Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:32, 24 May 2007

Punctuation changes

I just noticed that my change to the punctuation was a mistake. When I was going through the edit history, I thought I saw the term with a single quotation mark on one side and double on the other. I didn't realized that I was looking at the actual correction and not vandalism. I noticed you also corrected it with the comment in the edit summary " it was better before Oicumayberight (talk) changes, but oh well...". If you were only talking about the punctuation, I didn't have a preference; so feel free to change it to single quotes. If the comment was referring to any of my other edits on that page, I'd like to know what they are if you could please be specific. Oicumayberight 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just punctuation. Sorry, that I wasn't clear enough in my edit summary, I was dead sleepy. And actually, I am not sure whether it should be single or double quotation marks - but at least they should be same on both sides. DLX 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

About your comments on User talk:Staffwaterboy

Hey, it'd be great if you could make sure not to bite newbies. Merely for the sake of information, it has been decided that it is okay to blank and not archive user talk messages. If especially disruptive, it might be questionable, but there's no reason to assume bad faith here. Gracenotes § 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be okay to delete regular chat - but warnings are there for a reason. Those should not be removed. DLX 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't? Eh, there was a proposal about that, but it was rejected. I think that Staffwaterboy hardly removed everything in bad faith; and there is no evidence that he did so. Gracenotes § 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, tbh I thought they should be there, esp. as he had filed a request to become an administrator... DLX 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronkssõduri artikkel

Kuna asun Kanadas ja meil juba öö käes, ehk hoiad sellel Petri Krohnil silma peal et ta vargsi jälle juba lahendatud asju ilma tsitaatideta revertima ei kukuks. Homme võtan jälle öise vahetuse. Unigolyn 06:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. As this is English Misplaced Pages, please use English in talk pages as well... DLX 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, confused this with a U2U. Unigolyn 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DLX. Please just take a look at 213.219.81.61 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ANI, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page of User:Kuban kazak. Next time please do the reporting yourself, administrators will review incidents the same way if they come from anonymous editors. However, I recommend registering to Misplaced Pages. DLX 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Muutsin mõningaid Krohni isiklikke seisukohti ses artiklis. Aga olgem valvel!!90.190.56.10 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of SS war criminals

Look, buddy, don't try to tell me that the Estonian government has never tried to rehabilitate SS figters, war criminals, Nazi lackeys...It is proven that they did. In 2004 the Estonian government opened a monument to Estonians who "fought" in Waffen-SS in the rural area of Lihula (which was taken down several days after). In 2006 the government opened another monument to "SS fighters" from all over Europe (Norwegian, Belgium, Neatherland, etc.). The Kingdom of Belgium sent a note to Tallinn, forbiding to raise Belgium's flag on the monument's opening day. Now let's dig in history. The Nuernberg Tribunal officially labelled SS and its spin-offs as criminal organizations. This meant (and still means) that every member SS is/was/will be a war criminal. Do you know the fate of SS "veterans" in Northern and Western Europe? They lived out their days in shame and disgrace! Forsaken by all, cursed by all, hated by all...

Now let's return to the present. A state does not put monuments in honour of criminal organizations (can you imagine the US building a monument to Charles Manson's cult?). The existance of the monument to Waffen-SS has only one explanation. And do you know what the explanation is?Dimts 12:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe Russian propaganda. Monument of Lihula was dedicated "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence.", depicting Wehrmacht-like (not SS - and no visible German/Estonian/Nazi identifications) uniform. SS or Nazis are not mentioned or depicted. Also, note that there were no Estonians in SS-proper, only Waffen-SS. Government of Estonia has publicly condemned acts against humanity by both communists and nazis. Hopefully, one day, Russian government will do the same... then it might be more convincing, though, if two thirds of neo-Nazis in the world wouldn't live in Russia.

