Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:30, 30 November 2006

This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

New reports

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)

The user has been acting increasingly incivil on Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Particularly:

• rvv - implying in edit summaries my edits are vandalism (clearly identified as an example of personal attack on WP:NPA
• accusing Constanz of vandalism
• accusing me of nationalism in edit summaries
• accusess Contanz of 'delibarate trolling' (another clear violation of WP:NPA)
• accussed Contanz of POINT violation

I feel that such comments indicate several lack of bad faith and create a very negative atmosphere for editing and discussion. The user has been warned about incivil behaviour in the past (up to and including a warning by ArbCom) and blocked for it more than once; since he has a habit of removing all my (and other critical) messages from his talk pages (examples: , , ), I did not warn him by leaving messages on his talk pages - considering his past history I am sure he is aware of what he is doing and consequences. If needed, I can provide evidence of other offensive comments made by Ghirla in the past few weeks, although I hope this is not necessary (the pattern is clear and the case above should be enough for action). I would also like to point out controversial behaviour by User:Irpen, who removes warnings about Ghirlandajo behaviour while ignoring his attacks against other users.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can provide evidence of Piotrus' habit to gain an upper hand in content disagreement by seeking his opponent's blocks. Additionally, he ususally instructs others to act rather than acts himself. In this respect, I find this report "pleasantly surprising" as his true author signed it under his own name. Still, I don't see anything critical in examples sited by Piotrus to a degree as to warrant outside interference although everyone can use a cool-off who edits hot topics. I would be interested to see the Constanz' own opinion as well. Finally, Piotrus' own behavior in the article was intended to provoke and included direct baiting aimed at forcing his opponent to make mistakes. That's my view on the above "complaint". --Irpen 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusations. Accusing editors of 'seeking to gain upper hand in discussions by having opponents blocked' or 'baiting and provoking' seems like a personal attack itself, I ask the reviewing admin to consider such baseless acusations as well - I certainly see such accusations as slander on my good reputation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffs were given to you and you know where they are. Moreover, you know them to be true. I put my name fully behind this statement and diffs from your long history would take time to dig but they will be dug upon admin's request. --Irpen 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No I don't, and I am sure he will. Excuse my brievity here - it's 4:30am... perhaps a new day will be brighter.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

PANONIAN (talk · contribs)

This user wrote insulting comments about me on Talk:Serbophobia, calling me “mister Double Standards”, among other things on 23:50, 11 November 2006.--MaGioZal 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem too serious. You did mention "among other things," though -- what sorts of other things? Luna Santin 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This thing: Just stick to your own bussiness (find something to fuck perhaps) and let people to live their lives in peace, ok?.--MaGioZal 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why raise a request 18 days after the original post? Durova 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because just recently I’ve discovered this edit and just recently also I’ve discovered about the existence of this noticeborad page regarding personal attacks.--MaGioZal 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

TheFEARgod (talk · contribs)

This user began calling me a troll just because of my opinions on the talk page of the article 1995 NATO bombing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the add of an accusatory “don’t feed the trolls” picture by the side of what I wrote. Well, I felt myself unjustly accused of something that I didn’t done, so I removed that picture and tryed to explain why. Well, he re-posted the picture I’ve deleted four times, even after I’ve quitted the discussion of that section:

• 1st time: 13:17, 19 November 2006

• 2nd time: 22:10, 19 November 2006

• 3rd time: 22:14, 19 November 2006

• 4th time: 23:30, 26 November 2006

After that, the user in two other occasions accused me of trolling again, it seems just because I didn’t agree with his (and his friends) opinions:

• On Talk:Serbophobia, 23:52, 26 November 2006 ;

• And on Template_talk:Campaignbox_Yugoslav_Wars, 21:26, 27 November 2006.

