User talk:Iconian42

My talkpage:

Iconian42, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Iconian42! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents are that this is not the first time you see this message and you already know how it will end. Prove me wrong by scrupulously obeying WP:RULES, WP:CHOPSY, and by being scrupulously polite. Through wisdom and hard work you may show everyone that I was wrong about that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the end the checkusers have proven that I was right about not being the first time you saw the discretionary sanctions alert ("saw" as in "addressed to you, personally"). You have to do some soul-searching and make an educated guess about what sort of evidence the checkusers might have. Only by addressing the evidence they do have there could be a path towards your unblocking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A rather disappointing attempt to move the goalpost, unfortunately you were very specific about what I should've proved you're wrong about, not obeying rules and being impolite. We are no longer talking about having no word, trying to rebrand your words when caught red handed is another level altogether. I don't think there's anything left to say of your uprightness that the evidence didn't already speak for themselves.

Thank you for trying to have me banned for trying to keep mentions of Hungarian war crimes within Northern Transylvania while accusing me of "Romanian nationalistic POV" and other sourced material where there was none. Imagine if there were mentions of German war crimes and the victims were the Jews. You're not a nationalist but an internationalist who just so happens to have an anti-Romanian bias, or at least support one.

According to the principles of justice, it's up to the accuser to bring up evidence and the inquiry starts from the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise. In a normal case, I shouldn't have to do any soul-searching and make an educated guess of possible evidence. The admin told me the evidence, apparenly it's an assumption as well. So we are still talking about opinion, it's just that his opinion is more important than mine.

Looks like you banned so many people you made an article about it, the level of contradiction between thought and behavior is astonishing. You claim that our [Wikipedia's] wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. But like your original warning, you don't seem to live up to it. I was obeying the rules, was polite and added sourced material. My contribution on Wikipedia was productive and if I made any I was willing to learn from my mistakes, but you didn't even talk to me and I don't think being accused and banned for supposedly having 3 accounts was my mistake. "So, it's not that I like to see you blocked". No, you just reported me with accusations of nationalist bias for sourced material because you didn't like to see me blocked. But I'm sure you just want to avoid conflict, this is why you came on me out of nowhere. I would have avoided you if I could. "I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you", please, go on and blame your actions on me so you jusify yourself and can feel good about yourself. "I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES", please, show the evidence for war editing or the alleged "Romanian nationalistic POV", nevermind the Hungarian nationalistic POV you were trying to protect. "If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it", yeah, sure you do, as can be seen from your behavior. "For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts", you seem to have no doubts about your moral fiber, which may explain the lack of it.

Anyway, there's no use going endlessly through your list of contradictions or even debating with one such as yourself. You do you, I'll try to prove I'm innocent and hopefully avoid you in the future. Through wisdom and hard work you have to do some soul-searching about the following quote: "To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society". In case you want to scream you're threatened, this is not a warning in any way, it's just for you to cast doubt on what does breaking your word and moving the goalpost to protect your breaking of word says about you, you know, be the devil. At least you could excuse the Hungarian nationalistic POV on a matter of opinion, even if there's not much in the way of an opinion in the face of sourced material. But still, bias may be unintentional, breaking your word, was not. Iconian42 (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at History of Transylvania

History of Transylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please be aware of the policy on WP:Edit warring. As a new editor on these topics, we are waiting to see if you will work in good faith. Jumping straight into an edit war isn't a good look. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet

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).

Iconian42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock because I was blocked for the wrong reasons. Admin Dreamy Jazz said on LordRogalDorn's talk page that he needs to use L'grand Anonim's account to make a ban appeal. I would have done that if I could, but I can't possibly do that because I don't have access L'grand Anonim's account. There is a connection between me, LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim but it doesn't mean we are the same person. I saw that the history of Romania is rather slim on Wikipedia, so I decided to join and contribute to the articles, starting from the oldest time to the modern era. I was doing that in good faith. It didn't take long to see why the history of Romania is rather slim, Hungarian gatekeeping. So I ended up having a lot of discussions with user KIENGIR. His methods and reasons for opposing my contributions made no sense at times so I eventually looked up his profile. There I discovered that I wasn't the only Romanian to get in a discussion with him. I found 6 other Romanians who previously argued with him: LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim but also Scheianu, Skyhighway, Ikastul and Cealicuca. Given that my contribution was legitimate but KIENGIR opposed it nonetheless, I looked to see if that's the case for the contributions of other Romanians. And I found out that it was the case. KIENGIR would offer a reasoning as vague as possible and respond as late as possible, when he was rebuted he would change the reason he opposes the contribution in the hopes that the person who pushed for the contribution either gets tilted or bored and gives up, he was effectively playing time. I decided to take their edit and play his time. I was certain that KIENGIR nautrally oppose them, and I wasn't under the illusion that I would ever get consensus, but after a lot of rebut I would eventually bring this up to third party users and discuss the worth of the contribution with impartial users. So I took the edits of those users from last to first. When I took L'grand Anonim and LordRogalDorn I mentioned the edits are theirs, but modificed. When I took Scheianu's edits I didn't mention the edits are his. This is the connection between me L'grand Anonim and LordRogalDorn. Admin Oshwah told SQL that his reason for banning me what that we geolocate to the same area and had similar user agents but different browser versions, which doesn't narrow it down much and has a lot of room for false positives. There are only a handful of browsers and a lot of people in a city. While the reason multiple Romanians who make contributions would get into conflict with KIENGIR is obvious at this point. Unless you believe I have 7 accounts, and that is only counting his talk page, maybe there's more on individual articles' talk pages, I believe it's safe to say there's a pattern here.

The blocking policy states blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. So far none of my contributions were disruption or trolling, while the information I added was supported by scholary sources. The content I added was verifiable and productive. Please look at my edits before the ban and judge whether any of them seemed like disruption or trolling. Also look at the talk pages, as I discussed there with KIENGIR. As well as at my edits where I had no discussions with KIENGIR. My edits were in good faith, I followed the rules and was polite. Iconian42 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2021 (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.