As for your second mention of "another monument" then could you please come up with some sources? I don't know of such monument nor does googling give me any mentions of that. Very likely I would have heard of this, so I am going to write it off as another shameful propaganda attempt by Russia. DLX 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's located in some place called 'Sinimäe'.Dimts 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you probably mean a place called Sinimäed (plural, not singular). There was raised a small memorial with no Nazi/Communist/other symbolics whatsoever (well, excluding Christian, as it is a cross in stone circle) on year 2000 (not 2006), with simple dedication "For the fallen". It was raised there in hopes for it to become a place where veterans in both sides - Red Army and Waffen SS - could peacefully meet. I have no idea what is happening there now, but I know that on first few years Estonian veterans on both sides held meetings there - peaceful affairs where they put flowers on the nearby graves and sung wartime songs, all Russian, Estonian and German. I couldn't find a decent picture of the memorial, but there is one here, rather small, unfortunately. DLX 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture's fine. OK, I probably mistook Estonia for Latvia and got locations mixed up. Well, thanks for the new info. Good luck.

P.S Sorry, submitted an unsigned post.Dimts 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, would you be interested in helping me with the article Khimki War Memorial? DLX 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, pal, can't help you there. I've never heard about that memorial before.I'm from Denmark. I only remembered the whole monument thing because I saw the clashes between the police and protesters in Tallinn on Euro News.

P.S I mostly edit culture-related articles (fictional universes, fictional characters,etc.). Dimts 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Estonia hate speech

Hi, I reported it again. Hopefully User:Coelacan can't endlessly defend such people. 193.40.5.245 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is needed - although the admin in question... I do not agree with his decision at all. DLX 12:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after reading your reporting) Could you please tone it down a bit, no one like to be "yelled" in caps and red color, that is hurting your otherwise valid complaint rather badly. Always show yourself as calm and composite, that way your chances in these matters are always better. Also, create a user for yourself, anon IP's are not highly regarded. DLX 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Khimki War Memorial

You have made four reverts: . And threaten me with administration here: . Lantios 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not "threaten", I merely stated the fact that 3RR needs to be reported. And that I did. Also, my first edit in your list was not a revert of {{POV}}, as you can plainly see. Threatening is something what Russians have done to me recently, "We'll kill you and your family, you nazi pig" (for speaking Estonian). DLX 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR on Khimki War Memorial. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note, that first "revert" actually isn't a revert and rest are responses to User:Lantios reverts. See topic above () and also his message on my user page where he accuses me of "threatening him with administrators", while my intention was to give obvious new user some breathing room before reporting him. He has not shown goodwill or been reasonable on talk page of the article in question. DLX 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse your edit warring. If you wanted to set a good example for a new user, that's certainly no way to go about it. I suggest you read the WP:3RR policy: the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day. Reverts don't have to be identical; the first edit had the same effect as all the others: you removed the POV tag. The fact that you replaced it with something else you liked better doesn't mean it wasn't a revert. Kafziel 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "liked better", also that wasn't revert, as you can see. If I would have thought of it as revert, I would not broken 3RR, as you obviously think I did - I am well aware of the rule and carefully avoid breaking it. The "POV" tag (in any form) was totally unsubstantiated, ie no reasons given in the talk at all. See my messages on the talk page of the article and how I tried to make User:Lantios see that he has to give valid reason for the POV tag. As soon as some (although maybe not totally valid) reasons were given, I went along with the tag. In any case, I request blocking of User:Lantios as well, since he was breaking 3RR, like I said in my report of him. DLX 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're "well aware" of 3RR, then you should know that you can break it even if you only revert 3 times. But you did revert four times here: the {{POV}} and {{totally disputed}} tags are essentially the same, and their removal has essentially the same result. Same result = revert, no matter how you do it. Kafziel 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you will assume good faith and be fair. In any case, wasn't I supposed to get warning before my (supposed) 4th revert? As you can see, I have never been blocked for 3RR (and only block I ever had was overturned), therefore I was clearly supposed to be warned first and the report is invalid unless it is done ("Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned."). DLX 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just wikilawyering. A warning is not required in this case; as you yourself say, you were well aware of the rule. You warned another user about it, in fact. No warning needed. Kafziel 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I do feel that the block is unjustified - and it is obvious that you didn't check if I have ever been warned of 3RR or broken it before. Isn't being fair in wikiadmin "job description"? DLX 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. But I am being fair here anyway. You wanted me to block a new user who was never warned. So either your report of him was in bad faith, or the fact that you got blocked without warning (when you clearly were aware of the policy) is more than fair. Kafziel 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Have it your way if you want, you have the power. Fair would have been to warn me, perhaps, especially as you can obviously see that I am an established (1000+ edits) user, who hasn't broken any wikipedia rules, ever.