Well, it seems like this is the very case of personal attacking using the “troll accusation” method.--MaGioZal 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's still attempting discussion, however; you might consider dispute resolution. Luna Santin 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Laughing_Man (talk · contribs)

This user (that appeared many times toghether with TheFEARgod (talk · contribs) in the talk pages) has made the following attacks:

• 05:08, 25 November 2006: vandalism my ass

• 05:30, 25 November 2006: rv the king of original research

• 21:18, 26 November 2006: page troll

• 05:09, 25 November 2006: bullshit

• 05:32, 25 November 2006: bullshit

--MaGioZal 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's still attempting discussion. You might consider the dispute resolution process, or opening an RfC regarding user behavior. Luna Santin 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

217.134.89.177 (talk · contribs)

This user, which wording, editing behavior and opinions are very similar to 217.134.110.19 (talk · contribs), 195.92.67.75 (talk · contribs) (the three IP numbers are from the ISP Energis UK) and Laughing_Man (talk · contribs), has made the following comment when reverted my edit on Vojislav Seselj article:

• 15:38, 25 November 2006: rv Marxist Islamophile propaganda from the Brazilian slums

--MaGioZal 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That one does concern me. Without a little more evidence, though, I'm not sure if it's one of the other users logged out, or just someone else entirely. You might consider submitting a request for checkuser, and see if they turn anything up for you. Luna Santin 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Greier (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked Greier (who has a history of making personal attacks) for 48 hours. Since he has been unblocked, he's made the following comments:

• Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha

• Pathetic, both in arguments, and in insults...

• You persoanlly, won`t get s#it from me. You`re a vain, egocentric person. As for your concern of protochronism, a subject by far not worthy off all this attention, I know that it`s very trendy to play the revisionist type... it put`s you in the spotlight.

• You hold on to that hankie, and in five minutes you can come and wipe me, alright?

• americans...

I don't think it's necessary to give him {{npa2}}, {{npa3}}, and {{npa4}} every single time. He knows the rules, and his block log shows that. Khoikhoi 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More:

Opposed due to the câcat (Origin of Romanians????) and inability to accept Dhans ego (Regulamentul Organic????). Also see WP:OWN. If others are weak enough to fall for your logorrhea, that is not what you can say about me.

Of course the name it`s awkward. It`s not made by Dachhchhhchn.

Khoikhoi 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, take a look at his edits to Lăutari.. He's reverting edits to the page and ignoring requests for discussion... It's becoming a revert war, and I think he's already broken the 3 revert rule..--Vercalos 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. He's been blocked for a week for violating the 3RR rule. Someone keeps removing his report from the page though..--Vercalos 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, blocked for a week by another admin, possibly related to this sort of behavior, regardless of whether this report was seen. Since the block is for a week, I'm thinking we may as well remove the report for now, and repost if anything new develops -- thoughts? Luna Santin 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

66.7.225.34 (talk · contribs)

The anonymous IP has extremely similar edit pattern, tone, and apparently beliefs as User:RichardBennett and it is overwhelmingly likely that they are the same person.

• (accusations of being 'google' and apparently censoring or something weird)
• "the issue is obviously over his head and he's misleading the reader with his personal viewpoint. Stephen Colbert would get a good laugh over this revision of reality."
• (good faith edit labelled as vandalism)
• "Google, Save the Internet put the mainstream definition into their legislative proposal, just like your employer did. TBL is an interesting fellow, but his definition of NN is idiosyncratic. Now go ask your overlords what to do now that you've been outed"
• (accusations of being "completely ignorant", together with an I'm better than you attack: "knowledgeable people")

(n.b. this is just a small selection).

