User talk:Legione-Romana
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Legione-Romana! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
[edit]Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Aromanians in North Macedonia into Aromanians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)- When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, all hope for a content-related discussion is lost. The section WP:IDHT of the disruptive editing guideline describes this behavior as one of the main examples of disruptive editing, which needs to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Legione-Romana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Discriminatory and abusive blocking.
Decline reason:
No Wikipedia volunteer is going to wade through talk page to figure out if unblocking you would be appropriate. I suggest you study our guide to appealing blocks if you want any consideration at all. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:29, 9 April 2021 (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 appeal the respective blocking because I consider it discriminatory and abusive.
Sources to be considered before analysing the incident itself.
User talk: ToBeFree
Content dispute spinning out of control[edit source]
Hi ToBeFree. Maybe you could look at what's going on between Super Dromaeosaurus and Legione-Romana. You've already blocked Legione-Romana once for 72 hours, but the disagreement between the two continues and now has devolved into back and forth posting of warnings on each other's talk page. In all honesty, I've got no idea who's right in a content or context sense of the word, but things have turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND at Talk:Aromanian language, etc. It's quite clear that there are many things that Legione-Romana doesn't not yet understand about Wikipedia. The account is only a about a week old so mistakes are understandable. However, being unfamiliar isn't really an excuse when an editor seems to be more interested in WP:RGW than WP:DR. Do you think suggesting like WP:3O or WikiProject involvement might settle things down or is there no more WP:ROPE left to give? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, thank you very much for the notification. When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, I'd say all hope for a content-related discussion is lost. The next step might be a conditional unblock, either with a prohibition from editing the article directly, or with a general expectation for them to avoid this conflict and gain experience in other areas of the encyclopedia for a while. I have asked Super Dromaeosaurus to remain civil regarding their latest edit summary and not to revert again for a while; it seems reasonable to expect them to adhere to this without the need for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this and trying to figure out a way to sort things out. It's unfortunate that someone needed to be blocked, but it's sometimes such a thing is necessary to try and get things to settle down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yeah, I'd say if we're serious about calm content discussion instead of edit warring, we also need to prevent those who refuse to discuss from continuing to frustrate those who favor discussion. If a single-purpose account is used to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, that process should probably be stopped before we can start looking at the whole situation again to attempt proper dispute resolution. If it had been a simple edit war, it would have been easy to direct the discussion to the talk page, but Legione-Romana currently seems to take the situation so personal that they're currently unable to engage in productive content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
User talk: Super Dromaeosaurus
Aromanian language[edit source]
Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, please remain civil even when dealing with annoying situations; the edit summary of Special:Diff/1016572302 was unnecessary. Regarding the article itself, please avoid reverting it for the next hours or days; give others a while to respond to the talk page discussion and feel free to invite others by creating a neutral invitation at WP:NPOVN, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course, no problem. I had no intention of doing anything other than keep reverting the user's messages here or saying something more heated than that. Thank you very much for dealing with the problem! I was thinking of reporting to the editor myself tomorrow, so you've saved me efforts and time. And yes, I was planning to wait 24 hours to not be affected by the 3RR rule. Now I plan to remove the vast majority of the changes made by the user, but I will leave a notice in the article discussion in case there is someone who wants to restore some content. Thank you again. Super Ψ Dro 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Additional note: In the future, please refuse to hold article discussions on user talk pages; always enforce the discussion to happen on the article's talk page. On the article's talk page, please do not mention editor conduct; "you will eventually end up reported" and "stop removing sourced content" are conduct-related statements that are unsuitable for article talk pages. By responding to the other editor's behavior, even if the behavior is problematic, you are yourself leaving the recommended areas of the pyramid displayed at WP:DR. If you would like to report conduct-related problems, in this specific case, WP:ANEW could have been a venue; the dispute resolution page contains other ideas like seeking a third opinion at WP:3O. I have blocked the other editor because they have clearly been the source of the disruption, but I can't do so without mentioning that you have fueled the fire, and could have avoided doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
All right, thanks and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to mention WP:DISCFAIL, my favorite essay on Wikipedia. Extremely useful advice I wasn't completely aware of when reading it the first time. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for all of these useful advices, specially that discussion essay. I'll keep all of these in mind next time. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
-(My two warnings posted to their talk page for disruptive editing are missing. They deleted them.)
