Zoroastryan
@Bbb23 it seems you are following me closely which seems like a conflict to me but learn what? No one is exactly providing an explanation besides quick rule quotes. I’m trying to fix the appeal each time to fit for those and give my explanation. It seems you had something on your mind so tell me. Why do I deserve an indefinite block for my first offence?
April 2023
edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to All your base are belong to us, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. It's been reverted several times now. Please understand that a mention in Futurama isn't notable to mention without proper independent coverage soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zoroastryan reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Zoroastryan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked by a user Bbb23 before I was able to make my case about a report that was made against me for edit warring. Here is the comment I was unable to make, I believe its logical merits are clear as to why my edits should remain. The comment is below, however I also would like to address the comment I made on the report page. I looked up Bbb23’s account prior to commenting and could not see anything about who it was. I assumed it was Soetermans’ friend replying with an unsolicited comment. Given Soetermans’ disingenuous behaviour before I thought it was comical that he would contact another user to comment on the report. Needless to say it wasn't clear to me that I was replying to an admin. Apologies for the tone on that comment. Nonetheless I believe Soetermans’ condescending and disingenuous tone warranted my comments. That aside I have been editing on wikipedia without an account for over a decade, I may seem like a new user but am not. This is not a troll account. I have also been donating to wikipedia for years. I don’t believe I deserve a ban, not to mention a permanent ban which is excessive. Anyway here is the reply to Soetermans’ frivolous report: I dispute that my edits should be considered original research. As the WP:OR article states, “the capital of France is Paris” is not research, it’s an indisputable fact. In the same respect, the mention of the quote in a show is not research, no deductions were performed. The quote does exist, that is not up for dispute. Moreover, in the “what is not original research” section is mentioned: “transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources [is not original research].” That is precisely what I have done. Soetermans claims the edit is not appropriate, that is his primary thesis when he originally contacted me on my talk page. That is up for debate, but as I mentioned to him in followup comments on his talk page, I believe it is appropriate for this article.
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:EW but don't actually address that. You clearly were edit-warring, your change was reverted by multiple editors and you kept on reverting the removal. You aren't banned, you are blocked; these are two different things. And you are blocked indefinitely, not forever. You need to demonstrate you understand what you did wrong and convince us you understand how to avoid edit wars in the future. Yamla (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2023 (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.
Hi Zoroastryan, I started a discussion because you were edit warring. You were rather uncivil to me, but I let it slide. With your reply I find it hard to believe you've been here for over a decade when you think an aggressive attitude like that is welcome here somehow.
A transcription is not original research. But you didn't transcribed anything, and it's rather strange you think that you noticing a quote in a TV series and looking up a clip as a reference would be considered transcribing something - that exactly is original research because the Futurama bit is a clear WP:PRIMARY source. See No. 4: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You know of the meme, you noticed the quote in Futurama and you found a clip of the bit. We need reliable coverage by sources independent of the subject - not you, Futurama and YouTube.
Good luck with the unblock. If it succeeds, hopefully you'll start editing constructively. Thanks, and have a good weekend. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok at this point I’m confused with Yamla’s comments. As far as I can see I haven’t broken any rules for edit-warring and therefore can not be banned for it. I made an initial edit that was removed by another used for not being referenced. I added the reference and thereafter the despite with Soetermans’ was about if the edit was appropriate. I made 3 changes and no more. Bbb32 even mentioned I have not violated 3RR. My understanding is that I was banned for my comment towards Bbb32 which was a misunderstanding and a little too punitive in my opinion. “Not the response I was looking for. I've blocked the user for WP:NOTHERE.” I understand his response to a certain extent but like I said it was a misunderstanding and I apologize.