The user in his time in the wikipedia has also engaged in many extreme violations of NPOV, and has a long history of personal attacks including towards admins as a brief look at User_talk:RichardBennett#Blocked_for_24_hours_by_the_fruitcake_Raul654 will show.WolfKeeper 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Was on my way to block, just now, given past history. But he's already gotten 24 hours for 3RR. Please advise if this sort of abuse continues. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Luna Santin 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Zabrak (talk · contribs)

This user has a lengthy and tempermental edit history on Misplaced Pages. Has been issued several "Final warnings" for both personal attacks and vandalism. Has continued to ignore all warnings and maintains disruptive behaviour on many article talk pages without any consideration for WP:CIVIL. Most recent WP:NPA violation can be found here. Prior to creating the Zabrak user name, the same user edited as IP 71.236.225.50 (talk · contribs). This IP, like the Zabrak user account had the same long history of NPA's and vandalism. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Obvious sock of Dragong4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was working on a nice 6 month block for similar behavior. I think the repeated warnings are unheeded and at this point, not working. --Ars Scriptor 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

VinceB (talk · contribs)

Warned in the past up to npa3 and blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Now renewed personal attack against another editor: after I advised him to cool down when he started to use ad hominem in that content dispute. He also publicly assumed a use of sockpuppets before he asked for CheckUser or provided any evidence, perhaps hoping to harm reputation of a well-established user. Tankred 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks here. Moreover, I repeat: Please let him be in peace for one day! Or do you find it funny that he has recieved a death threat? I don't. --Öcsi 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the words "You hv no idea abt history" is a personal attack. Instead of discussing the actual content dispute, VinceB has accused editors of not knowing history on several occasions. This is not a good way how to collaborate in Misplaced Pages. As to the threats placed by an IP to his user page, I am quite shocked by them. But the attack reported here preceded those threats, so VinceB cannot say he questioned knowledge of other editors because of mental distress or something. Tankred 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Better to review your warning also, wheter it was calming, or just another wood dropped into the fire to make it bigger, especially the last line. And again, only I was warned by you, PANONIAN not. Your discussion page is full of assuming users of being sockpuppets, whether you wrote it or not, you not declined yrself from these accusations and not warned others to stop writing such things, and/or report them here, as you do it now. And we talked it through several times what's the problem with yr interpretation of things, such as me & sockpuppetry. --Vince 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to these diffs, VinceB has violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in mild ways. This isn't on the level that got him blocked before and a user page warning is appropriate for the current incidents. Although I'm not blocking for this I also want to make it clear that it isn't acceptable. If someone comes back in a few weeks and posts a series of diffs that demonstrate similar behavior as habitual, and if it's reasonably clear that other editors haven't provoked the put-downs and snide comments, then I will block. Durova 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with your summary of the events. But I would like to ask either you or someone else to actually warn VinceB. Only the CheckUser can show whether the PANONIAN really used sock puppets in a disruptive way. Without any evidence from CheckUser, it is very rude to say that a user with a record of 27,114 edits since 2004 and six barnstars "wrote death threats" or that he broke 3RR. It would be nice if VinceB can refrain himself from making new strong accusatory comments as he has just done (see diffs in the last sentence) until the CheckUser clarifies the whole situation. Tankred 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Block warning issued along with a couple of productive suggestions. Durova 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the matter of record, CheckUser showed that PANONIAN has not used sock puppets and he did not send any death threats to VinceB (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/PANONIAN). Tankred 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Post again if Vince's behavior escalates or continues. I hope the clear checkuser de-escalates the problem. Best wishes, Durova 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE (talk · contribs)

I've been editing the George W. Bush page and this user User:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE has engaged in alot of arrogant insinuation that his edits are justified. I browsed his contributions that he made to wikipedia and he's not able to restrict his personal opinion in the NPOV environment. Which I found out was evident here Talk:Bumfights especially at User talk:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE. Thank you for looking in. ViriiK 09:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs per instructions in the header. Shell 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've looked over the talk edits he's made around and since the time of your report; I didn't find anything particularly nasty, but he did write a lot. If there is something serious that I've missed, please cite diff(s) and mention specific lines or phrases used. Otherwise, I suspect his "arrogance" is below the sort of level that this board is accustomed to dealing with. You might consider getting together a few editors to start a request for comment if his behavior is problematic. Luna Santin 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages failed proposals
• Inactive project pages