Reasons for considering blocking as discriminatory and abusive:
I. The incident that led to blocking.
1. The edits of the other user are wrong. Romania is not a native country to Aromanians and that is sourced information.
2. The other user provoked the dispute. They repeatedly commented on my behaviour, not on the content (on my viewpoint). Not just comments but provocations and threats.
3. In addition to the above, they provoked me by posting to my talk page two abusive warnings. Why abusive? See the 2 points above.
The order of the events.
- My opinion expressed on the article’s talk page
Talk: Aromanian language
DISPUTED CONTENT/TERMINOLOGY[edit source]
‘’To all users of the current page!
Since there have been and still there are disputes about important content/terminology used on the respective page, I have to make clear my viewpoint on the following issue. The use of terms like: ‘’Romanian’’, ‘’Proto Romanian’’, ‘’Common-Romanian’’, and other Romanian-related, with the purpose of implying, suggesting, claiming, etc, that the Aromanian language is a dialect or descendant of the Romanian language both modern and/or ancient, must not be tolerated. The respective terms are irrelevant to the identity of Aromanians and the Aromanian language. The Aromanian language = language, not a dialect of any ‘’mother’’ Romanian. Its status has been established officially by, both, international institutions (ex: European Council) and the legislation of native countries of Aromanians (ex; the Republics of North Macedonia, and Albania). Using the respective terms and/or theories for the above purposes constitutes abuse, therefore, any intervention done to recycle those terms for the above purpose must result in penalisation. Editors who would like to mention outdated terminology, theories, etc. can do that in the history section, by specifying their obsolete nature. Legione-Romana (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Regards’’
- Their answer
‘’Legione-Romana, you will eventually end up reported for POV-pushing and removal of sourced content just because you don't agree with it. It is clear that Aromanian descends from the language that Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian did, and the name linguists gave it happens to be Common Romanian (and not Balkan Romance). You can disagree with this as much as you'd like but you cannot do anything against author consensus. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ ‘’you will eventually end up reported for’’ – comments from experienced user?! Conduct-related statements! ‘’ POV-pushing’’ – expressing my opinion is pushing?! Conduct-related statements! ‘’ removal of sourced content’’- they are adding Romania in a disruptive manner and accuse me of removal of sourced content?! ‘’Just because you don't agree with it’’ – They disregard the source which explicitly classifies ‘’Romania as a non-native country’’ and accuses me of removing sourced content bcs. I just don’t agree!
- My answer
‘’Super Dromaeosaurus:: Stop your disruptive editing! You have reverted multiple times to the native countries section by disregarding the sources and adding Romania in a biased manner!Legione-Romana (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ Please, compare the answer of the experienced user with that of the newbie one. And I noticed from the very beginning the tone & the content of his answer but tried to remain calm.
- Their answer
‘’Legione-Romana, stop removing sourced content. Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ – they keep reverting Romania back and ordering me to stop remove sourced content! Which sourced content?! In the beginning, there was no source at all. Later on, they added their source which contradicted the main source. I mentioned that in the summary section and they still continue the same.
- My answer
‘’Super Dromaeosaurus:: Stop your disruptive editing. You continue to alter the native countries section by adding irrelevant sources and disregarding the main one. Romania is not a native country to Aromanians!Period!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ -At least I am specifying. Meanwhile, they had posted 2 warnings in my talk page for disruptive editing and for not having a neutral point of view.