@Dreamy Jazz: I don't know how it came to this, but I am not LordRogalDorn or L'grand Anonim, I simply took the parts from their former edits that were accurate. My argument for why it's unlikely that I'm having multiple accounts starts from two things you might be skeptical of. So I tried to be as explicit as possible and provide as much evidence as possible. If you only want to read all of this skip to "you may not be familiar with the issue" or if you want to skip all just go to "ultimately, I don't know what to say to defend myself because". Although in normal circumstances I think they should prove I'm those 2 other users, not that I should prove that I'm not them.

Tgeorgescu is defending a Hungarian nationalist POV while accusing me of pushing a Romanian nationalistic POV without a hint of irony. You only have his word against my word, but check the diffs and see his double standards for yourself. Tgeorgescu is defending someone who called an annexation an improvement. He is accusing me of pushing a Romanian nationalist POV for opposition to calling the annexation of parts of Romania by Hungary an improvement instead of an annexation. I don't think you need context into the issue to understand how one sided his stance is. Tgeorgescu has a Romanian name, I doubt whether he's an actual Romanian considering he defends Hungarian nationalist POVs in the name of neutrality, but that's his problem alone.

Tgeorgescu came at me with a strange message on the talk page shortly after I joined Wikipedia, urging me to be civil and wise. Which seemed mildly threatening and out of nowhere considering I got no beef with him. I don't think I have been uncivil but he reported me for being someone else, based on what? that I took the good parts those guys' information edited it? They both happened to be Romanians yes, but given the gatekeeping of KIENGIR, is it really that uncommon having Romanians complain about it? I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case, which is why I doubt Tgeorgescu is an actual Romanian.

I saw that the history of Romania is rather slim, so I decided to join and contribute to the articles, starting from the oldest time to the modern era. It didn't take long to see why the history of Romania is rather slim, Hungarians gatekeeping. In retrospect, it was naive to believe this wouldn't be the case, but they are gatekeeping even articles that have nothing to do with Hungarians such as the Origin of the Romanians simply because they don't like Romanians. How are they gatekeeping? (you can check this with diffs), everytime I would bring a contribution that they didn't like for personal reasons: they would undo it quoting a vague and ridiculous criticisms like "inaccuracies" or whatever. Even when the added content was sourced, so if there were inaccuracies they were the inaccuracies of the secondary source that is beyond Wikipedia' scope. I had to drag their tongue and ask "what inaccuracies?" and such for every vague opposition argument they made so that they would actually have to give explicit reasons for their removal.

I added something to summary and KIENGIR removed reasoning that it's already present in the main article, when I said that this is the point because this is the summary of the main article so the information from sumamry is supposed to be there in the main article first place, he did not reply but still opposed change. Sometimes he would say "it's not relevant" other times "it's outside the article's scope" despite being clearly on topic. I did not expect him giving concensus due to his personal motivations but I expected he would eventually run out of excuses to say as I kept explaining how it's in fact relevant, how it's in fact within the article's scope, etc. Once I added a line in the lead and was removed arguing -OR, when I said I can provide sources, the reply was the lead doesn't need sources, so it's a catch 22. One of the most ridiculous reasons for opposition, the pages History of Transylvania and Principality of Transylvania lists all owners of Transylvania, except unsurprisingly the Romanian ones. When I pointed this out saying "owners" instead of rulers. His reply was out of scope saying land doesn't have "owners" it has rulers. I replied that if he wants to go into specific semantics just consider I said "rulers" instead of "owners" as the argument stays the same. He did not reply but still opposed the change. On the page Demograhpics of Hungary, when it came to Trianon, he was in favor of mentioning the 3.300.000 Hungarians who found themselves outside of Hungary but at the same time against mentioning the 10.000.000 non-Hungarians who found themselves outside Hungary, arguing that page is about Hungarians, I replied that the page is about the Demograhpics of Hungary which is not limited to ethnic Hungarians, he gave no response to that but still opposed it.

KIENGIR removed mentions of Hungarian war crimes within Northern Transylvania. He removed a sourced official state estimation of 1940 that shows the Hungarians were in minority in 1940. He removed quotes of secondary source historians who state the Hungarians were in minority in 1940. Before I got banned for supposedly having multiple accounts, KIENGIR removed some of my edits saying "-RFC decision", I looked it up and the RFC decision was "just quote the census figures directly". My contribution replaced the vague "ethnically mixed" langauge with the actual numbers, so using common sense, which one of us was "just quote the census figures directly" ? Why did he oppose just quoting the census figures directly? because the census figures directly show the Hungarians as being in minority. Where as the phrase "ethnically mixed" leaves room for interpretation. Just one more of KIENGIR's fallacious attempts to rewrite history. And when his abusive removal were challenged, we would make general but wrong statements of why the removal happened "inaccurate" or "not relevant", using any poor excuse and being as brief as possible to avoid the contribution from happening. You don't have to take my word for it, check our conversation and how he switched from one excuse to another. KIENGIR is gatekeeping a Hungarian nationalist POV by willingly omitting the parts of history that would put Hungary under a negative light or Romania under a positive light, not for the sake of shaming Hungary but for the sake of presenting an accurate history as it was. And by blocking any attempts from other users to add those parts of history to the relevant articles.

Perhaps one of KIENGIR's most obvious image of Hungarian nationalist POV was when at Origin of the Romanians, there are 2 theories - Daco-Roman Continuity and Immigrationist Theory. KIENGIR obviously loves the Immigrationist Theory because in an edit he tried to, well, better see for yourself: [1]. Why would he add a lot of "woulds" for Daco-Roman Continuity but not for Immigrationist Theory? although they are right next to each other, clear example of double standards. Wikipedia's policy tells us to assume good faith, but it's hard to assume good faith when KIENGIR does such a strong gatekeeping due to irredentism and chauvinism while Tgeorgescu defends it valiantly.

