Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roguegeek (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 26 September 2006 (→{{User|John_Spikowski}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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

MookiesDad (talk · contribs)

Numerous and repeated instances of abusive language, personal attacks, civility violations, assume good faith violations at Talk:Tom Swift and Talk:Tom Swift, Jr., with more acute examples at User Talk:Doxmyth. The latter is the Discussion link to Editing User:Doxmyth, created by MookiesDad to link from my own user name (in the manner normally used to link to my own User Page): see History page, Tom Swift, Jr.. Misuse of terms like vandalism despite several corrections by admin Antaeus Feldspar. Undiscussed amd unlabeled article reverts under name Pak434. See also some of his edit summary language. Unwilling to discuss content issues, characterizes my stated reasons as "specious". With respect to both these articles, User:MookiesDad has a lengthy history of conduct of this kind, anonymously and via sock-puppets. The mandatory template notification was posted to User talk:MookiesDad and to User talk:Doxmyth, eliciting a dismissive response. (Note that the content issue re these two articles was posted on RfC, by me--"PAIN" was not my first resort.) Given his lengthy history, I have little hope that this user will take seriously further discussion with me. These pages will show that I have made a good many attempts to move the content discussion forward: there is little more to be said, and he has stated explicitly that he intends to continue reverting my edits (noting that as a retiree he has plenty of time to do so). Doxmyth 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I'm drawing attention to the gentleman's history, note that today MookiesDad deleted about 99% of Talk:Stratemeyer Syndicate, which includes several examples of his conduct (as "User:69.205.13.193"). He also states his dismissive, defiant attitude toward Wiki policies and guidelines. This is why I'm skeptical of further efforts aimed at his rehabilitation. Doxmyth 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Naziakhanum (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly made personal attacks against myself on Talk:Tipu Sultan. While my comments there have been on content, not on contributor (per wikipedia policy), his comments have been directed against me personally, rather than on the content of edits, making it a personal attack. I had warned him against this before here, but he has persisted.

His attacks are summarized below: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATipu_Sultan&diff=77694207&oldid=77688747

In particular, the statement:

Plus, User:Mysorebhai, whom I believe is a sock of the user Naiakhanum, made a bogus npa warning against me,which is, in on itself, a personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATipu_Sultan&diff=77719483&oldid=77694207

Hkelkar 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clossius (talk · contribs)

I have met this user only twice: first on Talk:Pro Patria Union, and now on Talk:Arnold Rüütel. Regarding the article Arnold Rüütel, we have had an edit dispute, on the course of which Clossius has repeatedly used offensive language on me as 'arguments'. My edits to Arnold Rüütel (have been approved by other users) are regarded by Clossius as 'a form of vandalism', 'attempts at slander based on personal bias', 'soapboxing' etc. Even worse, when adding a noticeaboard entry for the article, he had used it as a vehicle for his one-side accusations: 'edits by User:Constanz that are merely political grandstanding and soapboxing'. I've warned him with tags, but he has removed these, accusing me of 'hooliganism', vandalizing', 'designing it to add insult'.--Constanz - Talk 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not put up ca counter-notice against User:Constanz here myself, but rather just respond (as it is the same case), yet I should point out that I see myself as the victim, rather than the aggressor, and I think that Constanz should be stopped doing so. I think the offensive language ad personam comes from Constanz, rather than from myself. My honest belief is indeed that he uses the Estonian politics articles - not only but certainly also - to soapbox his own political beliefs (which I often do not disagree with in substance, and where he is very knowledgeable as regards the fact), but that is not the point). I think his language has been much more offensive, going so far as to imply I'm a Nazi supporter; I should also point out that I have repeatedly tried to work with him on a constructive version of these articles, which he has always turned down.