I was not given an opportunity to reply to the edit-warring report and like I said my logic stands on its own merits. I believe the edits should remain up and I am asking for an opportunity to make my case. Zoroastryan (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Futurama episode is a primary source but what I did was not an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. It’s rather strange that you’re attempting to manipulate what is a transcription (which is not original research) to fit into a self-manufactured mold because you dislike its addition on the article page. That is not your decision to make, the edit belongs on the page on its own merits. Zoroastryan (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- ...no, it doesn't, I just pointed out how your edit is in fact original research, but you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? I didn't "manipulate" anything, you are misreading a guideline. Bbb23 blocked you because you are WP:NOTHERE to help build Wikipedia. I'm starting to think they're right. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- My issue with your attitude is the fact that you believe you speak for wikipedia itself. I mean you linked to WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT as if you are the consensus of the community. You behaved in a similar fashion on yours and my talk pages. You have a viewpoint and I have mine. What is reasonable is debating it to an impartial party and accepting their decision. Perfectly happy to do that, but what isn’t is acting like you can make an impartial judgement yourself which is what you’re doing. Bbb32 banned me for a rude comment which is reasonable. However, you are absolutely behaving in bad faith as well. Zoroastryan (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now you're trying to make this about me. You are not here to help Wikipedia. I won't reply any further. Have a great weekend. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- You’re making it about me. You’re saying I’m rude, at least I’m not disingenuous. “Have a good weekend.” Yeah right Zoroastryan (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now you're trying to make this about me. You are not here to help Wikipedia. I won't reply any further. Have a great weekend. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- My issue with your attitude is the fact that you believe you speak for wikipedia itself. I mean you linked to WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT as if you are the consensus of the community. You behaved in a similar fashion on yours and my talk pages. You have a viewpoint and I have mine. What is reasonable is debating it to an impartial party and accepting their decision. Perfectly happy to do that, but what isn’t is acting like you can make an impartial judgement yourself which is what you’re doing. Bbb32 banned me for a rude comment which is reasonable. However, you are absolutely behaving in bad faith as well. Zoroastryan (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- ...no, it doesn't, I just pointed out how your edit is in fact original research, but you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? I didn't "manipulate" anything, you are misreading a guideline. Bbb23 blocked you because you are WP:NOTHERE to help build Wikipedia. I'm starting to think they're right. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Zoroastryan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok at this point I’m confused with Yamla’s comments. As far as I can see I haven’t broken any rules for edit-warring and therefore can not be banned for it. I made an initial edit that was removed by another user for not being referenced. I added the reference and thereafter the despite with Soetermans’ started and was about if the edit was appropriate. I made 3 changes and no more. Bbb32 even mentioned I have not violated 3RR. My understanding is that I was banned for my comment towards Bbb32 which was a misunderstanding and a little too punitive in my opinion. “Not the response I was looking for. I've blocked the user for WP:NOTHERE.” I understand his response to a certain extent but like I said it was a misunderstanding and I apologize.
I was not given an opportunity to reply to the edit-warring report and like I said my logic stands on its own merits. I believe the edits should remain up and I am asking for an opportunity to make my case. I was attempting to go through the proper channels in response to a disputed edit. That is the antithesis of edit-warring.
Decline reason:
If you read WP:Edit warring, you will see that you can be blocked even if you do not exceed 3RR. This is what happened to you. I think you can do better than saying your response to Bbb23 was a misunderstanding. It was clearly showing the wrong attitude, hence the block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2023 (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.
Zoroastryan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I’ve been editing on Wikipedia for many years without an account and have donated multiple times to the cause. I recently created an account, and this is the first time I’ve had to deal with a formal inquisition into my editing behaviour. Frankly, I’m disappointed in the system thus far and am seriously considering simply returning to anonymously editing as I have done for years before. As an anonymous editor I almost never run into issues, and whenever I did, I was able to sort it out with progressively improved edits. On the page in question the edits I made were in good-faith and valuable to the topic. Nonetheless, an individual, Soetermans, decided to continually delete the edits I made because they personally felt that they were not valuable to the article. Eventually, they reached out to me with a very condescending tone. They also attempted to leave an impression that they spoke for Wikipedia (like they were an employee), which frankly is sad that they’re trying to use intimidation tactics on people they think are new contributors. They made references to rules I had allegedly broken regarding appropriate edits, none of which were actually broken. This is something they have done multiple times over the course of this incident. Often making multiple contradictory statements regarding rules I have allegedly broken, all the while acting as if they’re flagging my account for rule breaking (like a Wikipedia employee). I initially disagreed with their assessments and allegations and called them out for being condescending and disingenuous, then re-added my original edits. However, I did not make more than 3 changes as is convention. Eventually this led to a report where according to Bbb23 I was not being civil in my tone; true I was not being polite and Soetermans was technically being civil and polite in his but his tone was condescending and disingenuous. I’m shocked this was not picked up by veteran Wikipedia members/admins. That is the context leading up to my comment to Bbb23.
The other element is I was not able to verify who Bbb23 was before commenting. The Wikipedia UI on my phone is a little wonky and they didn’t appear to me to be an admin when I looked at their account info. To me it just looked like someone (Soetermans) that spends all day pedantically and cynically gatekeeping articles was trying to bash me and I genuinely thought that he had recruited another friend to vouch for him to that end. Anyway I said: “Who are you, did Soetermans call backup or something haha.” I genuinely wanted to know where this person had come from. Followed by: “The comments are rude but the man deserves it for his own attitude on my talk page.” I think that reply should make a lot more sense for whoever reviews this appeal next. There wasn't any malicious intent. I thought I was engaging with a random user looking to throw me under the bus for a simple edit dispute they weren’t even a part of.
The previous admin that reviewed my appeal said I should do better than simply saying it was a misunderstanding. I disagree. That was the key thing, not to mention that what I said wasn’t even that disrespectful to Bbb23 and he permanently blocked my account for it rather than explain or give me a chance to explain. Nonetheless, I apologized to him. At this point I’m wondering if it is even warranted. I mean really, are we going to act like my comment was that disruptive or that it required an immediate ban let alone immediate permanent ban?
