User talk:Montigliani
Welcome!
Hi Montigliani! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Blocked
It's readily apparent from your many comments, disruptive and battleground actions, sheer childish pettiness, and your actions on the ANI thread, that you are not compatible with this project for so many reasons. As a result you have been blocked from editing indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Montigliani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm asking for my punishment to be lifted because I think it's wrong. I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was not give in to a user's challenges. Sorry but in life if you don't claim, you don't succeed, you don't live. Of course I paid dearly for it. If I did anything different I would be ashamed of myself. Not now. I want you to reconsider and take back my punishment.--Montigliani (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is a collaborative project, not a competitive one. The block is correct. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:52, 21 August 2024 (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.
- Montigliani, you were given so many chances to back off and not engage with the editor you had a dispute with but you wouldn't stop even when you said you would stop. And when your unblock request basically says you didn't do anything wrong and you don't regret your actions, well, a reviewing admin has absolutely no reason not to think that this fighting won't start up again if you are unblocked. So, with your current attitude, there is zero chance of getting unblocked. You never chose to take my advice to drop this matter but I'll give you one last piece anyway: Read The Guide to Appealing Blocks. Then go back actually read it, seriously. Come back in six months and follow the advice in the guide, file a new unblock request where you take responsibility for your disruptive actions and explain why we won't have to worry about this happening again in the future. That's what an admin is looking to hear from you.
- In the meantime, do not create new accounts, with your dramatic editing tendencies, sockpuppets will be spotted immediately and you will never get unblocked. Now, go work on some other Wiki Project besides this one and show us how you can contribute positively to a different collaborative editing project. That positive experience will help you if you file another unblock request in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
While it may be hard at this time, when you come back to this, I think you need to seriously consider that both of you received the exact same block. And my read as (largely) an outsider to that thread is that generally most editors felt you were equally at fault. While I can't speak for Liz, I strongly suspect they too felt the behaviour of both of you were fairly similarly wrong. If anything, my impression from that thread is that generally editors were minorly more concerned about the other editor since they had been at ANI recently. But perhaps tempered by the fact they did seem to start to disengage near the end, but you didn't.
Liz did make clear in that thread they were in no way excusing the other editor's behaviour. But as they said, if you see problems in what any editor has done or said, it's fair to call them out for it. The wrongs of another editor they were involved with is generally mostly irrelevant since it's not an excuse.
The reason any editor may chose to engage with or criticise one or the both of you was likely to do with whether they felt they could contribute something useful to the discussion. For example, if other editors have already responded and you feel this response is sufficient, often editors will just leave it at that. It's extremely foolish to assume any editor failing to critique the other editor means they think what the other editor did not equally wrong.
I can speak for myself and I can say while I did not look into the details very well, my opinion was that you both seemed to share similar levels of responsibility and fault. The reason I only responded to you is because I saw that one comment you left which I felt was flawed and I had something to contribute which I was hoping might get through to you whereas most of the other comments had already been IMO sufficiently responded to and at least I did not feel I had anything useful to say.
I won't belabour the point that you were wrong again but I will say that I'm concerned by your responses that you're still treating this as a battleground where the editor in the right has to "win" which is not at all how a Wikipedia works. In fact, from some of your responses, I'm concerned that your primary motivation is to win because you're right or for yourself. While being too desperate to "win" because you're concerned Wikipedia has wrong or misleading content is still very concerning and can lead to blocks, it's IMO actually significant worse when an editor forgets that the only reason it should matter is that we end up with the best content and not for themselves or their dignity etc.
Finally, I hope you understand that what editors were concerned about, as they should be, was the problematic behaviours of both of you. The rights and wrongs of the content you both were trying to push something editors likely largely ignored. You may have noticed I reverted your edits to Ivan Savvidis. IMO the content I reverted was problematic enough that most experienced editors who had been looking at the content would have reverted it or at least heavily modified it. So the reason no one touched it until now is indeed because the content issue wasn't something to deal with at ANI. Note that having seen this, my view on the overall dispute still hasn't changed, both of you exhibited similar highly problematic behaviour.
I'm fairly sure our article needs more work and I suspect some of the content your tried to introduce can be added but or at the very least the text that is there needs to be re-written. However as I can't read many of the sources and have little interest in the subject matter, I'm not going to try and the current text to me looks acceptable unlike your version which sorry IMO was clearly not. If both of you have tried to work collaboratively involving other editors as needed to come up with a version both of you could agree on, without insulting or yelling at each other, we might have this better version now.
Even if only one of you had done this, that editor could now be working with others as needed, to improve our article. If this had been you, I could be sharing my concerns with your changes and offering feedback on what you need to do if you want to keep any of that content. But since this wasn't what happened, we just have to wait for someone else interested who's in good standing to take notice.