On the details (for which I need no links because those by Constanz are fine):

1. The edits on Rüütel that have been "approved" by other editors (which just means they have written something after his changes, while not reverting the latter) have come after Constanz had actually mended his ways to some extent and had been more careful on the text (no doubt also contributing to it constructively).
2. With "a form of vandalism" I meant (and said that I meant) that, when he reverted my changes to his writing, he also removed labels, reinserted duplication (when the election was, e.g.), and removed update information.
3. I would stand by the "grandstanding and soapboxing" remark; I think that Constanz' edits - as proven by his edit summaries, which are often reserved for personal remarks - are motivated by special political proclivities (those listed on his user page), and so he has very strong opinions here and an axe to grind. I am not sure an editor should edit the entry for a politician whom he calls "this appalling remnant of a totalitarian regime" and "the old commie funcionary appearantly seeking life presidency", but if he does, he should not object of being slightly modified.
4. The warning tag was IMHO meant as harrassment, especially as I had previously declared that I did not want to continue talking to this editor (which means, nothing that could even be interpreted as personal attacks). It was always accompanied by offensive edit summaries as well. I think it is my right to do this, as it came from another user and was clearly done out of spite.

In sum, I realize that one easily sees himself as the victim, but if I try to objectivize here (not easy, admittedly), I still think that all this is an attempt at harrassment by Constanz. I would just like to see this personal vendetta cease; I have no issue with Constanz other than his personal attacks on me, and I would just like to continue editing Misplaced Pages in peace (if possible, also in the field of Estonian politics), without being personally insulted all the time. Clossius 07:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All in all, Clossius wrote here thrice as much as I did, but failed he to give any diffs to support his thesis of me having assaulted him personally on Talk:Arnold Rüütel.. Here we should rely on facts, not on interpretations by the people involved. My level of contributions can be evaluated as what I've inserted to Arnold Rüütel, Clossius has concentrated more on offensive language criticism on Talk:Arnold Rüütel and Talk:Pro Patria Union. --Constanz - Talk 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit I am not as good at Wikilawyering, but I don't think diffs are necessary, because Talk:Arnold Rüütel is short enough and quite clear, and because the diffs given by User:Constanz are basically fine anyway. As regards Talk:Pro Patria Union, this is a discussion from April, to which Constanz has gone back now in order to attack me; I only accidentally saw this and responded just twice, first by refusing his implication of Nazi leanings, and second to say that I would not want to discuss with him anymore, which I still don't. It's just very hard if you find harrassment every time you open your account, especially as he has opened several battlefields here. Let me reiterate that nothing would please me more if Constanz and I could just part ways and not say anything to each other anymore at all, including if our ways would cross accidentally on some factual matter. I just would find it sad to quit Misplaced Pages just because of one hostile antagonist.Clossius 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I haven't been following my current opponent's contributions list, so as to find smth for support/'harassment'. Indeed, to-day I tried to clarify my previous comments on Talk:Pro Patria Union, for it'll be looked upon anyway. Feel free to present finally some verifiable material to support your sentiments over the political party concerned.--Constanz - Talk 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked his list, yet Constanz has even posted links to previous disputes of mine (which is fine of course). And as I said, I will most certainly desist from working anymore on any articles or discussion pages in which he is involved, let alone take issue with him, before either the matter is solved in Misplaced Pages conflict resolution or before Constanz ceases his attempts to draw me into discussions (which he then interprets as attacks) - because I feel decidedly unfree to add anything substantial anymore. This is why he has also done more on Rüütel recently; I have just quit. I think we really should let the matter rest until the conflict is solved one way or the other. Clossius 08:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Constanz should be stopped doing so - I can't understand what I should be prevented from doing - contributing to Arnold Rüütel or answering to Clossius' comments on the alleged 'slander' and soapboxing' I've inserted into the article?--Constanz - Talk 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassing me. You can naturally continue editing Arnold Rüütel, especially if it is constructive and unbiased, as your last edits were. But on a personal level, if you cease any personal attacks, innuendos, or insinuations on any which page, I will be very happy, as I said many times, to completely part ways, and we both can do our editing wherever we see fit. Clossius 08:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be more than happy if I saw you once again contributing to articles, rather than having one-party dispute over my alleged 'bias' and 'slander'. I'll to continue my edits to Arnold Rüütel, I won't change anything allegedly biased stuff by merely your request, but look forward to other people's clear and moderate suggestions, what to do in order to remove POV-tag as a whole.Constanz - Talk 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, is it a deal then? We quit saying anything about each other on the various talk pages etc., and start focussing again on editing? I am perfectly willing to leave Arnold Rüütel and the discussion to yourself and other editors, and I agree that dealing with the POV-label there (which you btw put very correctly to the segment, rather than the article) should be left, as you suggest, to other editors.Clossius 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - turn to editing, consensus has not been against me on Arnold Rüütel article, we won't of course forget personal assaults listed there, I'd already learnt from Talk:Pro Patria Union, that it's better to formulate thesis clearly, impassionately and to prefer sources to self-interpretations. Handle like I've done - start editing articles and let neutral observers decide stuff disputed here.--Constanz - Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite what I said ;-), but if I may, I'll take that for an "ok". Clossius

