User talk:QuidditchCup53

My Talk Page

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to ask me any question. I'd be happy to collaborate and learn more about Wikipedia. I used to edit fandom wikias so I have some experience but Wikipedia is a more serious project. Wikipedia is responsable for a lot of my homeworks getting good grades, I want to repay the service. My Wikipedian hero is Ser Amantio di Nicolao who single handedly edited a lot of Wikipedia, he is a firm believer that information should be free, I am too. Wikipedia is not perfect, any serious historian would tell you that, but it's perfect for average people to quickly read something about a topic they are interested in and scholars to find sources for the domains they are interested in. It's policy that anyone can edit it means that it will not always have accurate information like Britannica, but it beats such encyclopedias which sheer scale which I think it's more important. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the disruptive edits of another (blocked) editor. Note that it doesn't matter if you are a different physical person, if you are indistinguishable from a sockpuppet then your account will be treated as one..

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2022 (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).

QuidditchCup53 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wow, I'm not mad just dissapointed. Isn't Wikipedia about free information?

On the page History of Transylvania, OrionNimrod wanted to remove Roman or romanized population chapter. Aristeus01 refused. They started edit warring, he was blocked for 1 week for edit warring. I'm not sure how Consensus works on Wikipedia, but wasn't OrionNimrod supposed to have Consensus in order to remove that part? He clearly didn't have Aristeus01 consensus but he is the one who got banned. In this case, all I need to be a sockpuppet of Aristeus01 is to also be Romanian, because the deletion of paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees with) are the reasons why I made this account.

I don't know what to say in my defense because I don't know what my fault is, that I also opposed to OrionNimrod's removal? didn't he need consensus for that? that I did exactly what Aristeus01 did? I did not edit war. But I believe the undo of OrionNimrod's removal was justified because he simply removed sources that disagree with the Hungarian nationalist POV. Mentioning the Romanians being present in Transylvania is problematic for Hungarians because they believe that the Romanians arrived in the 12th century, that's not what other historians believe. He simply removed the sources that mentioned those other historians. Wikipedia seems to have a whole article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view saying that "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".

Would you consider that removing paragraphs mentioning Romanians, and only leaving the paragraphs that the Hungarian histography agrees with is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"? All the people that reported Aristeus01 were Hungarians, this is no a coincidence. Is the fair representation of all sources against Wikipedia's policy?

But anyway, my behavior alone, I seem to be accused of being indistinguishable from a sockpuppet, can I have a link with what guideline I violated? As I don't know who agreeing with someone who got banned means you are worthy of permanban.

Any historian with marginal knowledge of this region can tell you what is going on: OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV. If "indistinguishable from a sockpuppet" means that I have to get banned because I agree with Aristeus01, you will ban a lot of people for no good reason.

Consider the absurd possiblity that Aristeus01 "the crazy guy" is right, what will that mean? It will mean you will ban everyone who is correct, while protecting OrionNimrod's disruptive editing. I thought Wikipedia was a place for discourse, but I never got banned without even a discussion. Heck, I had contradictory discussions about fictional characters on the Elder Scrolls fandom, and they didn't result in a ban, here, it seems that even hinting you disagree with the "establishment" is reason enough for a ban.

I don't think you should war edit, I think you should discuss, but I know OrionNimrod is not removing content in good faith and I know OrionNimrod needs consenus to remove a material (which he didn't get). If you ban everyone that disagrees with him, it means Wikipedia is not that much the place for free information as I thought. Like: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and then bam, insta-banned for having the same opinion as the guy who got banned.

I'm just dissapointed, I thought Wikipedia was something serious while the fandoms were for fun. But this, is just next level. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A successful unblock request will indicate a) how you came across the dispute at History of Transylvania and b) a description of the kind of editing work that you intend to do if unblocked. The current request does not do this. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:23, 29 December 2022 (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.

@Aristeus01 apparently they think I'm you because I agreed with you on the History of Transylvania page. What can be done about this? I'm also not sure exactly what I'm accused of, impersonating you or also reverting OrionNimrod removal of content? you seem to be more experienced here, can you help me out? given my welcome committee I don't expect much, but who knows, maybe it was just bad luck. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are not concerned with the content of articles - in this case I have no knowledge or interest in the subject concerned - they are only concerned with behaviour. Aristeus01 was blocked because they persistently edit-warred on that article shortly after being warned for the exact same behaviour on another article. If a new editor then appears and continues that edit-war, they are effectively proxying for the blocked editor, and will be blocked as well ("New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.") If the ability to do that did not exist, any editor who was blocked for edit-warring could simply continue the edit-war by simply creating a new account ad nauseam. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I have no interest to edit war. My only reason for reverting OrionNimrod is because I disagree with his reasons for removing it, which I posted on the talk page of History of Transylvania. If I remember correctly, an editor needs consensus, then why was the admin in favor of OrionNimrod if he didn't have consensus? not rhetorical question, actually want to know. Wouldn't the one causing the edit war would be the ones who keeps editing without consensus? QuidditchCup53 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aristeus01. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither Aristeus01 nor LandOfTheGiants. Just because you have 3 or more editors saying the same thing, that there's a Nationalist POV it doesn't mean they are the same person, because there may indeed be a Nationalist POV issue (as I argued in my unban request). But you don't care about the content only the behaviour. When I undo OrionNimrod's removal I believed OrionNimrod was the one being abusive as he did not have consensus (I still don't know how come he has consensus when other editors disagree with him and why Aristeus01 got banned instead). I did not intend to edit war. In fact, I did post on the talk page of History of Transylvania. How should I proceed instead? How should I behave if I want to contest that removal of content but without breaking the rules? QuidditchCup53 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I did not wish to war edit, I genuinely believed OrionNimrod was in the wrong there as he had no consensus. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it, I don't think restoring the page again and again is a productive way to behave. And I know I cannot convince you that I'm not Aristeus01 nor LandOfTheGiants. I only ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I am either Aristeus01 or LandOfTheGiants, I will war edit and get banned again quickly, but what if I'm not? please, give me a chance, as I just started Wikipedia and I got no chance to prove myself. I believe this ban was too over the top but this is not about me. Let my actions speak louder than my words, I understand now that you don't care about the content but behavior. I will have a good behavior. What more can you ask of me? It just feels so unfair that I got banned all of a sudden. My interest is not in going for petty political squabble but improve Wikipedia. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aristeus01