Perhaps it is time to abandon Misplaced Pages or restart with a new user. Things like that take away all the fun from editing Misplaced Pages. DLX 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can be fun, but it's not my primary concern. This is an encyclopedia first, and edit wars discourage new users and compromise the integrity of our articles. Remember: discussion should take place before reverting, not during a series of reverts. And discussion is a two-way street. Make a statement on the talk page, wait for a reply, reply to that, wait for another reply, etc. Edit summaries are for summarizing your edits, not for leaving comments to justify your fourth (or even third) revert in a row.

I am unblocking you now, because I think you understand. It's extremely rare for me to unblock someone, so please don't make me regret it. Kafziel 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My IP was apparently still auto-blocked, but quick cable modem restart helped with that. But I think I will still take a short wiki-break, at least from editing actively. Creating and editing Bronze Soldier of Tallinn showed me that willing Wikipedians can still create very good and NPOV articles, even when topic is as controversial and hotly debated, as that one was. However, pointless and silly edit war with Lantios reminded me how petty, bad-willed and unreasonable users can be, so I'll refrain from major edits until my normal sarcastic attitude has managed to restore itself. DLX 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you won't be gone for too long. You seem like a good editor, and we actually have similar interests (I've written several articles about military statues and memorials as well). I know editing can be stressful at times, but just remember that there are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. Everything will work itself out for the best if you're patient. Kafziel 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually couldn't stay away from Misplaced Pages very long... you know how addictive it is  ;). However, to be on the safe side, I won't edit Khimki War Memorial for a while. DLX 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of joining the Military history WikiProject? You could make some good contacts for input and advice in situations like this, and you might find gaps in our articles that you could fill. We do a lot of good work over there. Kafziel 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it - unfortunately I am unsure how much time I have for Misplaced Pages in near future. Last few days were relatively free for me, but going back to work tomorrow... DLX 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No pressure. I know Misplaced Pages doesn't pay very well. :)

Anyway, just something to think about. Take care! Kafziel 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoration_of_Estonian_independence

Seems that one of our friends is up for his own interpretation of history 84.50.35.254 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, put it to my watchlist as soon as he created it. There isn't snowball's chance in hell that his article can ever become a part of mainspace, but it is interesting to watch and see how biased he can be. DLX 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Just to let you know, your mediation case has been changed to open. Jac _roe 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully my dialog with Lantios has reached a point where he will come up with a fact or two to support his position. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in that discussion - as you can see, my recent edits to Misplaced Pages have been dealing with far worse people, then in that mediation. Although, it seems like a three-headed hydra - cut one head off and three more will spring up - see this, for example. Or this, this and pretty much every other edit by that user (my favourite is "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people" - (my bold) shows perfectly with what kind of people we are dealing with). Just... makes me disgusted, sad and feeling hopeless. DLX 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your quote is a perfect example. Lavrov's in the news again denonuncing Estonia and the Baltics for conspiring to rewrite history, sucking in the entire western world--when it was Lavrov himself who was negotiating on behalf of the central Soviet to acknowledge the illegality of Soviet presence in the Baltics (and then the putsch came, cutting that negotiation short). The problem isn't even the lies, it's that Russia has now so closely equated its self-worth to Soviet era (and specifically "anti-Nazi") glorification that to say anything negative about the Soviet Union is a personal affront to all people of Russian heritage. It's a geopolitical cancer.

    Never feel hopeless! I have been slogging it out for some time now over occupation, often feeling the same as yourself--and then folks like Martintg, Constanz (who has given up the fight, sadly), and you join in. (Nor is this just a Baltics problem.) My way of coping is to simply get away from the topic for a month or two (as long as there was someone in the fray holding up the anti-Soviet propaganda part of the argument).

    I have recently picked up some more reference materials which have citations going back to the League of Nations, etc., which should prove useful. I expect to finally go back and put in citations for the Occupation of Latvia article after the U.S. Latvian Song Festival (so, starting sometime toward the end of July).