I have looked at the edits above, and the articles in question. First, I am glad to see that you are still talking and seemed to have reached a civil agreement amongst each other above. Second, being a neutral observer who has reviewed only random parts of this agreement, it seems to me you have both commited some errors and then overreacted a little. Nonetheless I think you both mean well; my suggestion would be certainly in line with your own conclusion about avoiding ad hominem attacks. Then I'd suggest you try to reach a compromise version in the wording and content of disputed articles; try to remember that compromise is often defined as the solution were both parties are equally unhappy :) Instead of editing articles themselves, you may want to copy the disputed parts to talk and edit it there until you think the version is acceptable (thus there will be no reverts and irritating edit summaries in main article history).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah (talk · contribs)

I was having what I thought was a heated, but still civil, exchange with User:Zaphnathpaaneah regarding his (or her, I don't know) revert of an edit I made to article Black people. I had already conceded to his position when he made a comment that assumes bad faith and is a personal attack on me. He apparently believes that just because I stumbled into his edit war with User:Editingoprah, I was on Editingoprah's side. This is an assumption made without any evidence, as I have had no contact at all with Editingoprah. Further, Zaphnathpaaneah insinuates ad hominem that I and my contributions are childish, ignorant, and inane, because he falsely believes I am somehow in cahoots with Editingoprah. Again, this was said after I had already given up my position. Ironically, Zaphnathpaaneah lists himself in Category:Nice Wikipedians and gives himself a {{User wikipedia/No personal attacks}} userbox. This is the first time I have ever had a problem with a Misplaced Pages editor serious enough to ask for intervention. Zaphnathpaaneah is clearly goading me into reporting his abuses and while I am suspicious of his motives, I cannot let him continue to insult me in this way. Wl219 10:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply some diffs please to highlight what exactly are the problem statements. Tyrenius 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what I added to the Black people article, in the section "terms no longer in use": . This is what Zaphnathpaaneah wrote when he reverted: . This is what he wrote on my talk page at the same time as the revert: (8:09 UTC entry). This is my response to him (8:18 UTC entry), as I failed to see how it was vandalism. I was also not involved in his edit war with Editingoprah, but Zaphnathpaaneah keeps insisting that I somehow am even though I made but 1 edit. Our subsequent exchange is on his talk page: I warned him with the appropriate AGF and NPA tags, but he persists. Wl219 06:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

Mystar (talk · contribs)

Mystar (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a pattern of personal attacks in his contributions and edit summaries. Notable recent examples include this attack on another user, which was an echoing of comments here, this edit summary, and this veiled threat against another user. When this problem first emerged a few weeks ago, Mystar was warned a couple times, and for a while he moderated his tone. On his resumption of attacks, I left a note reminding him of WP:NPA and pointing out specific examples. He replied by denying that he had made attacks and accusing me of using sock puppets and acting in bad faith. I don't dispute that on occasion other editors may have occasionally been over the line in their comments, but I don't believe anyone's contributions have been as persistently virulent and unproductive as Mystar's, and as long as he doesn't believe he has made attacks, I believe he will continue to behave in this manner. Most immediately I'm looking for an admin or other neutral user to weigh in on whether his conduct has been acceptable. Brendan Moody 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I am now considering other forms of dispute resolution. Brendan Moody 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as you are so fond of stating Moody, offer up all the facts. You seem to keep forgetting that your buddies have been doing the instigating and staging random attacks. Not to mention have attacked me and you have done nothing but warn me. I find it interesting that your group is the only ones creating the unrest. I'm simply trying to keep them from totally demolishing some good pages. If need be I too can cite attacks and abuse. The pot calling the kettle black simply gets everyone covered in soot. Most immediately I’m looking for fairness and integrity...in short honesty! Again I have made no threats against anyone. I did tell the sock puppet WLU who suddenly showed up to edit war to divulge his/her true identity. To be honorable rather than hide. But he/she would much rather play games in his/her sudden attack against the Goodkind pages. As I've said. I have compiled several pages of material of these people planning and encouraging people to vandalize the Goodkind pages on their ASOIAF Message board. They did and I called them out.