You may not be familiar with the issue, but it's like having a British nationalist patrol the Hundred Years War page and defending them from any negative reference about Britain or good refernece about France, even not mentioning that France held Normandy at some point. Desperately trying to deny and hide it anything bad about England. When someone comes to contribute to the page with things they don't like, their is removal is swift and their reasoning non-existant, they have to be asked for it, and when they are they will offer a reasoning as vague as possible and respond as late as possible, then change the reason they oppose the contribution in the hopes that the person who pushed for the contribution either gets tilted or bored and gives up, this is what happens right now with the pages of Romania's history because of Hungarian nationalism.

With this in mind, is it really that unlikely that multiple Romanians would try to push for a contribution and get into conflict with KIENGIR? I can see the similarity between me, LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim. All of us arguing with KIENGIR on the same topics. But why do you automatically assume it must be multiple accounts and KIENGIR is perfectly fine? When I first got into conflict with KIENGIR, I found his arguments for opposing kind of ridiculous but meh, I thought it would be over soon. I assumed it was easy, as long as the content you post is sourced you should be fine. But it turned out no matter how little sense it made or how obivoulsy wrong it was (he once argued that the 1730 first Austrian statisitcs and 1850 fist population census are not relevant for Principality of Translyvania's page, those are official state statistics, but at the same time he was in favor of Hungarian estimations by modern historians; why are they not relevant? no reason was given. The real reason? It shows the Hungarians were a minority) KIENGIR was insistent on desperately defending the page. It was then that I got curious what is with this guy. So I looked on his profile and talk page and found out multiple other users had the same complains about him, inclding but not limited to LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim. Other users such as Scheianu, Skyhighway, Ikastul or Cealicuca had similar conflicts with him.

So I actually looked at the edits these users that had conflicts with KIENGIR made, and found out (unsurprisingly at that point) that those were legitimate contributions, but KIENGIR was gatekeeping so those users eventually dropped. I didn't wish to tolerate such abusive behavior and decided that I would stand up to the bully. I wished to continue editing the rest of the history of Romania but there's no telling how many articles KIENGIR has under his watch, so until I could get a clear definitive answer on these issues I didn't wish to extend too far. So far I only restored edits of LordRogalDorn, L'grand Anonim and Scheianu (you missed one of my supposedly multiple accounts, probably because I didn't mention I'm restoring his edit in the edit summary). But if you look at the diffs, you'll find that much of them are my original input while the material of those other users was edited. But was planning on looking over the contribution of the other mentioned Romanians that got into conflict with KIENGIR to see the merits of their contributions.

I didn't insult or started an accusing KIENGIR of bad faith although what his gatekeeping is lowly, I didn't lose my temper although his reasons for reusing the contribution were mostly invalid or ridiculous rather than legitimate concerns. I understood that at the end of the day I needed consensus, I was simply trying to see how many excuses can he bring up until he runs out of them and what will he do then. Probably stop replying but still oppose the change. But his friend Tgeorgescu had to use other means. Once I was discussing with KIENGIR about why isn't Michael the Brave included in the lead as one of the rulers of Transylvania (everyone was included except for the Romanians) and Tgeorgescu came up and said Transylvanians did not see Michael the Brave as a liberator, which wasn't wrong but it wasn't the point of the discussion either. If anything, it only highlights Tgeorgescu's bias against Romania. He missed the point of the discussion (and it was a short discussion) but still had to come up with something negative about Romania. I actually asked him what relevance has what he said to the discussion at hand, he didn't reply.

What was the reason for using multiple accounts anyway? As you can see, I didn't use my supposed multiple accounts to pretend I'm 3 different individuals who support each other in the discussion with KIENGIR and create a fake majority. Maybe we have the same behaviour because KIENGIR is indeed biased, irredentist, chauvinist who is gatekeeping Romania's history to make it look worse and Hungary look good. These are not empty words as I listed above plenty of instances when KIENGIR pushed Hungarian nationalist POV for apparently ridiculous reasons.

I don't know what tools you used to determine we are the same person but I don't think it's exactly bulletproof, given that well, I'm not them, and that given the situation, I don't think our common paticipation on the same subjects is enough, as I said, given the Hungarian bias those pages have, I'd be surprised if multiple Romanians wouldn't oppose them. And given KIENGIR's gatekeeping, I'd be surprised if multiple Romanians wouldn't start a discussion with him. That alone is not a reason, because it's to be expected. If an Wikipedia article says "a car has 2 steering wheels" and 3 other people (4 others, the number would've only increased when I would have reached the others) argue "no, a car has only 1 steering wheel, here is the source", does that mean those 3 people are the same person? probably not, so I find the fact that you went for "this must be it" in my case kind of weird.

Ultimately, I don't know what to say to defend myself because I don't know what's the reasoning behind my accusation of being LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim. It was probably similar behavior, which is why I took the time to explain Tgeorgescu defending of a Hungarian nationalist POV and KIENGIR's gatekeeping which would explain why multiple Romanians oppose them, as well as how I came into contact with LordRogalDorn, L'grand Anonin and Scheianu edits by scrolling over KIENGIR's talk page. I tried to be as in depth as possible, but ultimately I can't defend myself from an explicit reason I don't even know. As I said, I think they should prove I'm those 2 other users, not that I should prove that I'm not them. The idea of looking for similarities make sense but it's far from bulletproof.