    This is a battle for the long term--by definition, minimally, until Russia changes its official position on Baltic "non-occupation" and "discontinuity" of the Baltic republics. You did know you were in this for the long term, no? :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. Putin is currently trying to draw Russia together and boost their ego by glorifying Soviet Union - and its only really notable achievement, victory in WWII - while demonizing anyone who doesn't agree. Also, a good way to draw attention from things happening locally (censoring newspapers, journalists getting murdered, ex-KGB more then 30% of leaders and so on) to "enemies" of the Russia. Can you see parallels with another age and country, perhaps? DLX 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And sadly, even some editors who otherwise do good work (I am thinking of Petri K. in particular), who as far as I know have no Russian ties, believe that any denial of Eastern European liberation by the Soviets = hate talk, Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. (not enough energy to do all the diffs...). After the Latvian song festival, etc. are done with (July), I am considering writing a fresh article on the basis for Soviet occupation of the Baltics in a point/counterpoint format. I've gathered enough references that I can probably cover most of the points. The only way to refute Baltic occupation denial is to get all the information out into the open. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That article might be a good idea, especially if you have extremely good sources (not newspapers or articles - history books, government documents and so on). As for Petri K., I think he has a personal grudge against Baltics/Estonia. See his edit history, in other topics he is perfectly normal and good editor - but when it comes to Baltics, he pushes POV rather badly (usually ends with someone coming up with an indisputable source and he is forced to back down). DLX 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started an article on Soviet occupation denialism. Digwuren 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in Dmitri Linter

Dear DLX, please provide your explanations on tagging Dmitri Linter article as POV on its talk page. I would like to note that your POV tagging in the article you don't like personally without any explanations could be considered as Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Your position that only Estonian sources are reliable contradicts to Misplaced Pages WP:RS policy and may well become the reason for RfC on you. Vlad fedorov 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote to talk page of the article, then. As of now there are several suspicious/wrong facts, see the reference to article in Den Za Dnjom that is the source for other Russian newspapers/sources and rest of my talk. I have explained POV there, you haven't rexplained your removal of the tag (you broke 3RR, by-the-way). Why do you want to have known lies in an article? DLX 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't break 3RR, believe me or just read 3RR noticeboard for your education purposes. As for your labelling of all Russian sources as unreliable you should really consult WP:RS policy. You over-generalization conclusions based on one Russian tabloid case are hilarious. Please explain on the talk page which sentence, word in the article is lie, provide neutral, reliable sources (translations if needed) and we would discuss everything like normal civilized people. But, please, do not trigger your edit machinegun. Believe me, if you would provide anything neutral and reliable, no one would disturb you. As long as you tag or edit without any explanations (I mean by explanations not your words or POV, but neutral and reliable sources), a lot of people would disagree with you. Vlad fedorov 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear DLX, please be very careful here. I personally had a lot of trouble in this regard. You may take a look here and here Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorovBiophys 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to consult Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biophys and http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:AN/3RR#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_24_hrs.29. You also may look at Biophys log of blocks. Vlad fedorov 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left a long reply, fully cited, to article talk page. If you do not agree with it, then you must accept {{POV}} tag on the article, as it does not have both views to arrest of Dmitri Linter. DLX 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, just a quick word of advice. Planting templates at talk pages of the established users is counterproductive and rarely achieves the result you want. People get ticked off when communicated with templates which brings only the further aggravation of edit conglicts. Please consider using a human language. --Irpen 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from Sonin

а хочешь, маленький эстонский друг, эти слова Сонина тоже поставим в статью? "В связи с происходящим в Эстонии варварством - и в части того, что происходит с памятником (я считаю, что даже если большинство хочет памятник снести, это обязанность хорошего правительства - найти решение, которое не оскорбило бы меньшинство), и в головах у эстонских журналистов (редакционная статья в популярной газете совершенно позорная), и в действиях полиции по отношению к демонстрантам - так вот, в связи с этим варварством предлагается много разных мер. Эмбарго, блокада, отказ от покупки эстонских товаров, ... Заставить их платить за нашу боль и гнев." http://ksonin.livejournal.com/90508.html Beatles Fab Four 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont try to fool me

DLX, i have been there, i took part in the arguments so don't try to fool me. Your comments were really ennoying because they were full of lies you wrote to make you feel better about your nationality. He already became a good editor, he deleted lies you wrote. He fought against vandalism, because you writing lies in articles is vandalism. My sources are the most real sorces in the world, my family in which everybody fought for the USSR at The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945, and those who were under Nazi occupation and saw it all. M.V.E.i. 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, let us keep discussion in one place. I replied to your baseless accusations on your talk page, here: . DLX 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you!