- Their answer
Romania is the biggest place with self-declared Aromanians in the world. That they migrated does not matter, those Aromanians are now natives of the region and speak their language in Romania. I will repeat you again to respect sourced content. You were already blocked for this. And calling those sourced irrelevant because you don't agree with them won't make them actually irrelevant. It really isn't the end of the world if we say Aromanian is natively spoken in Romania. Super Ψ Dro 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
‘’That they migrated does not matter’’ – explanation, migrants are native people! So, now the experienced user is trying to impose his viewpoint by telling stories.
‘’I will repeat you again to respect sourced content.’’- they are repeating again, again asking from me to respect sources. What about them, do they respect the pre-existing source? My source pre-existed theirs. ‘’You were already blocked for this.’’ - Again, Conduct-related statements! Moreover, they continue to provoke me! The experienced user who also sends me warnings on my talk page! (By the way, yes, I was blocked by the same administrator for copying and pasting from/on different pages or typing information that already existed on Wikipedia, with the reasoning that I added unsourced content). ‘‘calling those sourced irrelevant ’because you don't agree with them’’ –Who does not agree with them, me or the main pre-existing source?! Answer and accusations from the experienced user to the newbie one! ‘’It really isn't the end of the world if…’’ – Again stories! That will make his sources relevant.
- My answer
‘’Super Dromaeosaurus:: I am not interested in your stories! Stop your disruptive editing!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ By ‘’I am not interested in your stories’’, I meant ‘’I am interested only in facts. Considering all of the above and his 2 abusive warnings, I consider my answer a polite and calm one. ’’What kind of constructive discussion can a new user have with an experienced user like them?! How can that be possible?!
- Their answer
‘’Legione-Romana, you will be reported next time you vandalize Wikipedia. I gave you your last warning. Consider reverting your own edit. This is your last chance. I don't understand what makes you oppose so badly the fact that Aromanian is spoken in Romania. Super Ψ Dro 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ ‘’you will be reported’’ – still continuing with conduct-related statements and to threaten me! ‘’you vandalize Wikipedia’’ – I have vandalised wiki they haven’t! ‘’this is your last chance’’ - still continuing with conduct-related statements and provoking me! ‘’what makes you oppose so badly the fact that Aromanian is spoken in Romania’’ - still continuing with conduct-related statements and provoking me! Moreover, the experienced user pretend that they do not understand why I am opposed to their edits! Even after my explanations, they cannot understand! They cannot understand that I am not opposed to the fact that Aromanian is spoken in Romania, but to the fact that they keep adding Romania to the ‘’native countries’’! If that is not deliberate provocation and bias, what is it?
- My answer
‘’Sweet dreams!Legione-Romana (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’ That was said instead of good night.
- Their warnings on my talk page
User talk: Legione-Romana
April 2021[edit source]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- So I should ask consensus, read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, etc. whereas they shouldn’t ?! That is their opinion. - I am disrupting, they are not?! That is their opinion.
II. In addition to the respective incident please consider the followings.
a) I joined Wikipedia roughly one week ago. I know that I do not know much about editing protocols and procedures. I am not trying to say that new users cannot be penalised in case of breaches. Probably I have done mistakes, but I have no interest to be biased or to conduct edit warring: my only purpose is to help improve the pages by focusing on modern and neutral sources and legislation because the vast majority of the sources of the current version are from Romanian scholars which do not have a neutral viewpoint on the matter. That is not my opinion, but a fact known all over the Balkans. That can be understood by a user who knows the topic and knows the history of the Balkans.
