User talk:Othmas biaggio

Welcome!

Hello, Othmas biaggio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Human rights in Serbia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--Joy (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Slava (tradition). There was no WP:ARBMAC-related warning here before, but you already engaged in a misguided removal of content that isn't objectionable and edit warring about it [1][2], with an apparently disingenuous arguments in edit summaries and in talk afterwards. I will not block this time, but this is it. --Joy (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Joy (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit on the Slava page was discussed with Jingiby as seen on the Talk page, who went through my revisions. Slava is a Serbian tradition and if you went through the Talk page you would indeed see this particular edit was discussed and approved. Thanksgiving is an American tradition, no?

Is it a problem I am editing articles pertaining to Serbia as I am indeed a Serbian? Not being a full time Wikipedia contributor I have edited a whopping whole four articles in the span of a year and I have done retaining to sources on the subject while trying to stay as objective as possible, which I believe I have done Joy is clearly on a witchhunt as the person sees I am capable of using historical sources, while perhaps having opposing views to the user him- or herself. As an example I point to Ottoman defter of The District of Branković (1455), which has been lifted remarkably solely using historical sources including the addition of several images and renaming the article to a more fitting name. I believe this behaviour is harmful for the community. Othmas biaggio (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. You're clearly using your position of power to push through subjective edits with your own personal bias and block others. A Wikipedia moderator using a Google search result with 67 matches as source for a claim getting triggered over his own ethnicity not being explicitly mentioned despite having been included in the original content, which he tried to edit - now I have seen it all. Othmas biaggio (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for consistently making unfounded sockpuppetry allegations at ANI and refusing to withdraw, battleground behaviour, failure to drop the stick - net negative to the project.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely crazy - look at the timestamps for the edits.

Joy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joy

91.148.114.224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.148.114.224

Joy has made edits for every single edit for 91.148.114.224 apart from one in most cases within 10 minutes up to an hour. You are banning me without conducting a sockpuppet investigation. Unbelievable - I will do everything within my means to take this further one way or another as this is proof of suppression of free informational flow, which is the inherent principle Wikipedia is based upon. Othmas biaggio (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I hereby request an unblock due to being blocked on unjustifiable means as part of a witch-hunt from a moderator being Joy. Evidence for him using a sock puppet to make it look like I undid his revisions and edits have been provided on the above and as part of the discussion on the incidents page: Look at the timestamps for the edits. :Joy :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joy :91.148.114.224 :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.148.114.224 :Joy has made edits for every single edit for 91.148.114.224 apart from one in most cases within 10 minutes up to an hour. You are banning me without conducting a sockpuppet investigation. Unbelievable - I will do everything within my means to take this further one way or another as this is proof of suppression of free informational flow, which is the inherent principle Wikipedia is based upon. I originally had an incident being opened and a warning given on edits made more than a year ago on two articles with the moderator claiming I had a "mass log of removal of content" despite having solely edited four articles in this timespan along with accusing me of being "disingenuous" and reverting one edit, which I did once since the moderator pointed to a Google Search result as source for his subjectively biased opinion. The moderator is clearly gatekeeping certain topics and articles of content pertaining to his subjective bias targeting other contributors leveraging his position of power. After the incidents page was opened I protested heavily as, naturally so, the claims were absolutely unsubstantiated and me being fully and completely transparent in all of my edits, which were even further noticed by other moderators on the Talk page of Slava leading to a civil discussion with my thanking the other moderator and by a moderator welcoming me on my Talk page. Followed by this abrupt revisions of edits of Joy were made along with cursing heavily in native Serbo-Croatian and other ramblings as edit summaries to make it look like I was the one doing it. The IP was spoofed as a VPN from Serbia as seen here: https://www.ipqualityscore.com/vpn-ip-address-check/lookup/91.148.114.224 This led me to believe Joy was actively using a sock puppet to frame me as a new contributor as not following the rules even despite me rarely editing anything at all and when doing so doing it fully transparently. The moderator is Croatian and due to me editing two articles about Serbia and a Serbian traditions he would think I live in Serbia and as a result made the sock puppet edits from the VPN to make it look like I did them. The thing is, as seen from my user page edited months ago before all of this mess, it clearly states I am living in Denmark. Despite the discussion involving many moderators and lengthy discussion Joy has not made a single further notice, statement or contribution on the incident. I find all of this especially concerning as it effectively puts the fundamental notion of Wikipedia existing as an open source of a free informational flow at risk with moderators gatekeeping content by using their knowledge of the platform along with harassment of newer and occasional contributors. Lastly these couldn't be random acts of trolling as the comments added are clearly written by a native Serbo-Croatian speaker in an extremely over-aggressive manner using native exclamations and language. What are the odds - a random Serbo-Croatian speaker popping in and undoing the edits from a spoofed IP? Daniels calls for me having no evidence - everything should be more than clear and laid out with this request for an unblock. To make this fair I shall stop responding on the incidents page on the notion of a sock puppet investigation be opened of 91.148.114.224 being a sock puppet of Joy and me naturally being unblocked - I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Othmas biaggio (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This represents neither an unblock request nor convincing evidence (rather, a speculative doubling down). Therefore, I am revoking your access to this talk page, so as to avoid a repetition of the walls of text and speculations featured at ANI (i.e. grounds for the block). It is evident you are not interested in learning the basics, from the crucial reviewing of WP:GAB, which I doubt you had done, to the more trivial failure (even now) in realizing that it isn't moderators, but WP:ADMINISTRATORS. So, you can't be bothered to learn the basics, but volunteers are expected to go through your lengthy commentaries, what, indefinitely? Commentaries that suffer from this very limitation, of you not bothering to learn the basics. No, enough volunteer time and energy has been expended. See the template below for your appeal options, but I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with the relevant documentation that is pertinent to this case. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so it's unlikely to be an effortless undertaking. El_C 20:23, 24 December 2023 (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.

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 20:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]