User talk:Setxkbmap

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...noting that your writing access to the page Kuči (tribe) has been temporarily removed by extended-confirmed protection, and that edit warring in a contentious topic area may lead to blocks, topic bans or interaction bans. The advice I've provided in a longer message to other editors applies to everyone, of course.

If the area becomes too heated, the Task Center and the community portal provide helpful ideas and uncountable ways for disengaging from the conflict. Please always take your time and remember that Wikipedia is not compulsory. If a voluntary free time activity makes you upset, you can always seek alternatives. Wikipedia is full of them. Good luck and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am sorry, maybe i got frustrated and made some mistakes while editing, but keep in mind that i tried discussion on talk page, which led nowhere due to stonewalling, i tried dispute resolution, but other editors such as Alltan didn't want to respond at all, i tried RfC but they spam it so much that nobody is able to read it and people just lose will to contribute.

In my opinion, article where i am most active (Kuči) is heavily edited to promote one POV, and even slight change that can affect that POV is either reverted, or pushed down so first few lines of each section state whatever their POV is.

For example, in the latest dispute with other editors, they claimed i can't cite Predrag Petrović because he is not a historian, but an engineer, claiming he is not an expert in the field (he wrote 6 books on the tribe). I said ok, we can compromise, i don't need to use him. But then they keep inserting quotes from Mulić Jusuf, who is an agriculture professor and has nothing to do with the tribe.

After that, i wanted to use Rastislav Petrović, who has a PhD in history and his thesis was about the tribe itself, and he wrote a book based on it, but he was deemed a nationalist, because he supported Yugoslavia in wars during the 90s. But those same editors will use Pellumb Xhufi, who is deemed a nationalist by other Albanian historians and Austrian academy of Sciences. It really sucks.

The article itself currently states that Kuči are of Albanian origin, with stack of sources that are terrible, only 3 talk about origin itself, and other editors claim that that is scientific consensus, while i have other writers, including Historical institute of University of Montenegro, which claim mixed origin. And it's kinda WP:BLUESKY, as the tribe was formed in the second part of XV century, and census data from that period shows mixed names, religion was defined in 1455. when tribe was orthodox, but we have info that they were mixed in 16th century, so tribe was definitely mixed both in ethnic and religious ways.

If you have recommendation for any other way to solve this, it would be great. The only reason why i was included in this small edit war by Alltan was because they kept removing sources that are definitely RS, like Historical institute of University of Montenegro, and i dont mind extended protection as i will have 500 edits soon (i edit other articles regarding Montenegro as well) Setxkbmap (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NekSeOvajVijekGordi per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NekSeOvajVijekGordi. 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=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

block

@Bbb23: Hey, while i understand that block is there to prevent any further damages and i am willing to wait, i have a question. I can see why you agree that i might be a sock account, but in fact this is the only account i have access to and the only one i use. There is not a single account connected to this one, that i use to disrupt any discussions, or to edit war, or to prevent others from contributing.

I am asking to see what kind of problematic behaviour i had in my 520 edits, and what can i do to get this account unblocked, so i could use unblock tag later when i feel like editing. I have a feeling this block might be used to rewrite article i've been editing back to non NPOV version, as can be seen currently by removing RS that were added by me.

Again, this is the ONLY account i have access to. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What accounts don't you have access to?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only account i have. The only account that i can access and the only account i edit from. I am sure the IP checks seem fine, and as can be seen from history of articles i edit, there were no socks that were mine, i even reported all the users that were disruptive and socks.

There was no disruptive editing from my side, if i talked any more in the talk pages of article i edit it would be considered spamming :)

I am asking what should i do, or how long should i wait, because this is indefinite ban which doesn't have duration. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps agreeing to a a topic ban on anything to do with the Balkans. Perhaps the standard offer. Of course you'll need to explain the evidence presented at the sock puppet investigation in a reasonable manner. And you will need to follow the instructions in the block notice to request unblocking. And listing all your accounts -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And heeding ToBeFree's wise advice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am heeding to his advice. I use noticeboards, i discuss everything in the talk pages, i back up if other editors disagree with the change and only try to do it again if i got OK from noticeboards.

This block has nothing to do with that Setxkbmap (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so admin thinks i am a sock of account that was banned 1 year ago. Fine. 1 year has passed, and that's literally out of scope of standard offer.

As far as the topic ban goes, that would suck as i am only interested in Montenegro. Setxkbmap (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra any opinions? Setxkbmap (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Nothing? Setxkbmap (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no disruptive editing from my side Without this sockpuppetry block in place, I would have reported you for repeated personal attacks and blatant BLP policy breaches on Pëllumb Xhufi. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pellumb Xhufi is not a BLP policy breach. I had sources for all the claims, and you can't speak of negative bias, as the article is what i read first on Albanian wiki, and i mostly used sources from there, except for Austrian Academy of Sciences which i found by myself.

You didn't report me for anything, so yeah. I will fix Xhufi article when i get a chance :) Setxkbmap (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already shared my opinions -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your denial of socking is credible, so I am not going to unblock you, and a topic ban, even if you accepted it, would not change my opposition to an unblock. Also, your statement that the standard offer is "out of scope" is sophistic nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I won't try to convince you. I am trying to ask when will i be able, based on your opinion, to request unblocking.

