User talk:Zoroastryan

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.

You are blocked for violating

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.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]