User talk:WorldCitizen2

March 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}} 331dot (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, unintentional errors are not vandalism. This block is also for impersonating an admin. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

WorldCitizen2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I change the username? ADMlN1 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your doubling done on calling an admin evil, which is a blatant personal attacks, here makes me completely disinclined to unblock you. Despite what you proclaim to know about blocks, username blocks are always indefinite - that is, the blocks lasts until the name is changed and any other issues with the account have been dealt with. I will not be unblocking you at this time, not due to your username, but based on your subsequent behaviour. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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 sent a request to change the username. ADMlN1 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Although I understand the username issue, you (331dot) reverted some edits to the wrong situation. This is bad. Do you want me to send you official government websites so you can verify/confirm that what I edited is the right thing? ADMlN1 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want you to send me anything; I'm more concerned with you impersonating an administrator when you aren't one, calling errors "vandalism" when the word vandalism has a specific meaning that does not include unintentional errors or stylistic issues, and threatening people with being blocked for said unintentional errors. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There wasn’t “impersonification” of anything nor anyone. The username was chosen randomly. Anyways. I already did a request to change it. When the account will be unblocked? ADMlN1 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

With the way you gamed your username you must think I'm stupid or something if you expect me to believe you "randomly" chose it- even without seeing your threats to block people. Since you chose to submit a username change request instead of following the instructions here to propose a new username on this page, your change request will need to be processed first. Then a different person will review your unblock request. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So it’s not you who will review the username change and the unblock request? ADMlN1 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: I wasn’t making “threats” to block people myself; I was telling them that someone else could do it. ADMlN1 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have some doubts:

1) Do you know how long it usually takes for the username change request to be reviewed?

2) What about the unblock request? How long does it take for it to be reviewed?

3) Do I need to do anything? Or just wait? ADMlN1 (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no timeframe for either request; requests are reviewed by volunteers working when they are able and willing to. There is nothing you can do to speed this up. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll wait.

This conversation is private (only me and you can see it)?

If the answer is ‘no’, after things are settled (the username is changed and the block is gone), can I make it private or delete it? ADMlN1 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything posted to any page or article on Wikipedia is public. Some pages are harder to find than others, but all edits appear in the Recent Changes feed which is monitored by probably thousands of editors. You are permitted to remove most content from this page per WP:BLANKING; one relevant exception is declined unblock requests for an active block, but once the block is removed you can remove those too. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Sorry for anything. I don’t have bad intentions here. After the username is changed and the block is removed, I’ll delete this conversation; If I need any assistance in the process, I’ll contact you here.

One last thing: Apparently I did 2 block removal requests. Is this a problem? ADMlN1 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Only one open request is needed, in your case you could just combine them or remove the coding from the second one. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I do it (combine them or remove the coding from one of them)?

If I don’t do anything, will it be bad for my block removal request?

The result of the block removal review will appear on this conversation? ADMlN1 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Took care of it for you. Yes, the reviewer will post a statement. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

I saw that you deleted the second request.

However, in the first one (as a newbie here; that was before I sent the request to change the username) I only said “Can I change the username?”. Is it enough? Should I add something to the request? ADMlN1 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You are all set, the reviewer will see this conversation. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey there.

It’s been a lot o days and my unblock request wasn’t reviewed yet. Is there something wrong? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) ADMlN1 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock review deadline

Hey.

It’s been a lot of days since I opened my unblock request and I didn’t receive any answer yet.

Could you please do something? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Administrators are volunteers, editing in their spare time. Your request make take days or even weeks to be evaluated. You have no choice but to patiently wait your turn. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem ethical, but ok, l’ll wait.

The same person who gave me the block isn’t able to revert it? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drm310 ??? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The admin reviewing the block is often a different person than the one who issued the block. That better guarantees that an impartial ruling is made.

