User talk:Istinar

January 2021

Hello, I'm Theleekycauldron. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only you actually read the talk page. Istinar (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the talk page, and the page history. You did not achieve consensus before you reverted back to your version three or four times. You may not keep attempting to force your edit, even if you aren't getting responses in time. If consensus is found in your favor, someone else may have to make the change. Or request comment. Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am being ignored or if no one comments I will take that as a agreement of silent majority. The one forcing anything is anonymous IP who added this battle. I'll also repeat to you since you have not read talk page - battle does not meet conditions required to be included in the list. Istinar (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP edits are received as legitimate until proven otherwise. As for consensus, no. If you are being ignored, invite relevant past editors to comment on the article. You may not take silence as consensus. The silent majority is not a concept on Wikipedia. Further edits without consensus on the talk page will be reverted, with a warning for vandalism. Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Until proven otherwise" implies anyone can vandalize page as much as they want. Great reasoning. I am not going to invite editors to comment because those editors also monitor changes on the page. I made a public call on talk page, anyone can join discussion. I will take silence as consensus. Speak up or shut up. Istinar (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, special pending changes viewers like me and regular editors have the power to revert what they see as obvious vandalism. That's at our discretion. If you make an edit and it is reverted as vandalism, you may not attempt to reinstate the edit until you achieve consensus on the talk page. Wikipedia's silence and consensus page does have some of what you're talking about: you can assume consensus if there's silence. BUT, that does not apply when one or more editors has specifically reverted your claim. Be bold? Yes. But if your edits are being reverted, we don't have to continually voice dissent to make it clear that there is no consensus. Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except this time when an IP user added a battle which does not meet conditions set in the article itself. When I pointed out irregularity I received no response on the talk page. I assumed consensus because no one responded for over a week. Reverts by other editors and their lack of response to my request on talk page seems like they simply don't want to dive into the issue and find it easier to simply revert and claim vandalism. Istinar (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for arguments and points raised so far on the TP. I hope that you'll have more time for this great project, which can be messy from time to time, as you've witnessed. Another point, please do not insult other editors or label them in any way. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. I'll try to contribute when I find time. As for "insults", you can see from talk page on article "List of military disasters" who started with insults and overemotional off topic discussion. I decided not to stoop down to that level. Istinar (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: just wanted to let you know I followed advice from user below and asked for an opinion about problem on page List of military disasters on discussion page here. Istinar (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for prolonged edit warring on the List of military disasters article. You should expect any future edit warring here (or in similar contexts in other articles) to lead to an indefinite duration block. I'd suggest that you move on from this issue, as you have not managed to gain consensus support for your proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is unjust. Now explain to me how can I gain consensus if other editors ignore problems I point out, do not provide proper sources, or simply ignore what I say? Istinar (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I believe I was unjustly blocked from editing. I was told by editor who blocked me that I am " edit warring" which is not true. He talks about my contributions to article List of military disasters and he now threatens me with indefinite block. I was engaging other editors who added this battle to the list which was not properly sourced, battle which did not meet conditions set at the beginning of the article and other editors simply ignored problems I pointed out. Last year I pointed out these problems to editor who blocked me [1] but he only told to engage with other users on talk page, which I did and it was unproductive. Every time I would point out a fact, problem with a source or reasoning I would be either ignored or insulted. Editor who blocked me has reverted to sources which lead nowhere and do not back up the claim that battle of Vukovar was a military disaster [2]. Istinar (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If your efforts to create a consensus on the talk page do not succeed, then you should try dispute resolution. You should not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 18 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.

@PhilKnight: And how do I start this dispute resolution? Also, I was not in edit war, not when people push unsourced content into article and ignore problems and issues I point out on the talk page. Istinar (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 - FYI

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.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up, and thank you for this "badge of shame" [3][4], but I think you did not follow these rules [5] when you pinned it on me. I guess that is suppose to discredit my comments or something? Don't know. Istinar (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4RR

You have done 4 reverts at Battle of Kosovo. I tried in every one of your reverts to explain how wikipedia operates and how you were adding the same source which was already in the article. You shouldn't remove or add any commander from the inbobox if sources don't discuss their role. I will have to report your activity at WP:AN3 unless you revert yourself and continue the discussion on the talkpage. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have added that many sources and content to article without discussing first on talk page. You should not have deleted sources without discussion and consensus first. Istinar (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Battle of Kosovo

You have been blocked from editing Battle of Kosovo for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Istinar. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logged AE warning

Istinar, your conduct in the WP:ARBMAC topic area is falling below expectation. You need to stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS and overall aggression, or sanctions are likely to become imminent. Note that I'm recording this warning in the Arbitration enforcement log (WP:AEL). El_C 11:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: What "overall aggression"? You should pay more attention to croatian and albanian editors who come running to you and file reports against users they do not agree with. And what does it even mean when you record a warning in Arbitration enforcement log? You could have done the same to user who made slanderous claims such as this [6]. But you did not. Are you buddy-buddy with them? Istinar (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Istinar. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was unjustly blocked. I have not created account named Istinitost as claimed here [7], nor the other account Jebemvammajkusvima. There was no evidence other than "it looks similar" (conclusion was "possible") and a user who I had argument with claiming I should be permanently banned. Some random new user creates account with similar name and edits same page I do and suddenly I am banned without any concrete evidence. I guess it is that easy to discredit someone and get him banned. Istinar (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is either sock or meat puppetry. The similarities here are too strong to ignore. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 15 July 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.

@331dot: What strong similarities? I did not create those accounts. There is no evidence because they are not mine. Istinar (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI speaks for itself. If you can convince another adminstrator to unblock you, they will, but just denying it is insufficient. If you want to edit about completely different topics, please tell what those might be. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the SPI speaks for itself in a way that there are no evidence, only a possibility and that possibility is based simply on a similar name and shared editing of one page. Istinar (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. This isn't a criminal trial where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed. You are free to make another unblock request to attempt to convince someone else to unblock you, but just saying "it's not me" isnt enough. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, wash your hands off. You are telling me just saying "it's not me" isn't enough, well what else can I say - that is the truth. This place has no standards and admins are useless. Istinar (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not washing my hands of anything; I'm only allowed to review one unblock request, out of fairness. If I've seriously erred, another administrator will unblock you. Making personal attacks against the people you want to unblock you is never a wise strategy and usually an indication of sockpuppetry, as a truly innocent person would not resort to such desperate tactics. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing desperate. Just calling it out as I see it. Istinar (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]