You wanted links prooving Estonians ans the rest of the balric states killed Jews? Some links are given to you by me on the Bronze Liberator of Tallinn talk page. M.V.E.i 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MIRC scripts editor.png

Hello, DLX. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MIRC scripts editor.png) was found at the following location: User:DLX. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OmenServe.png

Hello DLX, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:OmenServe.png) was found at the following location: User:DLX. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you?

Maybe you didn't see my answer to you, then come in . M.V.E.i. 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref. removal

You said the source doesn't contain the text I put in the Fascism in Estonia article. If you read more closely from the middle of the second paragraph, you will find it. see --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, my bad. However, you just cannot copy & paste the sentence, that violates copyright - you must reword it. Also, the claim is somewhat dubious (see History of the Jews in Estonia), but Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. DLX 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ülo Jõgi

Hi there, Did Jõgi coordinate the resistance with (unofficial) assistance from Finland? Camptown 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but see Kova sotilaskilpailu kantaa maineikkaan virolaisen tiedusteluryhmän nimeä and Saksa okupatsioon 1941-44 - both of them have some information about Ülo Jõgi. Also, this is a nice quote:

Ernalainen Ülo Jõgi kertoo saaneensa varmasti Suomen armeijan lyhimmän laskuvarjokoulutuksen. Lentokoneen ovella hänelle kerrottiin mitä hihnoja laskuvarjossa on ja missä asennossa sillä pitää tulla maahan. Koneen sisällä varjon pakkolaukaisuhihna kiinnitettiin seinälenkkiin ja osoitettiin luukkua lattiassa sekä kerrottiin, että kun summeri soi niin sitten mennään.

(I hope you understand Finnish) DLX 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehh... NO! :D BTW, practically all similar assistance from Sweden failed due to Soviet infiltration within the Swedish ranks. Maybe the Finns kept Moscow informed about Jõgi's doings as well... --Camptown 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DLX. Why engage in sockpuppetry? Can't you just edit like everyone else? --Irpen 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of the checkuser - however, Digwuren is not my sockpuppet - or anyones, as far as I know. And don't engage in sockpuppetry - never have and never will. I just edit like everyone else. DLX 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply there. And I am waiting for your apology afterwards. DLX 05:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my ISP is Starman. Digwuren 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case it should be easy to clear this accusation, which smells... funny. Why would an administrator request checkuser out of the blue? I wonder if a certain Finn is behind this... I wouldn't like to think this about Irpen, who until now has seemed to be reasonable and good editor. DLX 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely. Selket is the admin who handled Petri Krohn's WP:3RR block; see User talk:Petri Krohn#Three revert rule. My best guess is that the latter complained about stalking in response of the block, and added the accusation of sockpuppetry, which the admin then checked out, this delusion possibly generated throught the idea that since you were the one to report him, you must have done so in revenge for blocking a sockpuppet. :-/ I have no other ideas, as this is the only place I recall Selket's name from. Digwuren 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, but no one was behind it except me. I did block Petri Krohn, bud I did not look at what he posted in response until just now. User:Trebor denied his unblock request. I got suspicious after observing some strange patterns on WP:AN3 about Jüri Uluots. Petri Krohn posted Digwuren who was blocked, then DLX posted Petri Krohn who was blocked, then DLX reverted the article. I noticed that there were a lot of shared articles in your recent edit histories, so I looked deeper. Eventually I felt I had enough to go to checkuser. The "likely" but not "confirmed" result I think leaves reasonable doubt. However, I would suggest going easy on the reverts in the future. Try not to use six reverts per day between the two of you -- for that matter try not to use four. Remember that 3RR is a wall, not an entitlement to a certain number of reverts. --Selket 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)