Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609

User:BlackJack has issue several complaints against a number of users for editing his material. He has gathered around him a handful of supporters on the Wikicricket project who assisted him in reverting an indefinite block against himself. Anyone editing his work is accused of being a sockpuppet despite several IP sources being used. His own site is protected so redress has to be acted out in public. His general tone is abusive as an examination of his posts will show - He makes no response to reason and mercilessly uses his own ebook as a source despite the fact that reputable commentators have pointed out the unsubstantiated and weak nature of the text therein.(He makes use of scorecards which is fine though he claims to have researched them himself when in fact such pre 1800 lists exist in standard text books and publications). He has claimed copyright or licence or whatever that is over some of the content which I think would last 50 seconds in court. In addition he has made posts on Entries directing readers to his authorised version. He has abusively used a string of sockpuppets and was banned for doing so. I believe he is bad for wikipedia and has held part of the cricket section open to derision. I am using this user name in order to access the site.08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinersArms (talk • contribs)

Because you've created this account entirely for this report, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what article[s] these issues have come up upon. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. I have no idea about the current edits in this issue (largely because the OP didn't exactly explain which ones were at issue--SURPISINGLY a lot of sports articles get vandalized). Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And for further reference, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BlackJack's website and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BLACKJACK'S SITE. This appears to be an argument about a user self-referencing his own website. This could be cleared up quickly if BlackJack could explain how he is to be considered a reliable source and everyone could go back to editing cricket articles again. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

I posted a large thread here about a behavioral pattern.

I am in this section only gonna focus on the recent continuing disruption of the Asmahan article that is on probation.

I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that [1] that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [2] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say, [3] Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. This is the same old behavior that Arab Cowboy and NT did repeatedly which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SD has for the last 9 months made every effort to be the sole editor of Asmahan and other pages in the Asmahan arbitration case. Other editors are either banned from contributing or are completely disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being. I, personally, have no time for more endless arguments on the talk pages, however, I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration.SD is subject to a topic ban specifically related to Asmahan due to his extremely disruptive behavior, while I am not under any restriction. While I am busy to be a regular contributor, I cannot allow SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; you're saying you will not allow any edits to the article that are not approved by every editor subject to the arbitration case? Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He is saying that he will revert any edit not accepted by user Arab Cowboy. Nefer Tweety is an account which is exclusively used to perform the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy.[4] AC is temporally banned from the article for sockpuppeting and NT is continuing to perform ACs edits as shown above and also: On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before [5]. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary. NT has been blocked before for performing ACs edits. [6] And he is continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nefer Tweety: Consensus is not decided by a fixed group of editors for each article. If there is consensus that edits should be made, from whichever users responded to the discussion, you should not revert them; if you do, it's you who'll be the subject of an arbitration enforcement action, not Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness, attempt to get some strong consensus that these edits should be made; if you can do that, this entire situation becomes clear-cut. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Traian basescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is violating wikipedia rules in countless ways. The account appears to be a reincarnation of this IP, which I had just warned regarding edits on the Traian Băsescu (edits such as these). I also reverted the edits for BLP and simple vandalism concerns, but the IP reinserted them and added other such stuff (100% of the edits so far relate to this). The "Traian basescu" account (which, btw, violates our user name polices) surfaced the moment I warned the IP, and the similarity in editing can be seen for instance here and here. Once I and another user reverted these edits, the IP resurfaced yet again, and continued to edit exactly the same nonsense. This guy, it appears, will only be stopped by a block and a semi-protect of the article. Dahn (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocking per
  WP:USERNAME and the above. Guy (Help!
  ) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Edits have been reverted; user is contrite and unblocked. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(posting the following here for him as he is unable to do so at the moment. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

My sincere apologies, I was using a script rather than a bot. I did check everything very very carefully and I am extremely willing to repair any problems.

