Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 2 November 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Ethnic provocation on Balkan Articles

This is a complex one (aren't they all) User:Aradic-es an ethinc Croat and fairly nationalist by his own userpage (e.g. Support userboxes for Franjo Tuđman). Has several times tried to add information to a page on another ethnicity (Bosniaks). I hate to highlight the ethnicity but feel in this case it may help. The information has not always been technically wrong but early additions were poorly sourced and mocking in their tone. I have just undone a recent addition of his that added information including the "conquest of Ratko Mladic" and warned him on his talk page here. Can an admin please just use balkan sanctions and prevent him from editing Bosniaks as he is simply trying to provoke, his additions are highly inflamatory including the word 'conquest' for what turned out to be the most horrible genocide against Bosniaks of the whole recent Balkan conflict. The problems are not always obvious to someone who does not understand the issues but please also look at his block log and previous Balkans warnings against him here and here which show provocation seems to be his usual modus operandi. Polargeo (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a standard case for the dispute resolution process. Prodego 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal dispute with this editor. I am not a Bosniak and have nothing to do with former-Yugoslavia in my daily life. I am trying to highlight ethnic hate edits, disguised but not disguised enough. I would just appreciate a competant admin doing something about it, as is allowed under Balkan sanctions (maybe I should have just gone to my favourite admin and asked personally). If it is not possible to do something then hey fair enough, I tried. Polargeo (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of us know all about it. Feel free to notify him via the template here, and if he keeps it up, message me and I'll look into it myself. There is very little tolerance for these kinds of editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this, he was already notified last year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Topic-banned for a week by Ricky, with threats of block if he repeats. Thoroughly endorsed, we can have no tolerance for this kind of silliness. Moreschi (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL ,this is total nonsense.This is not what I (or some other Croat) say about Bosniak That is what they say about themselves. As I have explaned hereAñtó| Àntó (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So based on two blogs you linked to on the October 2nd (only this being relevant) in a section with no actual discussion at all, you waited three weeks and decided that you would add this paragraph including links to 13 other websites (of reliability I'll doubt)? I want to make sure I understand your justification. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

citations can be verified easily. All 13 of them. About Mustafa Cerić it is written in Bosniak press.Statements of Amhet Davutoglu as well.The riots after EURO 2008 also etc.

the Ratko Mladić statement is well known and there is a source for that.saying that Identifying Bosniaks with Turks is final citory of Ratko Mladić also come from Bosniak journalists.07:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my choice of words about Srebrenica conquest... yes in Srebrenica was genocide.I did not deny) that . I just mentioned the fact that Serbs conquered Srebrenica (and from military termnology that word is appropriate) . For Serbs it was off corse victory for Bosniaks (tragic) loss

What is innapropriate in my words??

my conflict with PRODUCER dates from May 2008. As I was able to see he is not ready to discuss at all.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You said Ratko Mladic "conquered" Srebrenica. He did not, it was a UN 'safe haven' that he walked into with no resistance because the UN had disarmed it. He rounded up all of the Bosniak men and killed them in the biggest massacre in Europe since WWII. Your mention of his quote which translates as this is his "revenge against the Turks" was used as part of a paragraph designed by you to show Bosniaks are like Turks. When used by Ratko (and by you) this is an insult. This is appauling behaviour you are adding highly inflamatory material to a page on another ethnicity, this is not constructive wikipedia editing it is you continuing Balkan conflict on wikipedia and must stop. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed Aradic-es' edits, but on a single point, you are wrong. Srebrenica was declared by the UN to be a safe haven, but was actually never made one, and units of ARBiH remained in the city armed, even exiting the city to terrorize surrounding Serbian population. Nikola (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

... and he continues to provoke me at every opportunity in various edits PRODUCER (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Which does not change the bare facts. and according to your contributions

• You (PRODUCER) are SPA edit warrior
• You have no one single article written
• Your 90% activities in article are (mostly blind) reverting

Summa summarum :not useful at all!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help at WP:REFUND?

Hello, Could an admin respond to this request ? I posted this on the talk page for WP:REFUND a day or so ago, but xe has been waiting for a while to get a response. (I got involved because it first came to DrV, a place I hang out.) Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

These appear to be 59 articles on constructed languages that were deleted due to lack of notability. I don't see any policy issue in retrieving these deleted articles, but they should probably be sent by email to User:Hobit. This task needs a patient admin volunteer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm not the person who wanted them. Just the messenger. If they are sent to me, I can get them to the right person of course. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock template help

After Prolog issued a block, Deadalus821 requested an unblock, and after consulting with Prolog, I've unblocked. However, I'm unsure what exactly to do with the tlx|unblock template; could someone who knows what they're doing please look at Deadalus' talk page and fix the template if necessary? Moreover, I'm not entirely sure that all autoblocks have been disabled (when I clicked on the "active autoblocks" link in the unblock template, I got a "This page cannot be displayed" error), so would you check that as well? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The template looks good to me. I clicked the autoblock checker tool thingy and it said no active autoblocks were present. Equazcion (talk) 18:35, 31 Oct 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I've just closed eight reports at this noticeboard. They stretched back to the start of 31 October, and thus most of them were stale (although many weren't actionable anyway). In fact, apart from one report it looks as though the board hasn't been updated since I closed another report on the evening of 30 October. Would be useful if more admins could watchlist the page - most reports are easy to close and this isn't the first time this has happened since the most active admin on this board had his admin bit removed. Black Kite 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, the last time I closed a 3RR report there and blocked the edit warrior, another admin undid it without consulting me because he believed the user had been goaded to do it, as though that were an excuse for 3RR. This has not motivated me to keep watching the board, much like WP:AE. I don't think I'll do much 3RR or AE patrol until ArbCom begins treating unblocks without consultation as desysop-worthy wheelwarring.  Sandstein  05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not going to happen, and with good reason. This illustrates a point I (and others) made in the Admin Recall RFC: we need to permit smaller sanctions for errors and misdemeanours to be discussed as well. Good faith small errors might lead to Community Service (I still like that idea), larger errors to suspension of privileges for a few days, for instance (implemented as a sort of temporary ban on using admin tools). Desysopping should be for bad faith bad apples, or those unwilling or unable to learn how to have a sufficiently low good faith error rate. Rd232 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards