User talk:Iaaasi

Edit warring block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering this and your spat at ANI, I will consult the administrators who granted you a second chance so that they may review your indefinite block. Kuru (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I see that I was blocked as a result of a 3RR report against me that I was not even informed of, so I was deprived of the opportunity to defend myself at the thread from AN/ER. It is not the first time when User:Hobartimus fails to fulfill the mandatory task of notifying the accused party when filing a report, so I can't consider it is a mistake.

The article in discussion - John Hunyadi is probably the most edited article by me on en.wp. I am the main contributor on this article and I've brought many improvements to it. Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: [1] [2] so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it.

Regarding the proper edit war I can say that in any conflict there are belligerents so it is unfair to punsih only one side. The other side was composed of 2 users (Hobartimus and Fakirbakir) so they were able to avoid 3RR rule by alternative reverting. Moreover, the edit war was already over at the time of this report.

During the edit war, there was an ongoing discussion on the article talk page where I've explained each action of mine. The other side continued to push their POV by readding the text, even if there was no consensus yet on the subject.

They were trying:

• to corrupt the information from the source "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin" to "Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin""
• to alterate the information from the source Catholic Encyclopedia which contained the text "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin" and to write that the source supports Serbian origin

I think these can be (at leat partially) categorised as disruptive edits, so my reasons for unsupporting them are correct

Last but not least, I am kindly asking for being unblocked because I am currently discussed at a very important ANI thread where I'd like to have the possibility to defend myself

Thanks and I hope I can find understating

Decline reason:

You know what edit warring is. You've been blocked for it before. You know Wikipedia policy about edit warring. And what you're saying here is that you feel it was justified. It never is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:27, 13 March 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Excuse me, but since when manipulating the information from a source counts as a valid edit in an edit war? Isn't that an enough correct justification? It is not the first time when Fakirbakir is corrupting the information from a source I will explain how Fakirbakir had corrupted the information from the sources:

The quote from the source was: "Recalling what has been said above concerning the Turkic name Bayq, we may rightly come to the conclusion that the name of Janos Hunyadi's father, Vayk was of Tatar-Cuman origin.'". So the affirmation is about "the name of Janos Hunyadi's father". Fakirbakir tried to impose the affirmation that the source supported the Tatar-Cuman origin of the person. To make an analogy, George is of Greek origin, but that does not imply that George Bush had Greek origins He tried to add Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for Serbian origin, even if that source states clearly that "In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin". Moreover, at that time the source already existed in the article as a support for the Romanian origin He tried to write "There are also Hungarian and Serb authors suggesting Cuman[14] or Tatar-Cuman(...)", even if no one of the provided authors was Serb. So aren't these edits an obvious manipulation of the information from the source? Acording to 3RR_exemptions "removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious" do not count in an edit war. I think manipulating information from sources fits into this cateogry...

Can you please convert this sanction into 1 week edit restriction on John Hunyadi or 1RR/2RR editing restriction?

Decline reason:

There are so many things you can do besides edit-warring to correct a problem in an article. You already know that edit-warring leads to blocks, but you made the choice to edit-war instead of doing any of those things. You didn't even do the simple things that any Wikipedia editor would do, like using edit summaries or explaining yourself on the article talk page. By choosing to edit-war, you made the choice that it was worth being blocked to make those edits. I'm not sure why you made that choice- edit-warring rarely leads to useful, lasting change- but I respect the choice to be blocked that you made. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 13 March 2011 (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.

Hard to see how John Hunyadi fits into an exemption specific to biographies of living people. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it is not a very big difference. If the person is not alive any more, editors are more entitled to add "biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"? I did not say that I am unguilty, but I think I have mitigating circumstances. The other side of the edit war (Fakirbakir and Hobartimus) is as fauly as me. On this blocking principle, the majority will decide everytime, even if they are right or not, because by alternative reverting they wiil be able to avoid breaking 3RR.

The status quo version of the article should have been kept until the consensus of the ongoing talk page discussion

Please look into my edit history to see how many times I've recently addressed to different admins, noticeboards or asked for 3O in order to solve disputes, while others prefer to simply revert.(Iaaasi (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Can you please convert this sanction into 1 week edit restriction on John Hunyadi or 1RR/2RR editing restriction?