I'm sorry that you ended up in this situation because of me. I had no idea that there is some rule against this sort of behaviour. Pretty dumb rule if you ask me.
I cannot reply on your page while I am blocked but - if you haven't already - please apply for unblock. I feel the admin is being a bit too zealous and harsh, the rule he cited said " subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behaviour they are imitating" WP:PROXYING so really you should get a week ban at most, although given that you are brand new to this an explanation of the rules would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately I cannot appeal for you. This is a classic case of the policeman beating protestors because the boss paid for that uniform and stick and, by God, they will use it - even the guy that reported me was pretty shocked, as I am now as well. Also, the admin reverted the edits to History of Transylvania (and protected the page, an action which I actually like) back to what the two guilty editors - in my opinion - wanted it to look like without taking any action against the break of 3RR I signalled earlier - I mean, come on, you can see from a plane they took ownership of that page.
This is what Wikipedia actually is, I'm afraid. When I joined early this year I had this user, @borsoka, continuously attacking my edits to the point I had to ask help from an admin. Apparently, he or she has been "initiating" new users like myself on how to become compliant with his/hers POV or be gone, most recent example @User:Giray Altay - Wikipedia - another new user - and his/hers friends dropping in the talk page calling me "Randy in Boise" and so on. Then, as my editing grew it attracted more users like the one mentioned, if you understand what I mean, who interfered with my edits to the point I could not even concentrate on the editing anymore. When I reported this as well I got a warning because (drums rolling): if there are more editors with one opinion the minority editor should just shut up (and watch the quality of an article go down the drain). What I am trying to say is Wikipedia is not a nice academic environment, it's a s***show, and the admins are mostly powerless because they all live in fear of making the wrong decision or saying the wrong thing and getting penalties for it. There's no explaining and letting off with a warning, everybody just shoots from the hip. More of an Animal Farm sort of environment. So if you are in any way disappointed, please don't be - unless you are willing to either degrade yourself and live in fear of being reported while at the same time having to accept mediocrity or you take on the system - there is no pleasure in editing Wikipedia as it stands, it actually is a very frustrating and disturbing process. This is not a happy place. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I am in fact very dissapointed, this has never happened to me and I even edited the countryballs fandom for Israel and Palestine, I get now why Wikipedia gets the reputation it gets, with nationalists like these allowed to run loose. Not only that. But their side is talken by the admins. They are apparently allowed to edit without consensus even if consensus is a big deal on Wikipedia (at least on paper). They are allowed to violate neutrality with impunity.

I was accused of being you simply for having the same opinion as you (despite telling the admin how clear it is for anyone with a bit of knowledge in the area that OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV), he replied that he is not interest in the subject concerned, which is fair, but that's no excuse to blatantly support one side because "I am impartial", that's the opposite of impartial. If you are not interested in the subject then at least be impartial, don't pick to favor one side and then use "not interest in the subject concerned" as a shield when you clearly took sides.

He tried to accuse me of being you, like WTF? In all my years on a fandom this never happened to me. Pretty stupid to think "if this user has the same opinion, it must mean they are the same person", especially when I clearly explained that here is an issue of blatant favoritism towards the Hungarian POV so any Romanian will be able to tell what is going on. And then, when it became impossible to prove that I was you because we talked to each other they tried to link me to another user who probably had the same opinion.

If they want to accuse you of something, they will find something against you. You said it best with the admin being too zealous and harsh, it's not a matter of being objective or wanting what's best for Wikipedia, it's a matter that he wants to ban me, and I think no appeal can change that. Imagine I was permanently banned after 2 reverts without any disscussion or anything despite me stating my reasons on the talk page.

For my 'behavior'. Apparently my issue was my behavior, but I got permanently banned while you got 1 week banned for the same offense. And OrionNimrod doesn't have any issue despite trying to revert an edit when he didn't have consensus. And he also did 3RR but no issue with that, since he's special. This is not a good place for academic knowledge. Admins can close their eyes when they want to. I hoped I could bring a lot of information from the university here, but this enviroment is pure hell.

Apparently, the admin sees nothing wrong with 3 Hungarians removing content that is contradicting the Hungarian histography even if Wikipedia has in theory a policy about neutrality.

It's sad to see that fandoms have far better staff than Wikipedia, which is probably the reason it gets the reputation it gets. I wish I was a part if this, but I won't be, given what Wikipedia actually is. Good luck man, and thank you for fighting the good fight, I can't help but wonder what are the other Romanian users doing in the face of this blatant favoritism, if they haven't been banned already. It seems here you either end up getting banned or accept mediocrity, there's no communication. Good luck, and take care, I made an appeal but honestly I don't have high hopes.

Since I can still talk on the talk page, I can provide you some books on the matter if you are interested. Unless they find me providing you accurate information that you can find in a book a good enough reason to ban you. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]