Needless to say, I did not realize I was able to make a formal argument for why my edits were valuable and why Soetermans was being unreasonable to Bbb23. In my previous appeal I appended the message I had intended to add to Soetermans’ report for admins to view. That was my attempt at engaging with admins and getting a resolution, but I was blocked midway through typing it up. For some reason it was dismissed afterwards in my block appeals. Still no admin has addressed if my edits are appropriate or not. If my block is lifted I intend on pursuing the issue of the report until it is resolved through the proper channels as I was originally.
I haven’t picked fights on Wikipedia for the years I’ve been here, I’m not trying to pick fights now and I wasn’t trying to pick a fight then. To me it was clear this Soetermans was picking a fight with me even though I’m adding valuable edits to an article I felt was quite bare compared to what it should be.
An indefinite block is far too punitive for my first block. Perhaps whoever reviews this next will decide I should be temporarily blocked, that would be more reasonable. I believe it’s clear that I do not deserve to be blocked at all. If you disagree, and think that I’m not the right fit for formal edits and deserve a permanent block, that’s okay I just won’t be part of the formal editing community that I was hoping to take part in and return to anonymous work. I believe in the project even despite the behaviour of some individuals in the community.
Best,
Zoro
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. Please read our guide to appealing blocks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:40, 23 April 2023 (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 have now twice reverted your unblock requests. You are not permitted to have more than one unblock request at a time. If you add another, I will revoke Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I didn’t know that, obviously you are harassing me and I didn’t realize. I just checked the edit history and your behaviour is inappropriate from top to bottom. It seems ever since you inappropriately placed an indefinite block on my account you have been stalking my talk page, making multiple edits to it. Now you’re threatening me further… fine, I’ve removed the original request and re-added it below since it seems you have a hand in the previous one being ignored given your behaviour. As per your message there is only one unblock request on my account.
Zoroastryan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok so here’s the last one without any info about other people… The inclusion spoke to my mental state but apparently you guys don’t care about that. Not sure if it’ll make sense but you guys seem to just ignore what I say if I talk about others so here goes. I’ve been editing on Wikipedia for many years without an account and have donated multiple times to the cause. I recently created an account, and this is the first time I’ve had to deal with a formal inquisition into my editing behaviour. Frankly, I’m disappointed in the system thus far and am seriously considering simply returning to anonymously editing as I have done for years before. As an anonymous editor I almost never run into issues, and whenever I did, I was able to sort it out with progressively improved edits. On the page in question the edits I made were in good-faith and valuable to the topic. However, I did not make more than 3 changes as is convention. I was not able to verify who Bbb23 was before commenting on the ensuing dispute. The Wikipedia UI on my phone is a little wonky and they didn’t appear to me to be an admin when I looked at their account info. To me it just looked like the individual that reported me had recruited another friend to vouch for him to have be blocked. Anyway I said: “Who are you, did Soetermans call backup or something haha.” I genuinely wanted to know where this person had come from. There wasn't any malicious intent. I thought I was engaging with a random user looking to throw me under the bus for a simple edit dispute they weren’t even a part of. The previous admin that reviewed my appeal said I should do better than simply saying it was a misunderstanding. I disagree. That was the key thing, not to mention that what I said wasn’t even that disrespectful to Bbb23 and he permanently blocked my account and IP for it rather than explain or give me a chance to explain. If blocking is not meant to be a punishment then this is a breach of that convention. Nonetheless, I apologized to him. At this point I’m wondering if it is even warranted. I mean really, are we going to act like my comment was that disruptive or that it required an immediate ban let alone immediate permanent ban? Needless to say, I did not realize I was able to make a formal argument to Bbb23. In my previous appeal I appended the message I had intended to add to the report for admins to view. That was my attempt at engaging with admins and getting a resolution, but I was blocked midway through typing it up. For some reason it was dismissed afterwards in my block appeals. If my block is lifted I intend on pursuing the issue of the report until it is resolved through the proper channels as I was originally. I haven’t picked fights on Wikipedia for the years I’ve been here, I’m not trying to pick fights now and I wasn’t trying to pick a fight then. An indefinite block is far too punitive for my first block. Perhaps whoever reviews this next will decide I should be temporarily blocked, that would be more reasonable. I believe it’s clear that I do not deserve to be blocked at all. If you disagree, and think that I’m not the right fit for formal edits and deserve a permanent block, that’s okay I just won’t be part of the formal editing community that I was hoping to take part in and return to anonymous work. I believe in the project even despite the behaviour of some individuals in the community. Best, Zoro
Decline reason:
Declining and removing Talk page access. Bbb23 is acting completely appropriate in his role as an admin, and to be blunt an unblock of your account would end up being a timesink., You are continuing the same combative tone here in your unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2023 (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.
- Note. If an admin reviews the above unblock request, please also note the comments just above it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that would be appreciated, thanks. I don’t think Bbb23 is behaving appropriately.