By the way, edits like this aren't helpful. It might not have been your intention, but this makes you appear to be impatient, and expect instant responses whenever you have questions. I am like every other Wikipedia editor, a volunteer who edits in their spare time. All of us have lives outside Wikipedia with other commitments - work, family - etc. So sometimes, you will just have to wait until someone is available before you get an answer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I am patient, friend. I just don’t wanna wait 10 years for someone to review my unblock request; that’s why I told you it doesn’t seem ethical. Unblock requests should be send to more than one person simultaneously, then the person requesting it would not be a “hostage” of someone else’s “good faith” and “spare time”. WorldCitizen2 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Unlock requests appear on the page CAT:UNB, which all admin users can view. There is a lengthy queue, since you are just one of many users requesting an unblock. Admins do a multitude of tasks here, so unblocks might not always be top priority. It's not perfect, and there are never enough admins, but it's what we have to work with. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I saw my username on the page you sent. Is there a way of reporting a wrong edit to a local admin? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous user reverting my edits to the wrong state

There is an anonymous user (IP 152.255.104.37 and 152.255.113.117) who is reverting some edits of mine to the wrong state.

What can I do about it? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you help me with this?

Special:EmailUser/Drm310 WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drm310 WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Once you are unblocked, you can start a discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles. On there, you can engage in a process of polite discussion and compromise with other editors, with the goal of achieving consensus. If the initial discussions fail to resolve the disagreement, then other dispute resolution options are available.

Remember that you do not own or control the content of any Wikipedia article, and you cannot insist that they remain at a version that you prefer. Anyone can edit any article at any time, and you are required to assume good faith of others unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent.

If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited by others, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe there is something such as “polite discussion” with an anonymous user. I mean, the person isn’t even registered. How can I politely discuss with him/her?

Also, it is not about “a version that I prefer”; if a person edits a page to a state with lots of errors in the writing/grammar/orthography, reverting it is not a matter of “a version that I prefer”. In this case, it is not a matter of preference, it’s a matter of what is right and what is wrong (and there’s no in between).

I don’t wanna be blocked again for trying to do the right thing, and I’m trying to do a good contribution here; that’s why I’m asking what can I do on these cases. WorldCitizen2 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

First, about anonymous editors... people can edit Wikipedia anonymously if they so choose; registration is not required. While there are many benefits to editing as a registered user, Wikipedia does not impose that as a requirement to edit. Edits by anonymous users can be of as much or as little value as registered users.

Secondly, it wasn't just anonymous users that disagreed with your edits. This reversion was done by a registered user. Therefore you should discuss your disagreements with them on the talk page. Even if they don't respond, you should still make the attempt. Anonymous users can be notified of discussions on the user talk page for that IP. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you understand that it’s not a matter of “a version that I prefer”. If something is wrong, it’s is wrong, and that’s all; and I’m talking about edits based on official and public information from the government. Anyways. I’m in touch with the user you mentioned. WorldCitizen2 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is the account still blocked if the username is already changed?

Hi.

On March 5, 2023, I was blocked by the user 331dot. The reason for the block was my former username. I think the blocking was a very radical attitude, considering that 331dot could have sent me a message and said that I should urgently change my username, otherwise I would have my account blocked.  That is not what happened; such user simply blocked me, with no chance of defense at all. Furthermore, the user 331dot also gave me an “indefinite block”, which I also believe is very extreme, as it was an issue that could easily be resolved by changing my username.  After the lock was applied, I opened an unblock request and I changed my username (I'm already using the new username).

It's been almost one month and I still haven't had my unblock request reviewed and my account unblocked. I recently got some emails saying that someone had left new message on my “User Talk” page, however, when I logged in, there wasn’t anything new.

Such a measure (blocking my account and making it “indefinite”) was extreme and I have already changed my username. If I were a malicious user, I wouldn't be going through to all this trouble to unblock my account. I have never done anything wrong with my account.

Was there anything wrong with the previous username? Ok. I already changed it. Problem solved.

That being said, the important questions here are:

1) If I received emails about new messages on my User Talk page, why cannot I see them?

2) If the reason of the block was my username, and if I changed it already, why on Earth am I still blocked?

3) If the reason of the block was so easily fixed (just by changing the username), why did my account received an “indefinite block”? Wasn’t it an extreme attitude?

This block was an evil deed. Where is the ethics in all of this? There’s no plausible reason for the block to still be active.

PLEASE, HELP!