@Cullen328: Hi, the Teahouse recommended you, I would like your help as I'm being falsely accused and I don't know how to prove my innocence, because I wasn't told the evidence for my accusaiton in the first place. I started contributing to the history of Romania on Wikipedia, in short time I reached an article gatekeeped of KIENGIR, all of the information I added was factual and sourced. Most of the time his reasons for reversion was "not relevant" or similar. I stared discussing with KIENGIR while moving to other articles about the history of Romania, user KIENGIR was gatekeeping there. It's worth pointing out that KIENGIR is a nationalist Hungarian and the articles he was gatekeeping were mainly but not limited to Transylvania, he also gatekeeped articles such as the Origin of the Romanians which had noting to do with Hungarians. Once I got curious, I looked on KIENGIR's talk page and saw many other Romanians with similar complains about KIENGIR, not limited to the 2 I'm accused of being the same person: Scheianu, Skyhighway, Ikastul and Cealicuca are a few other users, more can be found if you look it up. So I checked their contribution and saw that they are legitimiate. They were supported by a scholary source and were relevant to the article, most importantly, they presented facts that placed the Hungarians under a negative light or Romanians under a positive light, which is what I believe is KIENGIR's real reason for opposition. In the most extreme case, he removed a mention of Hungarian war crimes commited in Northern Transylvania, in Hungary in World War II subsection Northern Transylvania, so its relevance was out of the question.

The nationalist bias of KIENGIR is not necessary a bad thing, I didn't expect a Hungarian not to root for Hungary, but he goes beyond natural bias. He is actively hiding or denying contributions with negative information about Hungary. The point I want to make with this is that given KIENGIR's gatekeeping, a significant amount of Romanians being in conflict with him is not an unusual thing. So the mere fact that me, LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonin all got into discussion with KIENGIR is not a reliable basis for determining whether we are the same person.

That was the basis used by Tgeorgescu when he requested that I'm being checked. Tgeorgescu warned me to respect rules and be polite shortly after I got into conflict with KIENGIR. Which I find weird considering I never came into contact with him. Not to mention that I respected the rules and I was polite until the very end, but he still took action and accused me of having multiple accounts. His motivations seem kind of weird, especially when you consider that Tgeorgescu defended a Hungarian nationalist POV who called an annexation an improvement, it's quite on the face. I don't know or care if there's any connection between Tgeorgescu and KIENGIR, but I wish to point out Tgeorgescu isn't an impartial or upright actor. He only contributed once to our discussion and when he did was off the point, when I asked him about the relevance of what he said to the current subject, he didn't reply. For a man bragging that "I am never opposed to rendering objective facts and I do not happily delete factual information" he certainly contradicts his stated beliefs.

I'm not asking you to automatically assume I'm right. I'm asking you to not automatically assume they are right. I'm asking you to not rush making a decision simply on the grounds that multiple Romanians got into discussion with KIENGIR, have a dose of skepticism. I'm asking to not automatically assume it must be multiple accounts and KIENGIR's contributions are perfectly fine. Users Tgeorgescu and KIENGIR are a lot older on Wikipedia, which is why they may be using their experience and relationships to wear down any opposition to their POV. Looks like their experience helped them won in this case too, the gatekeeper won, free information lost. If user Tgeorgescu had as much integrity and love for objective facts as he fancies himself, he could have simply left me alone to discuss with KIENGIR as the discussion was polite and the added content was sourced. I didn't expect KIENGIR to agree with me, ever, but once we could have brought this discussion to other impartial users. As Wikipedia says consensus does not mean unanimity. But no, he had to falsely accuse me of having multiple accounts because I restored the edits of another Romanian who also happened to have sourced material while adding some more material of my own. And he claims to never oppose rendering objective facts, that's rich. His moral contradictions are his problem alone, the point is I didn't break any rules or acted in a uncivilized way.

It's not just the lack of evidence and the rushed decision that I find unfair, the reason for the bad seems ludocris to me. If I had multiple accounts, how did I use them to my advantage? Users LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim seem to have left the discussion long before I came in, probably frustrated by KIENGIR's gatekeeping. If I had 3 accounts, why wouldn't I have the same 3 accounts support each other to create a false majority? Make it seem like there are 3vs1 when it's actually 1vs1? But let us say I didn't do that. I understand that there may be some rules against multiple accounts, but what is the harm itself in having multiple accounts if you won't use them to influence a vote or something like that? I don't think it's bad enough for a ban. I would say ban my other 2 accounts and leave this one alone if that's the case, but the other people on those others accounts are probably going to dislike it.

In typical irony and lack of integrity, user Tgeorgescu falsely accused me of "same propensity for edit warring, same Romanian nationalistic POV", and the admin didn't even question is because Tgeorgescu is an older Wikipedian. The content I added was sourced, so how could that possibly be "Romanian nationalistic POV"? if there are inaccuracies they were the inaccuracies of the secondary source that is beyond Wikipedia' scope. If they are not, then reality has seems to have Romanian nationalistic POV which is not exactly my problem as I just provided the sources. If he was an actor in good faith, Tgeorgescu could have simply talked to me about it, as I was willing to discuss, but it's a lot easier to defend a Hungarian nationalist POV while accusing me of pushing a Romanian nationalistic POV without a hint of irony. As for the second part "same propensity for edit warring", I edit warred at the beginning with KIENGIR because I thought the discussion would be short, but it turned out no matter how little sense it made, he would keep going with excuse after excuse or not posting that contribution. It was then that we moved to the talk page, no edit warring was made.