I again call them out to edit in good faith. Which all we see is a couple of them edit warring. Deleting and tagging what they see as errors. Look IF you see a problem... stop and fix it! Don't tag it and run... Act in Good Faith! All we see is attacks against the Goodkind pages. If you don't like the way the material reads then edit it. Fix it! Some people only wish to create problems...as we see with Neofreak and WLU.

Stop being part of the problem and help the solution. Also if you are going to tattletale then do so for all parties involved. Show all the abuse... not just the person to who is trying to combat the vandalism. Trying for a high EDIT count is not reason to just go hopping about tossing tags on everything. Mystar 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to post specific diffs that you think constitute personal attacks on you. Indeed, I'll provide one myself. This reply by WLU (talk · contribs) is a rather blatant sarcastic insult, particularly the last sentence. As I've said repeatedly, he shouldn't do that; I'm in the process of writing a note for him to that effect. The reason I did not include him in this request is that he has not been given the required chain of warnings that you have, and has not in my opinion engaged in sufficiently frequent or virulent attacks that this sort of intervention is warranted. I may be wrong about this; reviewers and admins reading this page will have to judge that. But I am not obligated to identify conduct I do not consider egregious enough to warrant intervention simply because you consider it so. You remain free to offer your own commentary, and I encourage you to do so. As a general guide for reviewers and admins, I'll say that articles relevant to the large dispute to which Mystar alludes are Terry Goodkind, George R. R. Martin, Steven Erikson, and some pages related to topics in those authors' works. Brendan Moody 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) See above. Brendan Moody 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have not added any {{npa2}} or {{npa3}} templates to Mystar's talk page, or taken any other action, as Brendan Moody has scratched his request, but I'm moving the entire situation to Open Reports for an admin to keep an eye on or handle further as he/she feels may be appropriate. --Aaron 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Side comment. I really wish we could stop people from using edit summaries as a way of "talking" to others. I hate it. And it's the completely wrong way to use summaries. --Woohookitty 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) and Hagiographer (talk · contribs)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week per his personal attack parole (resulting from arbitration) for writing on his user page that one of his achievements was

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him.

This is a veiled reference to Hagiographer (talk · contribs), who acts exactly like Zapatancas (talk · contribs), the other party in arbitration. Squeakbox modified the reference so it now says,

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints.

Hgiographer claims this is still a personal attack and changed the user page on his own several times before it was protected. I would like some idea on whether the revised statement is acceptable or whether it sill constitutes a personal attack. No action is required at this time as Squeakbox is currently blocked for other reasons. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, the revised statement remains a personal attack. If nothing else, it implies that Hagiographer (talk · contribs) can't write, which is an insult. But also (and possibly more importantly given that this is an Arbcom matter), it's evidence that SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has little interest in adhering to the spirit of the Arbcom ruling, even if he is willing, under extreme admin pressure, to adhere to the letter of the ruling. If this was a run-of-the-mill matter, I'd slap an {{npa3}} tag on Squeakbox's user talk page in a heartbeat. But given that it's all in arbitration, I'll just leave this here for an admin to make the final decision. --Aaron 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend (talk · contribs)

He has repeatedly characterized my ethnic/religious affiliations in a pejorative manner. First, he wrongly accused me of being an upper-caste Hindu and evoked several anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmanist canards against me here. I warned him here. Then, he made some borderline anti-Semitic remarks concerning my Jewishness here(see bottom). I do not believe that my ethnic/religious affiliation is relevant to my edits on wikipedia, so I believe that these are personal attacks and I request that they be handled accordingly.Hkelkar 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: He has made another ethnic characterization against admins here. In particular note the following statement:

.This user continues to make these types of characterizations which are attacks on people and are detrimental to discussion on wikipedia.Hkelkar 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think at least some of this is a misunderstanding. I left a mild caution to be more careful. I hope that will be enough. Tom Harrison 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The racist and hateful comments keep pouring in and in and in . He has continued to pour in the anti-Hindu, racist remarks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy has attacked me, thegreyanomaly multiple times.

