User talk:Taribuk

August 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Terrariola. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sisak children's concentration camp have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Terrariola 08:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits are referenced therefore constructive.--Taribuk (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taribuk, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Taribuk! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Stick around[edit]

Impressive speech. Stick around. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Slobodan_Praljak#False_statements,_bad_reading_of_the_references,_incompleteness[edit]

Hi Taribuk. A courtesy note to let you know that I have closed a request for comment you initiated, at Talk:Slobodan_Praljak#False_statements,_bad_reading_of_the_references,_incompleteness. Apologies for the delay in closing this RFC; there is a backlog of closure requests being worked through. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 09:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin[edit]

Thanks for sticking your head above the pulpit and nominating this. It's long overdue IMO. However, may I suggest that you reconsider some of the parts of your nomination, regarding advertising and conflict of interest and just concentrate on notability? This is the only thing that matters in an AFD and given the attention this is bound to attract, making the nomination more succinct would improve the chance of a productive and focussed discussion. If you agree, I'd suggest removing those parts and adding a note to the diff stating that you have. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

There is a time gap between my appearance on Wikpedia and Vujkovica brdo account block, longer than one year and half. Since my dynamic IP address, visible to a checkuser, gets changed almost weekly, the checkuser had no way to conclude "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Vujkovica brdo ".

Moreover, out of numerous articles I've edited, only two of them (Nikola Tesla etnicity and Josip Pecaric) were edited by the scapegoat Vujkovica brdo in the past. In both cases my edits are in no way linked to the Vujkovica brdo edits. Other stories about my "guilt" are made up by User:David Eppstein.

Looks like I inadvertently threaded upon a Wikipedia rattlesnake den. Actual reason for this accusation and block lies here "Keep. I'm highly skeptical of the good faith of this nomination; the reason for the many past speedy closures is that people with Wikipedia editing disputes with Rubin keep nominating this article for deletion as a way to retaliate. And the past Arbcom case shows both that Rubin has enemies who will persistently snipe at him, and that Rubin has reacted badly enough to that sniping to encourage his enemies to continue with their attacks. Regardless, let's look at the merits of the case." For details see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination). User:David Eppstein badly needed a way to derail the AfD which led him to fabricate this SPI.--Taribuk (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but a checkuser has confirmed this account as being involved in sock puppetry and applied this block on that basis. Your unblock request is declined. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 10 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not Vujkovica brdo user nor any checkuser ever could confirm it. The truth is Vujkovica brdo stopped editing one year and half before I've opened my account. My IP address is purely dynamic, i.e. randomly selected and assigned to me almost weekly. A checkuser can only see when a user gets logged in, logged out, and the dynamic IP address under the login happened. Based on these data the true identity of a user is not possible to discover neither technically nor legally. The User:Bbb23 checkuser apparently lied and reacted less than 2hr after having this SPI opened in order to prevent other, possibly honest, checkuser to declare the IP data and logins stalled. --Taribuk (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2018 (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.

You apparently (and predictably) have no idea how CU works, and calling the CU a liar is certainly a novel form of unblock request. E Eng 17:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Socrates called. He wants his irony back. ;) --Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my irony deficiency I try to introduce irony wherever I can. E Eng 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm curious about is how he knows exactly when Vb stopped editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: He may have looked at the user contributions for Vb and seen the latest edit from Vb was that old. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

According to the Checkuser and Retention policy Bbb23 check user did not have any data which could be used to link me to dumping ground called Vujkovica brdo. As I explained twice on this page and the same to Patrick Rother, there is one and half year long gap between creation of my account and Vujkovica brdo last edit and the block of their account. I am not Vujkovica brdo nor it was possible to prove it using the checkuser tool.
I've contacted [Cu-ombuds-l] twice. On second attempt got this answer from Patrick Rother (krd@gulu.net)
Dear Taribuk.
The Ombudsmen Commission has looked into your complaint and arrived at the conclusion that it is outside the Commission's scope. The purpose of the Ombudsmen Commission is to investigate complaints about violations of the global privacy, checkuser or oversighter policies. If you believe that a violation has occurred, please respond to this email and explain why you believe so. Otherwise, we suggest to follow up with English Wikipedia ArbCom.
I followed his advice, explained blatant checkuser policy violation to the [Cu-ombuds-l], contacted the ArbCom and got this answer:
arbcom-l-owner (arbcom-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org)
To:you Your mail to 'ArbCom-l' with the subject
Fwd: [Cu-ombuds-l] My second attempt: Case Taribuk: complaint against Bbb23 checkuser
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list
Ten time I have sent the same e-mali to ArbCom, never ever got any response
My tenth attempt to draw your attention to Case Taribuk: complaint against Bbb23 checkuser Thu, Aug 22, 2019 9:36 am
....
To:arbcom-l-owner Details
Is it possible to get any response from the ArbCom after all these attempts?
-----Original Message-----
From: ...
To: arbcom-l-owner <arbcom-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, Jul 2, 2019 10:51 am
Subject: Fwd: My ninth attempt to draw your attention to Case Taribuk: complaint against Bbb23 checkuser

Decline reason:

This is in no way a WP:GAB-compliant appeal; it's just a mishmash of complaints against various entities. I imagine it's not so much that no one ever replies to you, it's just that they're not saying what you want to hear. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 13 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Repeating request for seeing all previous rejections as cynical and blind. Here is the latest e-mail I received from deltaquadwiki Amanda with my response to it. As it is visible, all responses to my complaints are sensless or just additional baseles accusation aimed to justify the block.

From:(***@netscape.net)

To:deltaquadwiki Details

Hi Amanda,

You are just making a new, completely baseless accusations. I disputed any connection to anyone thrown to the Vujkovica brdo dumping ground. You cannot claim anything like "It is definitely possible you were checked against User:BTZorbas and that is where the connection was found." - it's outrageous, simply because I know who I am, and where I am. That same User:BTZorbas does not share anything with me and he claimed he was not on the same continent with the dumping ground. Your db administrator is able to verify that claim. Why not to request verification of the BTZorbas' defense claim? I believe both of us (BTZorbas and me) are just victims of a dirty campain/defamation led by a group of people which member is that Bbb23.

Taribuk

Original Message-----

From: DeltaQuad Wikipedia <deltaquadwiki@gmail.com> To: *** <***@netscape.net> Cc: Checkuser Ombudsmen List <cu-ombuds-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2019 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [Cu-ombuds-l] My second attempt: Case Taribuk: complaint against Bbb23 checkuser

Hi Taribuk,

It is definitely possible you were checked against User:BTZorbas and that is where the connection was found. If you have a dispute about that connection or that BTZorbas is not Vujkovica brdo, you will need to take that up with the English Wikipedia administrators or ArbComs. You still have not alleged actual tool misuse, just circumstances that you can't find a solution to.

The Ombudsmen Commission only reviews complaints of abuse consistent with the Checkuser policy, Access to non-public data policy, and the privacy policy. We do not exonerate nor are we a place to appeal any blocks or accusations. If you have further allegations that you have not yet mentioned, you may bring them forward to us, but please make sure there is a policy violation and not just something that can't be explained.

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request or at least not a properly formatted one; since you are unable or unwilling to review WP:GAB to learn how to make a proper request, I am declining this request and removing talk page access to prevent more time wasting for everyone. If you choose to make a proper request, you will need to use WP:UTRS. If you abuse that avenue of appeal, you will lose access to that too. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2020 (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.