For The Seven Seas 279° 28' 30" NET

18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thesevenseas, why did you not respond to the messages on your talk page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thesevenseas did not post that message here. I copied it from his talk page as I felt it was applicable here. He is currently blocked and can not post anywhere other than his talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nihonjoe, I was aware of that and cross posted to Thesevenseas' talk page, but wanted to try and keep ANI in the picture (as you can see I gave up immediately ;D) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have offered to unblock, contingent on his agreeing to revert the changes, then discuss and test the code additions prior to their insertion into hundreds of templates. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unblock him, the preventative aspect of the block is no more. He acknowledged that he was using a script and should get some additional trouting for it, he has been here long enough to known better, but the block serves no function anymore. Amalthea 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on Thesevenseas' talk page, I agree an unblock would be warranted here, as the original reason for the block no longer stands (since Thesevenseas wasn't using a bot). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as Kralizec seems to be happy with any other admin reversing the block, I have done so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• FYI I've reverted these mass edits... In my opinion the templates are not so precious as to demand subst'ing. It's better that an appropriate warning get to an editor rather than worrying about if it was subst'ed properly. That being said, if a discussion finds consensus that these edits are helpful, by all means reinstate them. –xeno^talk 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This user,

Seems like a mistake to me. Weren't you just here yesterday trying to get sanctions on another editor in the same dispute? Yeah. AniMate 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Seems like a mistake to me that also looks like a purposly written excuse so they look innocent if this happend (see the time of that post, and the time I confronted them). It looks like you are also trying to find excuses for their behaviour... We are talking about senior wikipedians, and they all knew quite well the mediation has not been atributed. Aren´t you the one that atributed awards to

User:DIREKTOR? Yes. Also, yesterday you were all but objective. You started analising my English, [9] as if that was in discussion... Am I forbitten to report if I can´t writte in perfect English? I don´t think so. Also, the other admin that gave his opinion yesterday, User:Polargeo is also the one that gives awards to Direktor [10]... Also defended him, and said that I had bad intention (???). Why am I not suprised? Unfortunatelly for me, I am in disagreement with DIREKTOR, so I have to listen to all kind of obscenities and take all kind of dirty games from him and his group, because it looks like they have people defending them, and leaving this cases in the garbage... Maybe it would be better to have some other Admins analising this case that don´t have connection with this people (DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27). Thank you for your opinion anyway. FkpCascais (talk

) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well

User:DIREKTOR and Nuujinn only have one article talk page and no articles in common. Yet you've accused AG27 of lying and Nuujinn of having a previous relationship with them when none appears to exist. You've attributed what looks to be a simple misunderstanding into something sinister. Assume good faith, because there's nothing actionable here. However, your repeated frivolous reports here that reek of bad faith may be an issue to look into. AniMate

05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming

WP:AGF for 2 months now. Their behaviour is still very wrong, but you instead choose to discredit my reports. And you also insist in excusing an intentional missleading of an attribution of a madiator (they falsifiyed a mediator, and when caught, they said it was accidental!). That looks bad faith to me. I am asking you please to stop discrediting my reports and to stop intimidating me about making further reports if necessary. If you find unusufull to read them, let other Admins analise it, but please stop defending and excusing people you know. FkpCascais (talk

) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:You are saying that AG27 didn´t lied to me when said that Nuujinn was the mediator? Well, you are wrong, yes he was. And they all have been very much in touch for days now (direktor and AG27 for months...), so am I liying? And naming intentionally someone "mediatior" to mislead is quite sinister... but you prefer to call it "simple missunderstanding" and say that me reporting it is sinister. Stop taking constantly their side, try at least to be neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Stop taking constantly their side, and start taking my side." There, fixed that for you. Anyway, diffs or it didn't happen. I feel strongly about baseless accusations of lying. Show us diffs that prove they are indeed lying and have been in touch for months and people might take this report more seriously.--Atlan (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh its just nonsense! Al mistakenly thought Nuujin was a mediator and told FkpCascais that he was one, Nuujin corrected him immediately, and FkpCascais started accusing everyone they're "lying" to him and such. The reason why FkpCascais is feeling helpless and "ganged-up" is that he insists on removing four university publications and the sourced information they support based only on his opinions as to what is The Truth!^TM. Naturally everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that, and here comes Fkp with nonsense reports trying to get everyone blocked without any basis so that he can have his way. --

TALK

) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions for me about this, please let me know, but I don't want to throw unnecessary bits on the camel. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Atlan, your comment is close to vandalism.

