User talk:Kyatic

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).

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

Request reason:

edits were not disruptive - edits included removing three broken links, making language more neutral and appropriate for an encylopaedia, and removing a false, unreliable source which violated the WLP (a parody article was cited as fact - I explained this in the edits and gave quotations to prove it, but it was reverted without explanation.) These were constructive and necessary edits. I attempted to raise these issues on the Talk page and was ganged up on by the editors who had created the page and do not allow others to edit it. They have written almost all of the page's content and do not allow the majority of edits. They refused to engage with me on the Talk page, telling me to let the edit go, despite the source violating the WLP. The admin who banned me is unfortunately friendly with those editors, as per the Pretendian page's Talk page, and has a history of contributing to the page alongside them, but this admin would not engage with me on the Talk page when I attempted to discuss issues of sourcing which violated the WLP that they themselves had previously raised. Additionally, this admin accused me of trying to evade a ban by creating a user account, which is not true - I created this user account so that I could post on the Talk page and get updates of any replies, as I share this IP address with others in the house and don't want to risk having my IP banned and affecting them. I was at no point creating this account to pretend to be anyone else or evade a ban. I wasn't banned on the IP (I had been banned previously due to not knowing about edit wars.) They also accused an edit I made of being disruptive, when I was just removing some broken links (not changing any wording, just taking out a link to a non-existent Wiki page) and rephrasing a sentence to be more neutral (it said 'we need to [...]', which is not encylopaedic in tone.) These edits, despite being minor and uncontroversial, were immediately reverted by the page creator. This admin has behaved regrettably in this instance due to their friendship with the editors of the Pretendian page. I am trying not to assume bad faith here, but I find it very unsettling to be banned for making genuine improvements to a page which needs major revision and has already had issues of the veracity of its sources raised on the Talk page before, including by this very admin, which the editor / creator of the page has repeatedly ignored. Many of the sections on the Pretendian page risk violating WLP policy due to making claims about living individuals without accurate sources, but the editor creators do not allow anyone to make edits that they personally disagree with, even if these edits are accurate and necessary. They just repeatedly revert them with no explanation. There is a clear history of this in the page edit history, both with me (and the 2 previous IP addresses assigned to me) and other users. This ban is not justified. I do not know how anyone is supposed to edit this Wikipedia page if all edits are reverted by the page creator, they will not engage productively on the Talk page, and they have a friend who is an admin.

Decline reason:

There are quite a few things in your wall o' text (well, OK, at least you know how to use paragraph breaks) to pick apart, but the ripest target is your fourth graf, in which you flail away trying to explain how having created an account after you were blocked as an IP (more than once? I can't tell from the discourse on the article talk page) wasn't block evasion. Dude, there is literally nothing else it could be when, after having been blocked as an IP, you register an account to continue making the same edits and arguments. Registering an account in no way gives you a pass from the issues that got the IP blocked. Not when you so blatantly refuse to drop the stick and back away from the bloody mess that so recently was the horse. You have given us yet another demonstration of why we so often disable account creation for blocked IPs.

Your concern for your roommates' ability to edit is touching. But it's interesting, inasmuch as it's one people don't usually raise. Most roommates don't really care that someone they share living space with has gotten their IP blocked from editing Wikipedia anonymously. Is this an admission that your roommates are involved with you in some sort of tag-team editing?

You really seem, also, to have a very high opinion of yourself and your edits: "I find it very unsettling to be banned for making genuine improvements to a page". Well, if you do say so yourself ... has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're wrong, that others may not necessarily share your high opinion of yourself or your edits? And that—heaven forfend!—they might have a point if you just listened to them! (Well, read, in this case)

Lastly, your insinuations about the other editors on the page ganging up on you, and that the admin who blocked you did it purely out of friendship for them, shows a serious inability to assume good faith (Pro tip: If you say "I'm trying not to assume bad faith here", there's a very high likelihood that you are). Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 3 February 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.