FisherQueen, you are wrong. I've explained everything both in edit summaries and on article talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Iaaasi, as a non-admin, let me just try to help clarify this point: there are exactly 5 exceptions to the edit warring restrictions on non-main-page articles, none of which apply here. The only exceptions are reverting: vandalism (per the definition at WP:VANDAL, note that this does not include questionable or even wrong information), BLP violations, copyright violations, material that is illegal in Florida (like child pornography), and the edits of banned (not blocked, not under scrutiny) editors. The whole point of 3RR is that, invariably, both/all sides think that they are "right", and thus believing that another user is wrong does not give you an exception. In the terms you used, there are no mitigating circumstances to edit warring other than those explicitly listed. What you need to do is go through the whole dispute resolution process, getting more editors involved, etc. I know that its hard to keep editing "fairly" when you think another editor is blatantly flouting policies, but edit warring doesn't solve that problem. Qwyrxian (23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi, I see your edit-summaries and talk page edits now. I was only looking at your edits to that article in the last few days, which were summaryless, and didn't notice the older ones. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I know that the events are difficult to be watched by an outsider (Iaaasi (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

After the above discussion, I realise that I was wrong. It seeems that I misinterpreted the policies. I am sorry, I really thought that reverting soomething like that constitutes and exemption to 3RR. If I knew these aspects I would have not make those reverts for sure. Please unblock me, I've understood my mistake. I think I've proved that I was of good faith and I did not have disruptive intentions(Iaaasi (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your long history of serious misconduct, your claim you've suddenly understood 3RR lacks credibility. I think that you should feel lucky for only being blocked for a week - I hope that you approach editing with a cooler head when the block ends as any further blocks are likely to be for an indefinite period and a ban is a distinct possibility. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am making this request because an ANI report against me has been filed today. This 1 week block has been set to expire: 19:28, 19 March 2011, but I am asking for the favor of being unblocked one day earlier in order to reply to the accusations. I've understood now that I misinterpreted the policies about 3RR exemptions and I will not repeat the mistake in the future. If the response will be a decline, I'd like to ask for the delay of the verdict in this case until after I my defense arguments will be posted on the thread. Thanks in advance

Decline reason:

Please post your statement on this page and it will be copied to WP:ANI. Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (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.

The above is not a valid reason for unblock especially considering three previous unblocks declined. The discussion will run for several days and you will be able to participate Please note that if you unblock with 3 previous unblock requests declined I will immediately file for arbitration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobartimus (talk • contribs)

Notification

You are considered to be banned from wikipedia on ANI, following your years of extreme abuse and harassment of others as well as hate mongering. Hobartimus (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that the "hate mongering" accusations come from someone who has posted on this Wikimedia profile page a picture representing the neo-Nazi Magyar Garda (Iaaasi (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

Very interesting thanks for bringing that to my attention. I can confirm that the account on Commons in question is not mine and have not been opened by me. Very interesting revelation. I will note for administrators that Iaaasi's knowledge of this account (of which I was even unaware of) strongly suggests something. What I'm still not sure about. I really hope it was not Iaaasi who created the account for just a circumstance like this... Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting that material was removed from this page immediately before posting the above [3] Hobartimus (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked on ANI for someone to bring this to the attention of Commons checkusers. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can delete their own notes on their talk pages. So what do you want to say with this? (Iaaasi (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

That in this case you wanted to deliberately hide part of the visible talk page. I don't know the reasons for that but I guess it has to do with their content. I will also note that in this account only you have in the archives 9 unblock requests declined (+3) visible above for a total of 12. And you have at least 5 declined unblock requests in various other sockpuppets. Some of the requests were used to attack and malign other expressly forbidden when making such requests. Hobartimus (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary answer to ANI report

I would not like to make many comments in the first place, at least until being explicitly asked by the admins to bring clarifications. It seems this report is a new stage in the never ending attempt of the users Hobartimus and Nmate to re-block me. As my unblocking admin (Ronhjones) put it, "any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant". Since that date I've tried to completely respect wiki policies, and the only deviation was when I violated 3RR as a result of misinterpreting #3RR exemptions (all is explained in the unblock requests on my talk page) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

Do you want the above posted to ANI? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted so, but I changed my mind.This reply of my unblocking admin is more than comprehesnive, I don't want to add anything (Iaaasi (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

OK. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus

Thank you for the advice. The basis for the "conflict" with user Hobartimus is pretty straightforward: his constant refusal to accept anything besides his POV, coupled with sleazy attempts to discredit me while imposing his versions. For example, at Eastern Hungarian Kingdom he relied on his own authority to remove a label which only administrators are entitled to remove. His argument is that, despite the previous deletion, he argued that the previously deleted article criterion "obviously does not apply" (euphemism for "fuck off, I`ll show you how what I can do...") 79.112.15.221 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know very well Hobartimus' manner of editing. But if you are calm you can solve any conflict without edit wars.I will take a look and if you are right I will support you (Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Protection?

I notice that you've attracted a fair number of "friends" on your talk page today. If you'd like, I can semi-protect the page for a bit until they get bored. TNXMan 15:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary. Thanks (Iaaasi (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Fair enough. If you change your mind and the activity persists, just drop me a note. TNXMan 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi on Facebook. He is a tipical romanian teenager. A bit chauvinist.

File:Iaaasi facebook.png

Iaasi on Facebook