User Thegreyanomaly the article "Indian Buddhist Movement" is about Religious movement which is growing in India slowly since last 50 years. If you are anti-Buddhist we certainly don't have any objection about your religion. You can be a Brahmin-Hindu if you are a priest by profession in any temple otherwise you are a Shudra-Hindu because all non-priest i.e. non-Brahmins are SHUDRA in Hindu Religion. In Kali Yuga Hindus have only two Varna as per the religious philosophy of Hindus. If you are from India then you might be knowing that Buddhism in India was totally killed. Some blame Brahmins Or some blame Muslims for that, it is a vast topic of study. I don't want to blame anybody. Hindu Castiesm, Hindu Untouchability and Caste based Graded Inequality became very strong after fall of Buddhism in Indian sub-continent and before British came to India. Education to all non-Brahmins was banned and the rigid Hindu Religious laws made by Brahmins like Manusmriti, VishnuSmriti and other DharmaShastras became the laws to govern the non-Muslim society.

British gave education for all and broke the anti-Human Hindu Laws. After Independence Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India. He also established "Buddhist Society of India" certainly NOT Navayana Society! So there is no meaning branding the movement as Navayana. Because the founder of India's Buddhist Revival Movement which is certainly against Hindu Casteism and injustice that Hindus are doing since hundreds of years called his movement as Buddhist Movement. Also Dr. Ambedkar said that 'He will convert whole India back to Buddhism' but he was killed just within 6 weeks after his conversion to Buddhism. Some people blamed Brahmins for his death. It is not sure how he died. I dont want to blame anybody. So you can discuss current Buddhist Developments in the article "Indian Buddhist Movement". About Hindu Caste and related things you better write to Hindu Articles Or Caste Related to Articles. If Navayana is a anto-caste publication then you should put that link in Caste Related article.

In India legal system we have Hindus, Muslims, Christens and BUDDHIST as different religion. Expecially our 2001 cencus gives more details about different religions population. We dont have any 'Navayana Buddhist' in whole India neither it is recognized legally anywhere. Officially we have around 1% Buddhists in India. This population unofficially can be 4% also because thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. But lets take official figures.

Caste is a problem of Hindus certainly not the problem of Buddhists. Be a contributor to wikipedia but don't just try to vandalise different articles. Dhammafriend 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This one was both on my user talk page and on Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement

I responded to him

Umm... I'm an EX-Brahmin who converted to Theravada Buddhism...

I edited Navayāna into the article because in Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste by Gail Omvedt (This book is incredibly anti-Caste and is pro-Buddhist) I have read Neo-Buddhism being referred to as Navayana, which is is obviously a non-IAST transliteration of navayāna.

"Ambedkar's Buddhism seemingly differs from that of those who accepted by faith, who 'go for refuge' and accept the canon. This This much is clear from its basis: it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada, the the Mahayana, or the Vajrayana. The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?" (8)

The book blatantly says that Ambedkar DESIGNED what has become known as navayāna.

He did not found the Navayana publishing house. I edited in that there is a Navayana publishing house into the article so people would not confuse, navayāna, yāna, and Navayana, the publishing house.

I'm going to put the navayāna comment back into Indian Buddhist Movement. Please do not edit it out again. Navayāna is an accepted name of neo-Buddhism.

