User talk:Bocin kolega

WIkipedia - what it is and how it works

Here I am trying to explain what is Wikipedia today (= why it is not encyclopaedia) and why it is so. After almost five year long presence as an editor I am blocked for good. What went wrong and why - it's up to the reader to understand.

Defendant

My editorial work on all Wikipedia articles is transparent and strictly academic. I always strived to improve the articles' content, did not break a single Wikipedia rule ever.

• As to the "obsessive concern with promoting obscure Serbian-Australian memoirist B. Wongar". Sreten Bozic Wongar is a world-renown antropologist and writer, celebrated worldwide. During his lifeteime, B. Wongar was promoted by four great men of the world literature, all Nobel laureates: J.P. Sartre, H. Bell, S. Beckett, and P. Handke. B. Wongar wrote short stories, dramas, poetry and novels translated into 13 languages, sold more than one million copies of his books, won most prestigious literary awards in UK, USA, and Australia. The existing version of his Wikipedia biography is burdened by slanedr and tag bombed senslessly. I tried to fix this and many other issues found in the text of this bio, and each time all my fixes were removed even if it was just spelling issue. Tried to resolve all disputes with the opposing side (three of them are Eppstein, JBL, and Xantippe) - see here. The opposing side just mounted ad hominem attack on me blindly rejecting huge number of reliable sources I provided to support my cause. B. Wongar is a great man of the world literature who does not need promotion of any kind. Here we can see some NPOV and BLP issues pointed at by some anon and information showing that Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia biography of this writer took over an older version of B. Bongar Wikipedia bio excluding nonsensic tags and a slanderuos claim.
• As to my comments I left on the Josip Pecaric talkpage, I gave just three constructive suggestions how to improve the existing version of this article. From the top to the bottom, my first comment is proposal to use P. Bullen's review and appraisal of Pecaric's contributions to mathematics. The second one is to verify who was Pecaric's msc thesis supervisor. Would it be a mathematician if the thesis belongs to the geology? The third one is to update statistics of the Pecaric's published math works and find a better selection of the Non-fiction books authored by him. The existing selection has a negative academic reception in Croatia. See here for details. No badmouthing at all from my side.
• As to the Milan Raspopovic biography, it was taged (not by me, nor by Taribuk) as the one promoting the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information, and where the major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I've stepped in in order to fix the detected deficiencies and my edits there are justified on the article talkpage. See my comment Autobiography, full of unsourced content there.
• A question to Spicy (talk). The Vujkovica brdo dumping ground made visibe many ISP/IP address sub-ranges. There are three non-Serbian ISP/IP address sub-ranges (Canada, USA, Germany) and five Serbian ISP/IP address sub-ranges visible. Majority of them were not blocked nor marked as puppets. As to the registered accounts, all of them edited last time in the past, older than 90 days. That means that you cannot say anything about these registered accounts' ISP/IP address sub-ranges since all their ISP/IP adresses associated to the edit time stamps are deleted from the database for good. For the last 90 days I used only one ISP and three different dynamic IPs. What is the meaning of yours "this account is using the same ISP and range as past accounts"? Where am I now and which of the eight different ISP is/are the incriminated one?
• About Vujkovica brdo dumping ground. It was created by Bbb23, a checkuser who did not have any technical capabilities to prove that KanteP and Taribuk were Vujkovica brdo. Taribuk wrote to ArbCom, at least twice - according to the info found on his talkpage. ArbCom revoked the Bbb23 Checkuser access but unfortunately did not undo Bbb23 blocks in this case. ArbCom stated that Bbb23 used the CheckUser tool contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing").

---

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Vujkovica brdo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The plaintifs did not present any evidence supporting the case, nor it was provided the evidence I requested from the chckuser. Read the Defendant section above.

From the archived SPI is visible that my note about Vujkovica brdo dumping ground and Bbb23 checkuser was removed.

I have no ilusion that his request will be reviewed at all. As usual, a new accusation/disqualification will be thrown at me by another admin, maybe, just a few minutes after the unblock request submission and the request declined.

So, the whole page here is a document showing that the true nature of the Wikipedia editorial policy was obstructed: respect, cooperation, academism are replaced by gaming which basic goal is to destroy, prevent, accuse the ones who are not likable. Bocin kolega (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are arguing process and not the merits of the block. Checkuser evidence is private and will not be revealed specifically. This has nothing to do with liking you or not. If you think you have been treated unfairly, you'll need to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2024 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Admin 331dot did exactly what I predicted: they threw a new, arbitrary accusation/disqualification on me avoiding completely to address the accusation and the defense of this case (read the Plaintif and the Defendant section above). In short - all my behavior shall be judged through my overal work on Witipedia articles for over the last five years. I never ever violated any of the editorial rules, strived to improve the articles and to leave constructive comments and suggestions. All accusations against me I addressed and rejected as unfound, point-by-point, under the Defendant secion above. Since 331dot advised me to address the the Arbitration Committee I'd politely ask some of the ArbCom members, randomly selected here, Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, Maxim or any other ArbCom member who could dedicate their time to this case. Thank you. Bocin kolega (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are attempting to appeal to ARBCOM but, as noted below, this is not how you do so. Yamla (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (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.

That's not how this works- see WP:ARBCOM for how to contact the Committee. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the block, and the technical and behavioural evidence supports the finding of sockpuppetry. I would furthermore suggest to stop editing logged out as you've done on occasion since this account was blocked, as that will not help your case while appealing. Maxim (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]