@direktor, stop missleading about my requests. They have been many times well explained to everyone (including you), so I can only conclude you are doing it on purpose and acting in bad faith. Here are they as explained to you in the discussion: here or directly to you here, besides continuosly repeting it on several other ocasions. This intentional missunderstanding of yours is also making the discussion there completelly useless (you are doing this for 2 months now), and since you are also boycoting the mediation request, it is really you that is acting in bad faith and doing everything possible to obstruct further discussion. Also, you can´t behave civily and stop insulting me neither here, at ANI!. You are also liying when saying that "everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that", meaning the Admin

No such user, who was quite critical at your position, as he told you your talk page, knows nothing about WP??? Direktor, could you please accept mediation request so all this silly accusations of yours get really under some neutral scrutinium, and see if you are that right as you say, and get over with this. FkpCascais (talk

) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, for the record.
I'm afraid that this dispute becomes quite unsolvable with current actors (chiefly Direktor vs. FkpCascais), with both sides entrenched and unlikely to move from constant

No such user (talk

) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thank you very much for some kind words. It is nice to have at least for once the recognition that I had been badly treated there. I would like to point some things:

• Regardless of what the discussion content is, or who is defending what, or even who is right (abstraction), from what I understand uncivility shouldn´t be tolerated in any case.
• I completely disagree that I have "entrenched" myself. I have been the only one that has been constantly cooperative and discussing from the beginning to now. If anyone, it was me that wasted more than the half of all kilobites found on the discussion, but I simply came across some unbelivebily obstructing contra-arguments that made extremely hard (well, imposible) to reach any kind of consensus.
• Regarding the discussion itself, there has been some huge missunderstanding about the points I am defending there. I am not neither a D.Mihailovic neither a Chetnik simpatizer. I get involved in the article in the moment I saw direktors exageration and missinterpretation of the sources he has been using. If a source says "an effort of collaboration has been done, but it has been rejected" you just can´t use the source for a claim like: "Mr.X, a WWII Axis collaborator,...". It is not me that has to bring sources that say DM didn´t collaborated because that is not what I defend. I defend the correct use of the sources, maynly because I am a Law enthusiast, and not a Chetnik or Mihailovic one. With the already existing sources, I had enough for already 2 months of debate, and I don´t want, neither have time, to bring more sources, so we start analising them now until August. I really hope this gets clear to all parties involved. I also beleve that one of the main reasons for a missunderstanding between me and direktor is the fact that I have been looking to this case in a practical, judicial, and interpretational manner, while he has been giving far more weight to his emotional and historical perspective.
• Regarding Atlan, he has been quite offensive towards me here in already two occasions. Giving the fact that I don´t know him from nowhere, and that I don´t understand the reason of his interventions here, I don´t see any reason to come into any kind of dialogue with him. But, I will report him in case it becomes necessary.
• Regarding my reports here, I apologise for not having any experience in making them the most practical but, since I consider myself a devoted wikipedian, that fact wan´t make me stop making further reports to admins whenever I feel the WP:PG are not being followed (I will obviously study them better).
• About the people that I had reported, I just want to make clear that I had never asked any kind of blocking for them, as I am many times acused of. My main intention here was maynly to prevent further behaviour of this kind. I am far more intrested in getting things going, rather than punishing people. But, if that is impossible for me to do without some intervention, I wan´t be discouraged to ask for help here.
• Hoping my comment was helpfull in clarifiying any doubts, I would like to express my gratitude one more time to
  User:No such user that accepted my invitation to spare part of his time and give his opinion on this subject. FkpCascais (talk
  ) 10:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also want to point some strange things that happend: At the beggining of all this, and after having us both (direktor and me) been blocked for having broked the 3r rule on the article, we both receved an advice from the blocking Admin User:TomStar81 not to edit the article "until we agree to edit civily", my talk page message equal to both of us. The article was blocked (February 18) for one month, and after the protection was removed (March 18), initially we both refrained from editing the article. Since I was the only one that continued in persuing discussion on the page, (direktor ignored it completelly, he was abscent from February 24 to March 27, more then a month) I was mistakenly thinking that discussion was what TomStar81 said (he explained later to me that was only advice, not demand). After exactly one week since the article was deblocked, direktor reverted again the article restoring his version (exactly the same reverting for which he has been blocked) [11], but this time reverting not me, but another two users. Since I had wrongly understood that neither one of us should edit the article until we don´t reach agrement on the discussion, even worste, insisting in the same previous revert, I re-reverted direktor [12] remembering him about the discussion. Since I had said some things that I shouldn´t to direktor in another talk page [13], he made here on ANI a emotional report on me that resulted in me being blocked for one week! [14]. During that period, User:User:Jean-Jacques Georges suported my version of the article [15], and edited the article remembering direktor that he should also discuss at the talk page (since he had completely ignored my on the talk page, for more than a month). Direktor promptly reverted him [16] (see edir summary, brutal!) and made him one quite agressive post at the talk page Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive_2#New_edits_by_User:FkpCascais, in wich, beside other things, he purposly missinforms Jean-Jacques Georges about the reasons for my block (I was still one weak blocked then) and intentionally itimidated him on his insistance on supporting my edits, that were wrongly presented as "little more than POV vandalism". User:Jean-Jacques Georges, after seing that direktor acts with total impunity, reverting as he wishes and whatever he wants against everybody, he obviously has understood that the issue there (on the article) was not being taken seriously. Since then, Direktor has been "policeing" the article reverting all edits that not his ones. Direktor made a total of 7 reverts since the page was "opened" on March 18 [17], and a total of 20 since February 13 [[18]. Both User:AlasdairGreen27 and User:Brutaldeluxe also reverted just recently other users so direktor´s version is "in place". I am just wandering, I was blocked for a week for reverting once, as explained my talk page, but he reverts everybody all the time with complete impunity!?!? As I know, discussion is a way to prevent edit-warring (where I was giving at that time all my efforts, and was being respectfull and never more edited the article), but in this case, nobody asked direktor to discuss, but the edit-warring was rather stoped by blocking me for one entire week for having reverted ONCE, obviously disencouraging me to edit further the article. Other very important question for me, am I allowed to edit the article? (for instance, other thins not in question on the discussion)? I do fear to do it so I don´t get blocked for entire week without even knowing it, as happend (and it was all but vandalism)... I will be enormously thankfull to any admin that spares me his time to explain this rather unusual and unfair situation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to advise 70.116.134.247 (talk · contribs), trying to get their content dispute on-track; however, after a final warning, they persist with Ad hominem arguments; diff. I would think, at this stage, a short block is appropriate, for their non-civil behaviour and comments about another editor.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Although a short-term block could be considered for that last diff, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. At least the user has engaged in conversation on the talk page, I'd say first wait and see what their next move is, if they persist in being disruptive then a block will be necessary. -- œ^™ 04:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [19] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU after another bout of incivility during which he and an IP sock of a banned user "brainstormed" on how to get me blocked from editing enWiki. The user at that time characterized me as a "propagandist" and my behavior as "abnormal" further insulting my mental health by calling me a "very ill and frustrated person". [20]

