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)

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

@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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * FYI - Sockpuppet_investigations/Aristeus01. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)