All the gatekeeping charade and accusations aside, ultimately, Wikipedia is about free information. Which is why I'd like to ask you, in what way have I been impending the distribution of free information? How was I a negative contribution to Wikipedia? I merely wanted to add sourced material to Wikipedia, there was no vandalism or destruction. But it turns out not even a webside about free information is immune to ideologial cliques. Iconian42 (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iconian42, I cannot help you. The blocking administrator is Oshwah, and it is a checkuser block. I am not a checkuser and cannot see the technical evidence. Also, I have no interest in these endless disputes among Eastern European nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wish to point out that the issue is not about disputes among Eastern European nationalists but about being falsely accused of having multiple accounts. As far as the actual discussion went, everything was fine and I got it covered. There's a serious bias here that shouldn't be dismissed as disputes among Eastern European nationalists. Iconian42 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up something: I an not a nationalist, Hungarian, Romanian, Jewish, or otherwise. If anything, I am an internationalist. Also, on my part, it was a suspicion of multiple accounts, which got investigated at WP:SPI, based upon evidence. If you want to get unblocked you have to address the reasons for such evidence. And no, such evidence cannot be disclosed publicly, it is for the eyes of checkusers only (I am not a checkuser, so I don't know which evidence they have). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an internationalist, why were you defending edits who referred to the annexation of parts of Romania by Hungary as an improvement and removed mentions of Hungarian war crimes within Northern Transylvania? I understand neutrality but you weren't netural, why did you side with him in spite of all this? By standing against my contribution for apparently being "Romanian nationalist POV" you were effectively supporting his Hungarian nationalist POV. This doesn't seem like internationalism at all. Where exactly have I been a "Romanian nationalist POV"? You could have talked to me about this, but you didn't. Your only contribution was a message about Michael the Brave which was off the point. The point in that case was that the lead mentioned all rulers of Transylvania except the Romanian ones, what Michael did or didn't was not relevant to justify his absence. Not to mention that, as I said above, my contribution had secondary sources behind them, including non-Romanian, so how could they be a "Romanian nationalist POV"? If the sources are wrong that's not the scope of Wikipedia. You warned me to be polite and respect all rules. Which if you look at my diffs I did, but you reported me nonetheless, what does that say of your character? I can't prove you wrong and show everyone that you were wrong about that, as you claimed you wanted, since you reported me before I could prove you wrong, highlighting the value of your word and fiber. Why even make that threat in the first place if you aren't going to respect it? Well, given the rushed method decisions are made around here, it would probably be dismissed as just an unimportant dispute among Eastern European nationalists, not to be misinterpreted: I'm not pointing fingers at Cullen for its his right to not to want to have to deal with this, but this will likely be the general stance of those involved in this soap opera, don't read the actual discussion (yourself included, given the accusation of war edit) and just make a verdit as quick as possible so we can move on from this unimportant eastern nationalist debate. Anyway, what was done was done, there's no point talking further about it, given that I'm now 3 people it's possible you had a beef with them rather than a Hungarian nationalist POV. Whatever your reasons, one thing is clear, you might want to remove this "I am never opposed to rendering objective facts and I do not happily delete factual information" for it's not who you are, you don't live up to it. Iconian42 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could not prove me wrong, because already the checkusers have proven me right. Again, you need to address whatever evidence checkusers have. Just arguing about my motivation won't get you unblocked. Just arguing that my suspicions were unfounded won't do: the checkusers found my grounds for investigating valid and the investigation offered them evidence. This is no longer about reasons for suspicion, it is about hard evidence, available to all checkusers of en.wiki (yup, each wiki has more than one checkuser, since they are required to check each other's evidence). It's like after being found guilty by a court of law you begin to argue that the reasons of the complainer were improper. Checkusers are appointed jury, judges and executioners in the name of the Wikipedia community. They have found you guilty, you have to argue against their verdict; my own reasons for complaining about your edits no longer matter; I am no longer relevant to your block. The wiki-authorities have spoken, and have found you guilty as charged. You have to convince the wiki-authorities that you are not guilty, and you cannot do that without addressing their evidence. If you are not going to address real evidence, I suggest If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking. Just to make sure you get the point: we are no longer talking about "opinions", we are talking about "evidence". So, as long as you talk about opinions, your talk will be knee-jerk rejected. I advise you to retract your unblock request and write an unblock request which does address the evidence.