Peace, TheGreyAnomaly

That one was on the Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement and there is more to his response on that page. Please ban him. He is beyond being disciplined

Buddhist do not have caste neither they believe any former caste like Brahmin,Bhangi ,Scheduled Caste, OBC caste etc. So don't claim false things. I have Buddhist friends in America who can certainly verify your identity. So if want to discuss you can also meet our Buddhist friends in America so don't try to fool wikipedia community. Who gave you ordination as Buddhist? Do you know the process to become a Buddhist? Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC), Thegreyanomaly 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC), Thegreyanomaly 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, he has not posted anything since I left my caution on his talk page. Let's see if that helps. Tom Harrison 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While the complaint is still pending, he just made more ethnic attacks against me. He called me "anti-Buddhist" and characterized my alleged "Caste" by referring to me as a "Brahmin"/"Shudra" (amusingly, I'm not even a Hindu).I am adding diffs to that effect in the PAIN report but I humbly request you to please intervene. His inflammatory comments in the talk page of Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement are making it very difficult for us legitimate editors to create a good article. The diffs of his most recent attacks are below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIndian_Buddhist_Movement&diff=77509724&oldid=77417417

In particular, the comments from the diff above:

Referring to both me and User:Nat Krause

and

Despite the fact that I have made no attacks against anyone.

Hkelkar 09:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Making bogus allegation citing diffs which does not substantiate your claims are also a sort of attack.Now you are just testing the patience of the community with these bogus allegations. Ikon |no-blast 09:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though it is dhammafreind's NPA I would recommend some action against user:Hkelkar for making ANB a tool of harassing users citing bogus diffs and presenting false cases.Two had been made against me by this user,and it is third now. Ikon |no-blast 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the admins reach that decision.An admin has already spoken to Dhammafriend about this before and he has ignored his words. That alone speaks volumes.10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkelkar (talk • contribs)

Yes admins are expected to reach some decision else ,wikipedia will become sort of hell with editors like you.I can't expect you to improve(sorry but assuming good faith is very difficult when facts are loaded against it),even though you were specifically warned against bogus reporting by Dab in my case you have not improved. Ikon |no-blast 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Where?Hkelkar 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Very bold to say that you will violate WP:AGF on the basis of some vague assertions regarding facts.Hkelkar 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow Go ahead now you are giving live presentation of how you misrepresent rules.WP:AGF does not ask for assuming good faith when the person has got history of bogus reporting. Ikon |no-blast 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Now that's what I call circular logic. Using the accusation of "Bogus Reporting" to prove "Bogus reporting".I'm so glad most wikipedians don;t do that, else there'd be chaos ^_^ .Hkelkar 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No comments per WP:SNOW,arguing with you is like throwing stone into mud. Ikon |no-blast 11:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the incivility has continued and become disruptive, I have blocked Dhammafriend for 24 hours. I caution everyone involved to comment only on content, not other people, and to not respond in kind to any attacks. Tom Harrison 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

John_Spikowski (talk · contribs)

John Spikowski constantly personally attacks me and the PanoTools user group f.e.: 1 2 3. He was recently banded for a 3RR.

All this happend after the warning. Roguegeek listed him yesterday but thought this issue is solved. You will easily find the older attacks like this and the comment in this

Thx for your help. --Wuz 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I left him an {{npa3}}.--Konstable 04:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• He attacked me again on my talk page and made unproper OT statements. . --Wuz 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've left a final warning. Tyrenius 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Myself along with several editors including Wuz have had to constantly warn him about off topic conversation and how this can be disruptive and unproductive. I simply don't think he will ever understand the Misplaced Pages guidelines about this subject. This should be watched with him. Roguegeek (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rastishka (talk · contribs)

A little over a week ago, I posted a complaint here regarding User:Rastishka making personal attacks on me. This person has resumed personal attacks on me as of today, so I'm back here to file another report as Konstable suggested I do in such a case. See here (scroll to the bottom) for my original complaint.

As you can see, User:Konstable blocked him for one week for personal attacks. He has been blocked in the past by User:Alex Bakharev for 3RR, edit warring and personal attacks. If you view his talk page User talk:Rastishka, you can see that it is filled with nothing but warnings, block messages, and requests from bots asking him to fix his unsourced image uploads.

Here is his newest attack on me, falsely accusing me of "trolling" and "vandalizing":

He also continues to edit war at Debbie King, providing no basis for the notability of his edits. TheQuandry 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him not to call people names. Maybe a third opinion on the content would be useful. Tom Harrison 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* TheQuandry 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages failed proposals
• Inactive project pages