(Message to: @Drm310, @Ponyo, @Favonian, @JBW, @Rosguill, @Zzuuzz, @Callanecc, @MinnesotaTwelves, @Courcelles, @Aidan9382, @Realmalang, @MediaWiki message delivery, @Username1789, @Daniel Case, @Princeromuald, @Houseofgooddeed, @Angelgreat, @Miraclepine, @Speedcuber1, @HJ Mitchell, @Muboshgu, @Davomme, @Wlwl0623, @Rejoy2003, @Midwestman1986, @Wonderful Digital, @Maggiewalton) WorldCitizen2 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@WorldCitizen2: There is nothing nefarious at work here... it is simply a matter of limited resources. There are a limited number of admin users, all of whom are volunteers. As I mentioned to you before, there are also many more admin tasks in need of attention than there are admins to do them. Therefore, lengthy backlogs are normal... it is not atypical for unblock requests to remain in the queue for weeks (sometimes months). Sorry for the lengthy wait, but you are just one of several users in the same situation. That is simply the nature of how things work around here. (P.S. I am not an admin, so I cannot help expedite the process).

I have undone your last message. You already have an open unblock request, another one will not make things proceed any faster or better. As for the notifications of new messages, an IP user vandalized this talk page. Even though the vandalism was reverted, it would have triggered the notifications. Another admin has protected this page from unregistered users, so that will solve that problem. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think I can offer much helpful advice to you regarding this matter since I too have been partially blocked. As I've gone through some of your discussion on your talk page, Drm310 has already explained above about how "deadline" works here on Wikipedia.

Admins aren't obliged or expected to reply you within a set period of time. They're volunteers not employees of Wikipedia. I'll suggest you to kindly wait for the reviewing admin to post their reply since this can take anywhere between days, weeks or even months.

Mass pinging everyone and saying that 331dot's action is evil, will not help with anything positive. Hope you'll understand and wishing you luck. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 21:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 331dot’s action was indeed evil. And I’ll say it over and over again. Since the issue was my username, there wasn’t any need for an “indefinite block”. Indefinite blocks should be applied only in the most serious and extreme cases. There wasn’t any ethics on that deed. The reasonable thing to do would be give me a block until the username was changed (and once the username was changed, the block would be removed automatically). 331dot had an extreme attitude for a trivial issue. Abuse of authority as an admin, should I say? WorldCitizen2 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Now looking at my User Talk page history, I can see that an anonymous user (174.232.226.2) said on March 21st that my request was “declined”.

After that, another anonymous user (47.227.95.73) undid the previous edit and left a message.

After that, another anonymous user (207.11.73.162) undid the previous edit and once again said my request was “declined”.

After that, the user Ponyo undid the previous edit, left a message and protected my page.

So the edits from the anonymous users was all fake and vandalism?

P.S.:

Could you please add a text to my unblock request? Or do you know if I can do it myself?

I’d like to add:

I changed my username. I never did anything wrong with my account, so there’s no need for the block anymore. Please check all my User Talk page for more info.

@Ponyo, can you help me with that? And thank you for protecting my page. WorldCitizen2 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your emails regarding my decline

This is evil. This is evil. This is evil. An admin username blocking you indefinitely on a website is most decidedly not evil. And no, me not unblocking you when protecting your talk page due to sockpuppetry is not a personal attack. Please do not ping or email me again. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I’ll go to San Francisco if I have to. I’ll send my lawyer if I have to. You don’t know who I am. I’ll show you that you have no right to do what you are doing. Who do you think you are? I already said I’m sorry. You’re abusing your authority as a Wikipedia admin, and that’s it. Do you think this a proper behavior? You are literally declining my request for trivial and personal reasons. WorldCitizen2 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• You can withdraw your legal threat via WP:UTRS, submitted along with a WP:GAB-compliant appeal, if you would like to regain access to this talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you will ever come back and read this, but just in case you do, here's an answer to you rather bizarre legal threat. The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has every legal right to decide who it allows to edit Wikipedia. They could restrict editing to Wikimedia Foundation employees, if they liked. They allow other people to edit because they choose to, not because they legally have to, and they have just as much legal right to choose who to allow to contribute as owners of any other publishing company, such as a newspaper publisher, a television company, a film company, or a book publisher. They also have every legal right to delegate control over who can edit to whomevever they choose, just as owners of newspapers delegate the control to editors, film companies to producers, and so on. You can consult as many lawyers as you like, but unless you find a very incompetent one you will be told there is nothing illegal whatever in a Wikimedia administrator blocking you from editing. JBW (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)