To explain the jargon, a checkuser is kind of superadmin, who has access to private data about your edits (personal information). So, an ordinary admin is not allowed to unblock you, only a checkuser is entitled to decide that you should get unblocked. Because most admins have no access to your personal information, they are not entitled to decide that you should get unblocked. If an admin who is not a checkuser would unblock you despite the judgment of checkusers, that would be a reason for desysop. You may complain all day that you aren't WP:SOCK, but as long as you don't address the evidence, everything you say is null and void by default. If you cannot offer a cogent reason why the two other accounts have the same personally identifiable information as you do, you will remain blocked forever. And not only that, but coming back under another account you will be hunted again for using WP:SOCKS. So, without a good explanation for the personally identifiable information, you are doomed as an editor of Wikipedia. All your subsequent edits will be fair game for any other Wikipedian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't know what evidence checkusers have against me, so I don't know what to defend myself from. How can I defend myself if I don't know why they think I have 3 accounts in the first place? So my best bet was to explain everything and hope one of the reasons they banned me for is among those mentioned. I wasn't talking about opinion, the evidence for everything I said can be found in the diffs, there is indeed a Hungarian nationalist POV that I was trying to balance with other sources and there are indeed multiple Romanians that opposed KIENGIR's edits. I don't understand what have I done so destructive on Wikipedia that I deserve to be banned. I got into a discussion with another user, ok, and? the ultimate goal of that discussion was to improve Wikipedia with more information. I have nothing with that other user or anyone who opposed me, my only concern was bringing a balanced neutral point of view to those heavily biased pages, bias by omission is still bias. Anyway, if that's what they decide, so be it, there's no reason for me to be here, goodbye. Iconian42 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, from a very, very quick look (I'm not sure if I'm missing anything important above, there's just far too much text there - I don't have enough time to wade thru that absolutely massive wall of text today), it appears to be related to editing from a very similar browser, location, and IP range. Oshwah - would you be able to confirm if I have this correct (or, if I'm missing anything)? I'm not saying that I agree with the block just yet - that's just my initial impression. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SQL - You'd be correct, yes. I typically only confirm matches when I see two or more accounts are using the same IP or range (or same location), and with the same user agents (or very similar ones, with the only difference being things like having a different browser version). I've asked for 2Os from other checkusers a handful of times, and I noticed that they tend to rule some situations as "confirmed" where I'd rule them as "likely" or "possilikely". I lean toward the cautious side in situations where I have a question of ambiguity (like wide range, or having a common user agent, or both). Knowing how I make determinations, if I ruled this as confirmed, it's because I felt that the investigation showed me that it was. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SQL - I re-checked everything, and LordRogalDorn and Iconian42 geolocate to the same area and had similar user agents (different browser versions), which is what I went off of. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But similar isn't the same thing as the same. There are only a handful of browsers and a lot of people in a city. I explained in the wall of text how I came to see LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim's edits and why it isn't unreasonable to have multiple Romanians complain about KIENGIR's edits. Even with these 3 accounts aside, there were many other Romanians complaining about KIENGIR's edits: Scheianu, Skyhighway, Ikastul and Cealicuca. These are only Romanians he discussed with on his personal talk page, there could be more on the talk pages of various articles. Iconian42 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: maybe you won't read this wall of text so I'll make a summary: I simply took the parts from the edits of LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim that were accurate. And from Scheianu but I didn't mention it in the summary. Tgeorgescu was defending the Hungarian nationalist POV. While KIENGIR removed mentions of Hungarian war crimes within Northern Transylvania, removed a sourced official state estimation of 1940 that shows the Hungarians were in minority in 1940, removed quotes of secondary source historians who state the Hungarians were in minority in 1940. I went on KIENGIR's profile because his reasons for rejecting my contributions were weird. He is gatekeeping a Hungarian nationalist POV by willingly omitting the parts of history that would put Hungary under a negative light or Romania under a positive light. His gatekeeping is mainly but not limited to Transylvania, he is also gatekeeping articles such as the Origin of the Romanians which have noting to do with Hungarians. Clearly he hates Romanians for nationalist reasons. He opposed: RFC decision, mention of war crimes, statistics, rulers, etc. He was very uncooperative from start, he would undo the whole contribution with no reason given, I had to drag his tongue out and ask for a reason. And when I did, he would give me one vague and crystal clear wrong reason. Such as: they are not relevant, not even bothering to say why, despite the obvius implications: statistics and rulers of Transylvania not being relevant in a page about Transylvania? more similar examples can be given, or that they are inaccurate despite having sources to back them up. The point I'm trying to make about Tgeorgescu and KIENGIR is that, with this in mind, is it really that unlikely that multiple Romanians would try to push for a contribution and get into conflict with? Is it really unlikely that multiple users would argue with KIENGIR on the same topics? Not only me, LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim but also Scheianu, Skyhighway, Ikastul and Cealicuca. I don't suppse I have 7 accounts. This also highlights Tgeorgescu and KIENGIR's personal reasons for standing against me. I didn't insult or started accusing KIENGIR of bad faith although what his gatekeeping is lowly, I didn't lose my temper although his reasons for reusing the contribution were mostly invalid or ridiculous rather than legitimate concerns. I was going to solve this issue with 3rd parties in a diplomatic way, but because of the multiple accounts accusation this didn't happen. The reasoning behind my accusation seems to be geolocating to the same area and had similar user agents (different browser versions), which doesn't narrow it down much and has a lot of room for false positives. There are only a handful of browsers and a lot of people in a city. You could unban me, see how I behave and the moment I get into personal arguments or break rules ban me. What have you got to lose? If we go by my behaviour before being banned for multiple accounts, I was polite and did not break any rules. Iconian42 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving me a message here. To properly appeal your block, you need to contact the Arbitration Committee. Both this page and this page detail how to do this. Once you've submitted your appeal to the Arbitration Committee, they will review it and respond to you. Other than that, I have no other information I can give other than to tell you that the block is based off of technical evidence that I found. Let me know if you have any questions about how to properly appeal your block, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, but I think I'll pass. With my ban appeal being ignored for over 20 days now, my hope and trust in this system is low at this point. I don't think that committee is going to make much of a difference, if they even bother to look at it. From what GirthSummit said, the admins can see already see the unban request, and likely won't want to overrule another admin's decision out of courtesy. Combine that with a lack of solid evidence required for my supposed 3 accounts and you have a perfect breeding ground for corruption. Not only that you don't care whether I had 3 accounts or not but you don't even care if it's a case of changed behavior or not, since your goal was not to punish users but to improve Wikipedia, all that flamboyant talk on the policy pages don't fit at all with the practice. Think what you want, but the principles you list there are just to make a nice facade, as you don't apply them. Funny how you ignore my appeal for 20 days, don't want to unban me and see how I behave, if I get into personal arguments or break rules ban me if not let me be, but at the same time are completly okay with Tgeorgescu and KIENGIR's double standards. I'm impressed how much you close your eyes to that. Their preferential treatment was demonstrated both in the diffs where many of the things that are listed above have happened, and in my recent conversation with Tgeorgescu, where his justification for why he defended a Hungarian nationalist POV, such as not wanting to mention 1730 Austrian statisitcs and 1850 population census as opposed to estimation by historians but doing the complete opposite when it comes to the 1940 case, amongst others, mind you, was that his stance on the Transylvanian question was different from mine. Because he has a different POV from me, double standards and omission of information are justified. Facts don't matter as long as his POV is different. Keep these kind of people on Wikipedia, they sure show real integrity and love for objective facts, as Tgeorgescu says himself on his personal page. If anyone is ever interested in those edits, unmentioned facts about: Hungarian irretendism [2], [3]; about Hungary in World War II [4], [5]; about the Origin of the Romanians [6], [7], [8] about the Principality of Transylvania [9], [10], about Demographics of Hungary [11], [12], about the History of Transylvania [13]. Sorry for the vandalism created with these edits, clearly made in bad faith and full of Romanian nationalism as Tgeorgescu promotes /sarcasm off. Think what you want about these edits, mind you, at the end of the day I only tried to add free information, I was banned unfairly while trying to do so, and my problem isn't being banned as much as it is adherence to and acceptance of double standards and lack of consistency towards Wikipedia's principles and policies, by far my favourite is "assume good faith" while doing the completly opposite in practice when convenient, I'm going to leave now, there's no use waiting for a sentence that I already know it's ressult. Iconian42 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use L'grand Anonim's account to make a ban appeal because I'm not L'grand Anonim

