User talk:Decolonizetheinternet

January 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been sufficiently warned but did not amend your behavior. Time for blocks has come.Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a conflict of interest here. I would advise that you abide by the rule you have set for yourself "Following this finding of fact in the arbitration case (unrelated to me) I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union..." as it's clear you are unable to perform an administrative role in this topic area in a dispassionate manner. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other edits of mine you've reverted have also incidentally restored verifiable false information (in the case of Sheptytsky) and a whole chunk of unsourced original research and potentially libelous innuendo (in the case of Prince Bandar). Please reconsider your actions. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not restore anything unsourced. If you do not like the sources, after you get unblocked, start talk page discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. My initial edit summaries made it clear why the content I removed was either fraudulently sourced (re: Sheptytsky) or *extremely* poorly sourced (re: Bandar).

Regardless, you blocked me because I reverted you. Looking at your most recent blocks, it took me all of about 60 seconds to find you recently did the same to this user - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/A_big_sleep - for having the temerity to rv you on your chosen topic area. This is in clear breach of not only the limitation you claim to have set yourself, but of the principle of WP:INVOLVED in general. Please stop behaving this way. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandals and LTA editors is not a breach of anything. Once you get unblocked you can raise the issue at ANI, buty be aware that your actions will be scrutinized as well. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to dissuade me from reporting you. You're abusing your privileges by performing administrative actions (blocking users who revert you) in articles you're INVOLVED in. And you know it. Hence your threats. Which of course have had the opposite effect, and have only served to make me more determined to report you. I invite you once more to reconsider your actions. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, as I said you are welcome to report me. Let us see first what the reviewing admin says. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not welcome, you've made sure of that with your block. You'll be reported once the 31 hours expire. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

"behavior"? What "behavior"? Obvious retaliatory block for this rv: [1] (incidentally, why is language that Alexievich writes in of such importance that it must be mentioned in the first sentence of her bio? Do we mention in the first sentence of bios of Irish, American, Australian, Welsh writers that they write in English?) I didn't know Ymblanter was an admin, nor that admins on Wikipedia could behave in such an emotional fashion - in future I'll check before I make any rv to see if I'm reverting an admin. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think INVOLVED apples here, and I don't think you are new at this. Furthermore I don't think you reporting this will go the way you want or expect. I would advise you to change course in terms of your approach here or you are headed for longer blocks. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 10 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Is being given any kind of reason or justification for my block - as opposed to a threat of "will go the way you want or expect" - too much to ask? Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your behavior was clearly disruptive, and attacking other users after being blocked for your own behavior is not a good route to getting unblocked. If this behavior continues after the block expires you will likely find yourself blocked again for a longer period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 10 January 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.

The reason for the block is quite clearly stated above, as well as in the block log with the addendum "reverted sourced material without explanation, including articles in the discretionary sanctions areas". 331dot (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't happen. Explanation was in edit summaries, and material was either fraudulently sourced, or insufficiently sourced for a BLP. Not to mention the fact that he made this justification post ipso facto - he blocked me immediately after I reverted his revert of my edit. He then reverted two further edits of mine out of spite. In not seeing this sequence of events, you're just being lazy. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I made a prediction, not a threat. I could be wrong, though I don't think so. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for your prediction/threat, but carry on. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Decolonizetheinternet! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a belated thanks :) Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a user with less than 200 edits we have had you enough. Edit-warring to restore BLP violations basically means you are not competent enough to edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Clicking undo once is "edit-warring"?

And I don't believe they are "BLP violations" at all. That's the point. The information is freely verifiable, and available on RS (including peer-reviewed academic journals), and respected orgs like the UK-based Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (a partner of the SPLC) - not just the Daily Beast (which was scarcely libelous itself of course).

I do believe the trigger has been pulled too quickly here. And I think unbecoming tone and language used is indicative of that. (everybody makes mistakes, I certainly do, and I believe I mistake has been made here. But I don't believe it merits being called "incompetent" or "we have had enough of you". Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As the editor that reverted you noted, the information you provided was not properly sourced, which is indeed a WP:BLP violation. You aren't blocked specifically for edit warring, but yes, one edit can be considered edit warring, especially if the material at issue involves a BLP. Since you don't seem to recognize how your edit was a violation of policy, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 7 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So, let's say it's granted that the longstanding content existed against BLP policy, and I was in breach by restoring it.... Is that really how Wikipedia works? An indefinite block? I went to talk first, other editor didn't respond so I figured s/he didn't care or agreed with me... s/he edits in breach of 1RR, and I get perma-blocked? Is that really how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? Permanent blocks for new users making good-faith edits which are - *very debatably* - in breach of a quite specific policy? Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 3:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:04, 8 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Vanjagenije Thankyou Vanjagenije for your constructive response. I guarantee that I will cause no further disruption or damage to Wikipedia, and while I dispute that my edit was disruptive or damaging, I admit that I may not be a good enough judge of that, and I promise to not make any edit even close in nature to that again. I believe I have made a number of useful contributions, and I can guarantee that you will see more in the future if I am given the opportunity (I have a relatively high level of expertise in several topic areas that need work, and due to a medical condition I'll be practically housebound and have a lot of free time over the next few months). Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While I'm very happy to see you've finally learned how to read a block appeal request, I'm going to decline your request myself. As you've admitted, you haven't proven a very good judge of BLP policy as it regards these subjects to this datestamp; you've been directly disruptive and attempted to personalize disagreement instead of seeking consensus. An indefinite block is not permanent; you may choose to request unblock after six months time. BusterD (talk) 13:34, 8 November 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.