b) The user SuperDr – has been editing on Wikipedia for at least 5 years (mentioned on his talk page by another user who has warned him about a breach of rules). They know very well the rules & the procedure, thus their interventions raise questions about their real intention. The respective user is Romanian. Under normal circumstances that should not be mentioned because the nationality of a user is irrelevant. But the problem is that they are not neutral on the respective subject. There are strong indications that they are biased namely, aiming to keep the pages ‘’Aromanians’’ and ‘’Aromanian language’’ within the frame of the theories of Romanian scholars, by opposing to changes that question those theories and differentiate Aromanians from Romanians, (see ‘’Articles’ talk pages’’ and their edits). The Romanian state does not recognise Aromanians as an ‘’ethnic minority’’ (despite the recommendations from European institutions) and does anything possible to present them as Romanians, both those from Romania and others from the whole Balkan peninsula. I do not have any issue with Romanians but with the stance of their state on the matter. (Please do not consider the respective information as a personal attack towards the user because I am representing facts not false accusations. Since the main reason for blocking is that of edit warring I am obliged to present my facts about their behaviour!)
Examples of their actions, that suggest bias.
1. Abusive use of terminology based on speculations. (Ex: Repeatedly, using the term ‘’Daco-Roman’’ or mixing the ‘’Thraco-Roman’’ with ‘’Daco-Roman’’ whilst explaining in the page ’’ Aromanians’’ the origin of Aromanians as Latinised Thracians or Dacian. They know that that is false, and they insist on using it. Dacians have nothing to do with Aromanians, the last ones are people of the southern & western Balkans, (see ‘’native countries’’ of Aromanians).
2. ‘’Coincidently’’ all of their sources are of Romanian scholars and presenting their theories as generally accepted viewpoint which is false. Also, they keep recycling them even if they are irrelevant or outdated. (Ex: the book ‘’Grammar of Romanian’’ as source that establish that ‘’Common Romanian’’ is the early form of Aromanian and all Latin languages of the Balkans). Pure speculation. ‘’Common Romanian’’ has nothing to do with Aromanian. Also see the page ‘’Common Romanian’’, only hypothesis from Romanian scholars, nothing else. They add the adjective ‘’common’’ to a member of the linguistic family (namely to Romanian) and present it as the ‘’mother’’ language of the whole Balkans. Pure absurdity. Moreover Aromanians are officially recognised as a distinct nation with their own distinct language and there is no need for the Romanian hypothesis when it comes to their identity or their language.
Refusing multiple times to accept that the official name of Aromanians is that and nothing else. Reverting multiple times and insisting that the term ‘’Macedo Romanian’’ be included in the lead section as part of the definition of the Aromanians and not on the ethnonym’s explanations. A term invented by Romanian scholars of the 18-th century as part of the Romanian propaganda of that time to present Aromanians as being Romanians from the Macedonia region. False & outdated. No one of the native countries uses the respective term, only Romania which is a non-native country. Native countries use the colloquialism ‘’Vlach’’ and nothing else, next to the official name. The user repeatedly insisting that the official name ‘’Aromanians’’ should be equal to Romanian theories. Insisting on such issues suggests bias.
3. Adding next to modern, undisputable sources, the so-called ‘’valid’’ Romanian ones in order to contradict the firsts and make it impossible for the reader to draw a final conclusion. (Ex: repeatedly altering the section of ‘’native to’’ in the page ‘’Aromanian language’’ by adding Romania as such, despite the fact that the reality & the source from the European Council excludes Romania, explicitly). Insisting in such issues suggests bias.
4. Disregarding the modern sources and official legislation which is a very serious breach of regulations and trying to impose Romanian theories contradictory to them. (Ex: European Council and the legislation of the republics of North Macedonia, and Albania, related to the official status of both Aromanians and Aromanian language). Insisting that the Aromanian language is considered as a dialect of Romanian, reverting many times and recycling outdated theories of Romanian scholars. That implies bias.
In a nutshell, there are strong indications of bias.
- The decision and motivation of blocking.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a battleground for edit warring; refusing to engage in a content-based discussion, disruptively focusing on the person who is making the arguments.