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could you please look into my ban appeal? I tried to discuss but it seems everyone is ignoring me. Dreamy Jazz said on LordRogalDorn's talk page that he needs to use L'grand Anonim's account to make a ban appeal. I would have done that if I could but I can't possibly do that because I don't have access L'grand Anonim's account. I tried to discuss with Dreamy Jazz and Oshwah but they're not even entertaining the possibility that they made a mistake. What do I need to do to get unblocked? I want to work with you but I can't possibly do that when you're ignoring me. Iconian42 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request is still open, so administrators can already see it - you don't need to add an admin help template as well. Most administrators will not be able to address your unblock request, since it's a checkuser block. I'd advise you to consider trimming some of the text above to make it more approachable. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice:

WP:NOTTHEM.
It is quite a low probability of checkuser mistake if:
1. All accounts are Romanian nationalists, all disobeying WP:BATTLEGROUND and all writing WP:WALLS;
2. They all geolocate to, say, Newcastle upon Tyne, instead of Bucharest;
3. They all use Chrome browser with a Macbook Air. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to talk about your defense of a Hungarian nationalist POV in order to explain the connection between me, LordRogalDorn and L'grand Anonim. I'm well aware that this is not your trial. I was not complaining but simply explaining what you did because I needed to show the whole picture.
If.

Imagine if there were mentions of German war crimes and the victims were the Jews. Would it be Jewish nationalism to oppose the removal of German war crimes? Replace German with Hungarian and Romanian with Jewish. The man who reports me for edit warring without any breach of 3RR rule then went the extra mile to make sure I'm banned lectures about disobeying WP:BATTLEGROUND. I have nothing against you or KIENGIR, and as I said, the contributions you hate would have eventually been brought up to third parties. "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
It's not like I said several times why multiple Romanians who make contributions would get into conflict with KIENGIR. Yes, narrow it down to a city with a population of 2 million.
That's interesting because I don't have a Macbook Air. While Chrome is the most popular browser out there. Iconian42 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are so not WP:BATTLEGROUND that you took the time to check where I live, what browser I have and what device I use. That was not information revealed by the checkuser. Iconian42 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the checkuser information is. Those were examples of situations wherein it is very improbable that checkusers' judgment could be wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples that just so happen to be very specific to my case. Even with your framing attempt, that accusation is still based only on guesses with no solid evidence. Iconian42 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, checkusers make the call, I am not a checkuser, so you don't have to convince me. I do not make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but so far my appeal as well as my attempts to talk with the admins who banned me have been ignored, which may indicate a negative response. Probably my fate is already set. Just curious at this point, why did you do it? You seem took have taken a lot of time on your profile page to establish your good name, even saying that "I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment". Even if you believed I was the other accounts, couldn't you have given me a chance? See if I "changed my behavior" or not. Wasn't this what "Prove me wrong by scrupulously obeying WP:RULES, WP:CHOPSY, and by being scrupulously polite" was about? And why did you defend KIENGIR's edits? If you really are Romanian, how could you allow such a thing on Wikipedia? I get that you have no interest in nationalistic disputes, but this was hardly a nationalistic dispute. He called the annexation of a Romanian territory "an improvement", do I really need to make a case for how biased this is? How are the 1730 first Austrian statisitcs and 1850 fist population census are not relevant for Principality of Translyvania? but at the same time the Hungarian estimations by modern historians; why are they not relevant? no reason was given by KIENGIR, the real reason? it shows the Hungarians were a minority. He would rather list estimations by Hungarian historians than statistics and censues made by the countries in question. But when it came to Northern Transylvania, it was the other way around. The 1940 statistics, official state estimations, show that the Hungarian population was a minority and that the Romanians were over half the whole population, but he would rather use the 1930 census in this case and call the 1940 year ethnically mixed, despite even sources already present on the page pointing out otherwise, this wasn't even a modern historian estimation but statistics made by the state, and I used a scholarly source, his preference changes based on convenience. If you genuinely believe I'm the Romanian Nationalist POV while he is the Moderate Internationalist POV, please, explain to me how are the examples above not biased? Because it seems pretty on the face that they are biased. As for Michael the Brave, I was simply asking to have him in the lead as one of the rulers of Transylvania, because everyone else was already there, it's not preferential treatment, it's counter-preferential treatment. If you are genuinely a Romanian, even if you're not a nationalist, why did you side with him? I'm not trying to be rethorical here, genuinely curious. Anyway, happy holidays! Iconian42 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Cioroianu had a nice interview on the Romania Actualitati Radio, wherein he explained that Romania got Transylvania due to the higher birthrate of Transylvanian Romanians in respect to other Transylvanian ethnic groups (this was a process which took centuries). He explained calmly and dispassionately the matter. So, his POV is my take on the Transylvanian question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I wasn't discussing the Transylvanian question, as in the ethnic population before the first official census. I was simply adding to the article already known and mutually accepted facts. The 1730 first Austrian statisitcs and 1850 first population census, even if you doubt their validity, you cannot deny that they happened. The same is true for the 1940 statistics, while the huge difference between the 1940 Romanian statistics and 1941 Hungarian census were explained by a Hungarian historian. As for Michael the Brave, I'm well aware he didn't conquer Transylvania out of patriotic reasons, but he nonetheless was a ruler of Transylvania at some point in history and deservers to be mentioned with other rulers. I don't know Adrian Cioroianu's interview to question it, but if that's your take on the Transylvanian question, does that mean every single other opinion is Romanian Nationalist POV? I can show you non-Romanian sources who would contradict Adrian Cioroianu's claims. Jean W. Sedlar and George W. White. At the end of the day nationality is just a buzzword, information isn't better or worse based on the nationality of the one who said it. Again, my edits were not about the Transylvanian question, but if they were, wouldn't competing scholar theories deserve to be placed on equal grounds despite your personal feelings? Iconian42 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Unblock Request

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).

Iconian42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the wall of text makes it difficult to read, please read only the "in conclusion" part if you want the short version. If you want to know more, read the rest or ask me directly.

