User talk:OdDjerdapa

Article title changes

If you want to change the title of 1991 Dalmatian anti-Serb riots you are welcome to start a discussion on Talk:1991 Dalmatian anti-Serb riots to explain why you feel the title needs to be changed, but you should not do so without consensus, and you should not falsely claim consensus when the naming issue has not even been discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This is nonsense. A Croatian admin issues a block as attempt to scilence me, on bogus claims. What abuse am I accused of? I have done nothing against wikipedia rules. There is serious problem here with admins abusing their privileges! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs)

Your account was created within three minutes of User:OdVardara and both of you haave contributed in the same time windows, not to mention the similarity of names (Vardar and Đerdap). If you want to request unblocking, use {{unblock|Reason for unblocking goes here}}. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What abuse do you claim there is? I have not violated any rule, as you accused me. The fact that my edits are not according to Croatian POV are not abuse; there was no abuse either of the accouts you mentioned to justify the block, as necessary for the "abusive sockpupet" block. But you certainly know this. In fact, it was you who abused the admin privileges, by blocking an editor who you disagree with, in midst of making valid point about Croatian POV pushing at another article, trying to scilence and/or discredit arguments I have put forth. This is clear abuse of admin privileges to suit your nationalist agenda, to say the least.

I'm not going to get entangled in your dispute, so I won't discuss politics here. The abuse is clear from multiple non-consensus and later reverted by admins moves done by User:OdDjerdapa followed by User:OdVardara advancing his point of view. Also, I can't fit this case into any legitimate use of multiple accounts as delineated in WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are very wrong here. There is nothing like that; check contributions carefully. What you say is simply not true - check contributions yourself and you will see that there were in fact no edits/moves to the same articles by the different accounts. There is no overlap. Your justification for the block is not according to rules or truth. The only abuse done here is one by yourself, and if it was a good faith error (I grant you benefit of a doubt), then you have a chance to correct it. Otherwise, it is a blatant abuse of your admin privileges, and I will find a way to get this straight!

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Admiral Norton, a Croatian admin, has blocked me claiming that i have used abusively sockpupet accounts, while there was no abuse whatsoever on the accounts he mentioned. However, I strongly suspect that the real reason he blocked me was because I was raising an issue about Croatian POV, which he disagreed with. My block is clearly unjustified (not a single abusive edit or overlap by the two accounts), but what bothers me more is that Admiral Norton is able to abuse admin privileges on dubious grounds to suit his Croatian POV agenda; addenum: the justification Admiral Norton gave (after I pointed out that I have not broken any rules) is this: "The abuse is clear from multiple non-consensus and later reverted by admins moves done by User:OdDjerdapa followed by User:OdVardara advancing his point of view" (see above my talk page). However, as anyone can easily check, this is simply not true - check contributions of the two accounts. There was no overlap whatsoever.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests assuming bad faith on the part of the blocking administrator based only on his or her assumed nationality are not granted. See WP:GAB.  Sandstein  15:03, 15 March 2009 (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.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.235.164 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Previous admin did not address reason for unblock, perhaps because I did not separate the two issues clearly enough. The issue of admin abuse (Croatian POV bad faith motivated block and conflict of interest) is in fact a separate issue, and not the reason for unblock. The reason for unblock is that there was no abuse that would justify the block. Admiral Norton claims that the two accounts in question made edits/move to the same article. This is what he said the abuse was, and is a supposed reason for the block "The abuse is clear from multiple non-consensus and later reverted by admins moves done by User:OdDjerdapa followed by User:OdVardara advancing his point of view". However, reviewing the edit histories you can check that there were in fact no edits or moves to a same article. There was no overlap whatsoever. There was no synchronised or deceptive action therefore, much less "moves by one account followed by advancing of its position by another". Admiral Norton mentiones "non-concensus and later reverted by admin moves" as if it were an abuse in itself; this has nothing to do with abusive use of sockpuppets as clear from non-overlaping edits. Furthermore, as explained by me in discussion with admin who reverted the move, the article naming is question of POV and current title is a move from concensus version; the named admin (ChrisO, reverted moves, my communication with whom proves my constructive attitude) is involved in the dispute (in fact, he proposed article deletion in 2006), and moreover, the question of move was addressed properly in coordination with that admin - I have created a requested move page, discussion page, started a debate, engaged the people on the talk page - hardly an abusive behavior, rather, it is precisely what wikipedia rules say - first act, then if there is problem, discuss the issue. That should certainly have been no reason for block. However, now I see that my efforts have been undermined by the claim that I am blocked "as sockpuppet of banned user" [[1]] which is clearly not the case (but I have no way to respond - such defamation is precisely the intended effect of this block; in fact, ChrisO has used this fact to remove my request of move, again under false pretext that I am sockpupet of a banned user [[2]]). To continue, it is clear that no behavior here was abusive - rechecking wikipedia policies, I find that no justification can be found for Admiral Norton action - no 3RR violation, no policies were circumvented, no voting (or editing or any overlap to the same articles for that matter). Justification that Admiral Norton has provided has been refuted, so I ask some admin to review this case, and either do the unblocking, or explain me what violation of policies that justify the block were done; The other issue (my suspecions about Admiral Norton POV playing a role here), while alarming, is a separate thing from the unjustified block, though it sheds some light on what was going on.

Decline reason:

Basically you are not allowed to have two different accounts. Otherwise sock puppetry will be suspected. If you want unblocking, please address this issue. And a CheckUser will probably have to be consulted before unblocking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 16 March 2009 (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.