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}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, all hope for a content-related discussion is lost. The section WP:IDHT of the disruptive editing guideline describes this behaviour as one of the main examples of disruptive editing, which needs to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for blocking me, according to ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC):
1. ‘’For using Wikipedia as a battleground for edit warring’’. - Did they check the details of our edits during the incident in order to draw such a conclusion against me or against only me? - Did they check the sources on the ‘’native to’’ section and their content? - Who did the evaluation? Which source is valid? They contradict each other. So how can they coexist by stating exactly the opposite on the same topic?! They do not know the subject. That is mentioned in the discussion between them in theirs talk pages. - If my edits are considered as such, what about the edits of the opponent which are much worse?
2. ‘’Refusing to engage in a content-based discussion’’. - False! I did not refuse to do so. You cannot refuse something that has never been offered to you. - On the opposite, I was expecting a discussion on the content and the opponent user started from the very beginning and repeatedly made conduct-related statements. - Not just that, but repeatedly provoking me too.
3. ‘’Disruptively focusing on the person who is making the arguments.’’ - False! How did I disruptively focused on the person who was making the arguments? - Which arguments? Their continuous conduct-related statements? Provocations? Or their stories? - Was me or the opponent user from the very beginning till the end?
4. ‘’When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, all hope for a content-related discussion is lost.’’ - The hope for a content-related discussion was lost from the very beginning and that not because of me, but because of them.
5. ‘’Disruptive editing guideline describes this behaviour as one of the main examples of disruptive editing.’’ - Maybe it is true, but what kind of constructive editing can a new user have with such an experienced user like them?!
6. Have clearly been the source of the disruption. - I have been the source of disruption or the opponent user?! - What about all those mentioned above? - What about that their behaviour has been much worse? - That is the professional way of dealing with incidents and conflicts?! Just blaming in an abusive way the new user and favourizing the experienced one who provokes, intimidates, disregards basic rules and procedures?!
7. If a single-purpose account is used to turn Wikipedia into a battleground… - My purpose is not to turn wiki into a battleground but to improve the very poor and false information from the two respective pages.
The administrator ~ ToBeFree , is excepting from me, the new and inexperienced user, to remain calm, not to get nervous, to follow the procedures, (most of which new users do not know), whereas the experienced user (which as I have noticed they are not just a common one but occupy a certain position in the hierarchic scheme of wiki), is allowed to behave as they like?! So the respective user instead of precisely following the procedure and the rules and making it easier for me to adhere to them, they do exactly the opposite. They disregard and violate them, moreover, they continuously provoke me, (which I think was done intentionally) in order to force me to breach the procedure by overreacting and so on with their final aim of getting me blocked. They can do all the above and can continue business as usual?! If this is possible than what’s the point of having rules protocols and procedures. The administrator can disregard them and impose their will in a discriminatory and abusive way.
RegardsLegione-Romana (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Legione-Romana,
- the block is only about your behavior, not the article content, and not other users' behavior. There are practically two approaches to writing an unblock request (see the guide for appealing blocks): Either the block shouldn't have been made in the first place, or the block is no longer necessary. Your current argumentation is focused on the former statement, which – just by reading through your message – doesn't seem to be the case to me. You have edit warred, you have disruptively focused on the person who made the arguments, and you have refused to engage in a content-based discussion.
- You write: "You cannot refuse something that has never been offered to you" – the offer, if you would like to call it like this, existed all the time, in form of the "edit" button and your keyboard. Dispute resolution options and links to detailed advice have specifically been offered to you at 20:17, 7 April 2021 on your talk page.
- "Indefinite" means "without automatic expiration". It does not mean "forever and without discussion". You mention experience differences, and while you're generally welcome to be bold, this dispute has become disruptive enough to lead to a request for administrative action on my talk page (quoted by you above). There seemed to be no way to stop the disruption other than enforcing a discussion with you about your conduct before any further edit is made. As long as you understand the problem and will not repeat the aforementioned disruptive behavior, there is no need to uphold the block. I'm afraid we have, however, not yet reached this point.