That's all. I said i don't have any socks, and this is the only account i use, and i will keep it that way in the scope you decide so i could appeal then. Setxkbmap (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the new section you just added; you may not use your Talk page for anything other than discussing or appealing your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx. In your opinion, the best time to appeal would be in 6 months? Setxkbmap (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged for some reason or another. I did not expand the articles in question and I'm not that interested in the topic, which is overrated anyway. Nevertheless, @Bbb23: care to share what led you to impose permanent block so fast? Was the behavioral evidence solid? Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not permanent as far as i understand. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account Setxbmap was engaged in many disputes, including potential BLP violations about living academics and WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors. I didn't have time to search more about the subject, but it was clear to me since the early days of this account that it didn't belong to a new editor [1] and I gave him the chance to come clean about it and he claimed that he didn't have any other account. Many aspects of editing strongly suggested otherwise.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never got banned for any of that tho.

Feel free to use your own talk page :) Setxkbmap (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I was banned for alleged sockpuppeting due to similarities between my editing behavior and that of another editor from over a year ago. The block is specifically for sockpuppeting, not for disruptive editing or vandalism. Even though one administrator believes I may be linked to an account that was blocked years ago, I only started editing in August. Given the large time gap between that account’s ban and my activity, this situation feels unfair. This block won’t serve as a learning experience for me, as I already understand that having multiple accounts is not permitted—and I don't have any, nor do I intend to. The articles I work on are full of non-neutral points of view, and addressing them through noticeboard discussions and reliable sources is enough to bring about change. I don't need multiple accounts to engage in edit wars, because i don't edit war. If there's suspicion that an account tagged as a sockmaster is mine, feel free to remove or block it. It makes no difference to me. I believe SPI technical data also shows no socks from my side. This sock block (as well as a report) is being used from a group of connected editors that revert changes made on RS so they could push their own POV. I even asked admin for a timed block, where i would know when i could edit again, but i was ignored. Setxkbmap (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was banned for alleged sockpuppeting due to similarities between my editing behavior and that of another editor from over a year ago. The block is specifically for sockpuppeting, not for disruptive editing or vandalism. Even though one administrator believes I may be linked to an account that was blocked years ago, I only started editing in August. Given the large time gap between that account’s ban and my activity, this situation feels unfair. This block won’t serve as a learning experience for me, as I already understand that having multiple accounts is not permitted—and I don't have any, nor do I intend to. The articles I work on are full of non-neutral points of view, and addressing them through noticeboard discussions and reliable sources is enough to bring about change. I don't need multiple accounts to engage in edit wars, because i don't edit war. If there's suspicion that an account tagged as a sockmaster is mine, feel free to remove or block it. It makes no difference to me. I believe SPI technical data also shows no socks from my side. This sock block (as well as a report) is being used from a group of connected editors that revert changes made on RS so they could push their own POV. I even asked admin for a timed block, where i would know when i could edit again, but i was ignored. [[User:Setxkbmap|Setxkbmap]] ([[User talk:Setxkbmap#top|talk]]) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was banned for alleged sockpuppeting due to similarities between my editing behavior and that of another editor from over a year ago. The block is specifically for sockpuppeting, not for disruptive editing or vandalism. Even though one administrator believes I may be linked to an account that was blocked years ago, I only started editing in August. Given the large time gap between that account’s ban and my activity, this situation feels unfair. This block won’t serve as a learning experience for me, as I already understand that having multiple accounts is not permitted—and I don't have any, nor do I intend to. The articles I work on are full of non-neutral points of view, and addressing them through noticeboard discussions and reliable sources is enough to bring about change. I don't need multiple accounts to engage in edit wars, because i don't edit war. If there's suspicion that an account tagged as a sockmaster is mine, feel free to remove or block it. It makes no difference to me. I believe SPI technical data also shows no socks from my side. This sock block (as well as a report) is being used from a group of connected editors that revert changes made on RS so they could push their own POV. I even asked admin for a timed block, where i would know when i could edit again, but i was ignored. [[User:Setxkbmap|Setxkbmap]] ([[User talk:Setxkbmap#top|talk]]) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was banned for alleged sockpuppeting due to similarities between my editing behavior and that of another editor from over a year ago. The block is specifically for sockpuppeting, not for disruptive editing or vandalism. Even though one administrator believes I may be linked to an account that was blocked years ago, I only started editing in August. Given the large time gap between that account’s ban and my activity, this situation feels unfair. This block won’t serve as a learning experience for me, as I already understand that having multiple accounts is not permitted—and I don't have any, nor do I intend to. The articles I work on are full of non-neutral points of view, and addressing them through noticeboard discussions and reliable sources is enough to bring about change. I don't need multiple accounts to engage in edit wars, because i don't edit war. If there's suspicion that an account tagged as a sockmaster is mine, feel free to remove or block it. It makes no difference to me. I believe SPI technical data also shows no socks from my side. This sock block (as well as a report) is being used from a group of connected editors that revert changes made on RS so they could push their own POV. I even asked admin for a timed block, where i would know when i could edit again, but i was ignored. [[User:Setxkbmap|Setxkbmap]] ([[User talk:Setxkbmap#top|talk]]) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I believe SPI technical data also shows no socks from my side. What makes you believe that?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because i don't have any accounts other than this one. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about your competence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Setxkbmap (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want even more exact reason why i don't think technical SPI showed any sockpuppeting, i can explain further. Even though i dont have a static IP, i assure you that none of the accounts that can even be closely related to me have ever been used from my IP or my PC. That's what i meant when i said i doubt technical evidence showed anything Setxkbmap (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]