the main scope of things ... as far as Wikipedia goes. Till my return. B"H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Captain Raju Toast Sandwich - Unable to Post This Normally
1	Select type

Barnstars Food and drink Kittens Goats Make your own

2	Add details Select food or drink item: Toast sandwiches are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Enter a header:	Enter a message:	(without a signature) 3	Preview A toast sandwich for you! An image of a toast sandwich, shot from the side.jpg 	Just found your page, and it's really appreciated that you and others like you work diligently to improve Wikipedia. That said, I am new to Wikipedia and your example only inspires me. B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC) By submitting, you agree to transparency under these terms. Something went wrong when sending the message. Please try again.

No Real Explanation After One Week?
Hello,

I really am interested in finding out more about what's behind the philosophy of (what seems to be) indiscriminate blocking of registered users, simply when they're logging in from a list of certain ip addresses?

I know that there's a vandalism issue, but to tell the truth, my concern is not with anonymous pranksters. I am asking about legitimate users who are registered and verified by email, and who are in good standing as far as edit history is concerned.

Any users, editors that login and break the rules, whether it's from one ip address or another, are warned and blocked. It has nothing to do with their ip address.

Why is this not a simple thing to answer? Please will someone post some kind of rationale behind this policy?

Thanks in advance, Kelikaku Coutin Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Now Able to Edit My Own Talk Page Again B'H
I am able to edit now. Thanks to the steward that reviewed my situation. I cannot edit Wikipedia, but I am gratified. I am able to edit my own talk page. That's it. Thank you for the quick response. B'H. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Able to Edit Again. Thanks to the Stewards Who Reviewed My Situation
Thanks so very much. I will not abuse my responsibility in the privilege and right of the freedom to edit Wikipedia. B'H.Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
Just saying "I'm not edit warring" doesn't make it so. You added the same or similar content to the page 3 times in less than 24 hours. The page is under a WP:1RR restriction, which means that even reverting once is enough to get you blocked. I'm not going to pursue this if you refrain from any more reverts, but I just want to make to clear that you absolutely will still get blocked even if you say you're not edit warring in your edit summary. My advise would be to follow WP:BRD: if your preferred change gets reverted, take it to the talk page, and don't add the material again until you get a consensus. Nblund talk 13:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had no idea. One of the "edits" you referred to was not actually visible? Did you actually perceive that an invisible comment counts as an active edit? Also, I believe the warning said it was more than one revert? I only made two "active" edits, which would (in my perception) count as only one revert, so I was laboring under a misconception. I am grateful for your forbearance. I am glad that an administrator, like you, could get involved here, and I'm requesting that you might please read the talk pages and please vet the sources that I've cited. Thanks in advance. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)    בס״ד
 * Sorry, I'm not an admin. By "not pursue it" I mean that I'm not going to take it to the edit-warring noticeboard, because I do think it was a good faith misunderstanding. I suspect that the hidden text would still count, because it's still the same material being added with slight modification. Short-term blocks are handed out pretty readily on pages with a WP:1RR restriction, and admins tend to have pretty limited patience for those kinds of technicalities. I definitely wouldn't bank on this. Already commented on the talk page. Nblund talk 15:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, it looks like, because you are not an administrator, that you cannot (or perhaps shouldn't) vet any of the citations that I've found, on the congresswoman's position regarding the athletic controversy in woman's sports currently being reported on? Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד
 * That's not correct. Wikipedia works by consensus among editors. Admins are just experienced editors who have some additional tools like the ability to block users. The community as a whole is responsible for things like vetting sources and writing article content. Nblund talk 21:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)