- Regarding "single-purpose account", all I mean is, and you confirmed this explicitly above, that your current only intention when editing Wikipedia is to "improve the very poor and false information from the two respective pages". One possible way to get out of the entire situation relatively easily is to agree not to edit about this dispute anymore, but I guess that's not an option. It isn't because this is a single-purpose account that would then lose its purpose; QED.
- My personal recommendation would be creating a concise, calm unblock request that focuses on your own behavior in this disupte, why it was disruptive and why there is no longer a need to fear further similar disruption. That's all. If you choose this approach, please explicitly agree, as a binding unblock condition enforced by a partial block, to not directly edit the articles Aromanians and Aromanian language anymore and to instead seek consensus for any further changes on the articles' talk pages. If that's not an option, you should provide a good explanation why it isn't. I'd say there is no possible good explanation for that case.
- Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)- Administrator ToBeFree (Heading converted to normal text, indentation fixed ~ ToBeFree)
- Your answer is just a poor justification for your unreasonable and wrong decision. You can not answer just in two lines by mentioning only what convinces you!
- Anyway, some specifications about its content.
- - ‘’Existed all the time, in form of the "edit" button and your keyboard’’ – No, your inference is wrong, (probably the lines were too close to each other). I meant there was no offer from the other side furthermore, they excluded that possibility from the very beginning till the end.
- - ‘’This dispute has become disruptive enough to lead to a request for administrative action on my talk page (quoted by you above).’’ - Probably, but why administrative action only against me? Was I involved in a dispute with myself?!
- What about the specification made on your talk page by the user who asked for the administrative action, that they have no clue about the disputed content namely, who is right and who is wrong? Why are you not mentioning it? Probably you didn’t see it? Who has the responsibility to check and decide which user is right and which is wrong? No one? Just guessing, assuming, penalising, finished? Very professional approach!
- - ‘’There seemed to be no way to stop the disruption other than enforcing a discussion with you about your conduct before any further edit is made.‘’ - Yeah? Did you enforce any discussion with the other user for the same issue? Let me guess… no! That’s because they are an experienced user and you know each other a little bit! Right?Legione-Romana (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Legione-Romana,
- I didn't see this message until now; to notify me about an answer, please mention
[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]]in your edit summary. - Regarding the disputed offer, I understand your position, but I disagree: When one user in a discussion refuses to talk about content, this does not prevent you from talking about content. If you respond to the tone of an argument, you leave the recommended areas of the pyramid displayed at WP:DR.
- Similar thoughts apply to the "discrimination" concern: You have clearly edit warred:
- Five reverts within 24 hours, four of them within 2 hours, unambiguously, objectively justifying (WP:3RR), and in my opinion clearly requiring, a block to stop the ongoing edit war. More so as you have expressed an unwillingness to discuss the issue further (Special:Diff/1016570786 Special:Diff/1016569705) while continuing to edit the article in your preferred revision (Special:Diff/1016567811/1016575719). To me, it seems clear that you would have continued to restore your preferred revision until technically prevented from doing so; the entire unblock discussion just confirms this impression.
- The main question is what would happen if you were unblocked, and you have answered this question with
"My purpose is [...] to improve the very poor and false information from the two respective pages."
As long as that is the case, the block seems to be necessary to prevent further edit warring. - These are the reasons for your block, and for its lack of an automatic expiration. Please focus on them; straw man argumentation is ineffective and unhelpful. The block is about your behavior, not others' (see WP:NOTTHEM, part of the aforementioned guide). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Legione-Romana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Abusive and discriminatory!
Decline reason:
I don't see a compelling reason to grant this request. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 12 April 2021 (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.
Abusive and discriminatory blocking!
A) ABUSIVE
The block was not necessary to prevent any damage or disruption thus, it should not have been applied. My edits did not damage or disrupt the content of the page. The removed content is unsourced. Specifically, the source attached to the term ‘’Romania’’ in the section ‘’native to’’ of the page Aromanian language, does not mention that Aromanians are native in Romania. On the opposite, it states that Aromanians migrated there in 1925.