I am sorry about the way I responded in originally, I was angry, and for the wall of text as nobody could read that, let alone understand it if they do. I am accused of having 2 other accounts, one of which had a topic ban, as such I attempted to avoid the topic ban. I don't think I was dealt with fairly but this is not about what I think. I do not think I could possibly make you believe that I do not have 2 other accounts as I was ruled out as "confirmed" so I won't even try to. Policy says that "Users confirmed or believed to have engaged in the practice must request unblock at their main account", however, I can't do that as I'm not L'grand Anonim. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I hope you will allow the request on this account. Considering that "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation". As such, I would like to go for the second version: "If you actually are guilty of sockpuppetry, and want to get a second chance at editing, please do as follows". Let's assume I have indeed 2 other accounts, assuming in my case, a certainity in yours, what can I do to redeem myself? I can stop editing for a long time if that is what you wish. Looking at their other edits, I can see the similarity. L'grand Anonim made a lot of contribution about the Székely autonomy movement and Demographics of Hungary while LordRogalDorn had a lot of administrator noticeboard incidents for edit warring and made a lot of contributions in Hungary in World War II and Hungarian irredentism. And they both (as well as I) got into conflict with KIENGIR. Were they banned for disruptive information or conflicts with other users?

If it's the former, at least the information they tried to add that I found in their discussions on KIENGIR's talk page was not disruptive. Or if there's any doubt (As Tgeorgescu called it "Romanian nationalistic POV") we can simply debate their factuality on a relevant talk page without edit warring, as I don't suppose information with scholarly sources to back them up can ever be disruptive.

For example, this edit [[14]] that was one of my last, possibly one of the reasons I got accused of "Romanian nationalistic POV" which started the sockpuppetry investigation, at the demograhpics section, I added the the official estimates of the Romanian Central Institute of Statistics in 1940 which counted 978.074 (37.1%) Hungarians and 1.304.903 50.2% Romanians, with the soruce being Charles Upson Clark. I also added Keith Hitchins's summary "Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south". I also explained the significant difference between years 1940 and 1941 with the source being Árpád E. Varga. And the inhabitants in Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary with the source being Peter Rokai. Is this pro-Romanian? yes, is this false? no. I don't think Wikipedia discriminates between ethnicites when it comes to what scholarly source can be believed, but all these sources I mentioned, despite talking about Romanians, were not Romanians. We can debate the truthfulness or relevance in page of these sources, but I don't think there's any doubt that my edits were not meant to be disruptive but informative.

Or I could be accused that despite my contributions not being false, they are still a "Romanian nationalistic POV" because they are pro-Romanian. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but the reason I made those contributions in the first place was because there was already a strong "Hungarian nationalistic POV" on the page. The lack of and active blocking of sources like these is evidence to that. It is like finding a page about the 30 years war with a strong pro-Catholic POV and when you try to introduce sources that challenge that status quo get accused of pro-Protestant POV. I'm not a promoting a "Romanian nationalistic POV" by adding those sources, rather, these pro-Romanian sources weren't posted in the first place precisely because of the "Hungarian nationalistic POV". If there's question about the truth, let all reliable sources be posted and let the reader make up his mind, hindering information is against the very point of Wikipedia. Beside, my reason for being on Wikipedia is not limited on this subject alone, I only spent more time on this subject (mostly on talk pages) because of my conflict with KIENGIR.

For the latter, whenever there's controvery or accusations of disruptive editing, I can discuss it with the community before and promise to do so if I ever get unblocked. Whenever there's disagreement I will discuss it on the talk page with the person in question. In the event that we cannot agree even after a discussion, I will go to 3rd parties and respect their judgement regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with me. I promise I will not get into heated discussions and won't resort to insults even when I'm not the initiator. I have always tried to make useful contributions to Wikipedia and if I get unblocked promise to keep doing so.

In conclusion, I understand what I am blocked for and I don't think I could possibly make you believe otherwise, I was ruled out as "confirmed" but the policy says "Wikipedia admins can never be absolutely sure about sockpuppetry", so please keep it in mind that there's a slight chance I do not have 2 other accounts. But given that it may not be ever possible to disprove that, what can I do to redeem myself? I can stop editing for a long time if that is what you wish. L'grand Anonim and LordRogalDorn were blocked either for disruptive information or conflicts with other users. I promise I will never do that. In the former case, please look at the example, even if you would argue that this information was disruptive (which given the scholarly sources I presented, I have a hard time seeing how is that possible), at least I believe it's clear it was not intended to be disruptive. If anyone questions the factuality or relevance in page of some of my edits, I will discuss it on the talk page. Which brings me to the latter point, I promise not to make desruptive contributions or damage Wikipedia and make useful contributions. When it comes to disagreements, I will have a factual discussion and not resort to ad hominem regardless of who started it, and if we cannot agree on a version, bring the debate up to 3rd parties so that we get multiple opinions on the matter. I understand why I was blocked and I would like a second chance if possible. Iconian42 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thank you for making it easy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:28, 26 February 2021 (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.

@Oshwah:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, could you please look into this request? Iconian42 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, mentions don't work if you don't sign your posts using the 4 tildes( ~~~~ ). See: WP:NOTIFICATION for more details. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Iconian42 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: could you please consider my unban request? if you have the authority to do so. Iconian42 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With no reply in 6 days, I got the point, goodbye. I got to say that I'm very dissapointed, not only you won't even care if you've made a mistake by accusing me of having 3 accounts, but you won't even reply to my second chance request, not even a "no", just ignore. I'm sorry for the way I talked above when I was angry, I shouldn't have went with accusations in left and right and should have been more sensitive, but I think the technicalities of what I said were right. Eh, just another banned user, what does it matter, not a big deal for you, not worth checking out. Probably should have saw that one sooner, although it would have helped if you simply told me "no, we're not going to unban you". At that point my expectations were low but I still expected that gram of decency. Goodbye.

(Personal attack removed) Iconian42 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to that personal attack you posted, I have removed talk page access. Should you choose to appeal your block, you must do so at WP:UTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]