First warning.
‘’Please stop your disruptive editing. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’
- The warning lacks substance, my editing was not disruptive. Removing unsourced content does not constitute disruptive editing. The warning is used in an abusive way in order to intimidate me and to impose their point of view on the matter.
Second warning
‘’You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’
- The warning lacks substance, my editing was not disruptive. Removing unsourced content does not constitute disruptive editing. The warning is used in an abusive way in order to intimidate me and to impose their point of view on the matter.
The administrator applied the block without checking the validity of the warnings. Also, they did not analyse my edit summary specifications and warnings sent to the opponent user on the matter.
The Blocking
‘’You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a battleground for edit warring; refusing to engage in a content-based discussion, disruptively focusing on the person who is making the arguments. 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:Legione-Romana|Legione-Romana]] ([[User talk:Legione-Romana#top|talk]]) 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC) When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, all hope for a content-related discussion is lost. The section WP:IDHT of the disruptive editing guideline describes this behaviour as one of the main examples of disruptive editing, which needs to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)’’
Their reasoning
1. ‘’For using Wikipedia as a battleground for edit warring’’.
- Again, removing unsourced content does not constitute any of the above. (They don’t know the subject. That is mentioned in the ‘’User talk: ToBeFree’’ in the message sent by the user MarchJuly. Quote: ‘’ In all honesty, I've got no idea who's right in a content or context sense of the word’’.) Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
2. ‘’Refusing to engage in a content-based discussion’’.
- That is not true. I was expecting a content-based discussion’’ but the opponent user started from the very beginning and repeatedly made conduct-related statements, provocation, intimidations and sending abusive warnings.
3. ‘’Disruptively focusing on the person who is making the arguments.’’
- That is applicable to the opponent user not to me. They did not bring any argument, but just adding unsourced content and expressing just personal opinions. Those do not constitute an argument.
4. ‘’Comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" represents an example of disruptive editing….’’all hope for a content-related discussion is lost’’.
- Possibly yes, it is an example but, again that was said at the end of the discussion after them expressing just personal opinions, not arguments and after all their conduct-related statements, provocations, intimidations, and their 2 abusive warnings. If I should be blocked for that comment from editing, the opponent user should be blocked even from reading the wiki.
- Most important, there has been no warning regarding the respective comment previous to the block. The above warnings were strictly related to my edits, (see article’s talk page dialogues and the chronologic order of the events). There is a procedure that establishes how the user should be penalised and the administrator disregarded it. Thus again the block is abusive.
B) DISCRIMINATORY
In addition to its abusive nature, the block is discriminatory too. The administrator has discriminated between the two users. Against me, (the inexperienced user) for the respective expression has been applied the top sanction, whereas against the opponent user, despite the fact that they are an experienced one they have not been sanctioned at all for both, their edits and behaviour.
In addition to the above, the opponent user has not been sanctioned at all for sending me warnings in an abusive way.
I previously have been blocked 72 h from editing for typing info that already exists on wiki and for copying & pasting text from/to different pages of wiki with the reasoning – ‘’unsourced content’’. Whereas the blatant violation of the same rule from the opponent user, which characterises the removal of the unsourced content as ‘’vandalism’’ in the edit summary section, results in my new blocking because this time I removed unsourced content. The common sense is screaming, asking for some help!
RegardsLegione-Romana (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Verginia's star
[edit]Do you have any connection to Verginia's star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Administrator ToBeFree
Provide an answer to my appeal about your abusive and discriminatory blocking and don't tell me stories. You can do discussions about stories with your friend Super Ψ Dro whilst reading your essays.Legione-Romana (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verginia's star, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Yup. Revoking talk page access; the user has had their attention. I'll keep the appeal open to invite a second pair of eyes, perhaps from Drmies who had blocked the previous account. See WP:Standard offer for practically the only way to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, thanks for the ping, ToBeFree; it's been a few years since that block. Clearly they haven't changed much. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)