This trend continued. He was soon back in full form and, regardless of the warning, continued to insult others as well as myself:

• he stated that I "shit out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [21] (This was due to my sincere attempt to point out aspects of
  WP:V
  to the fellow, while he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal".)
• he continued to insinuate that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" on several occasions [22][23]
• he insulted my origins by calling me an "imbecile" and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [24]

He was blocked for a week after this by Black Kite, apologizing in his attempt to get unblocked, and claiming this is the last we've seen of this behavior.

• pretty soon I was being called "simple" [25] and unfit to edit articles due to my Croatian ethnicity ("Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history"). Further insinuating that I supporting Nazism in the article by "nazifying" people. [26] User:FkpCascais had voiced prejudice against Croats on previous occasions as well, demanding, among others things, that all publications by a Standford U professor be disregarded as the author might be of Croatian ancestry. [27]
• User:AlasdairGreen27 and I were called "terrorists" [28] as part of a tirade during which he insulted and ridiculed both users.
• In accordance with his previously stated intent ("The most important is to gather all the problems he already had and present it to some admin") [29], he filed two reports against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself, attempting to get us both blocked and out of the way with obviously falsified and distorted claims (virtually no diffs, just cleverly written emotional text). [30]
• Finally, the user has just recently insulted my intelligence yet again by insinuating that my "IQ is minor" and that I "simply don't understand when something is repeated many times to you". [31]

This, I must stress, is the brief account. To be frank, I am honestly sickened by this constant abuse being leveled at others and me during the course of ordinary discussion. --

This is just a response to a ANI report that I have made related to this same discussion. [32] just earlier.

@direktor: You can´t have me blocked for something I have said to you in quite some time now, and for what I have already been blocked. You can´t repeat reports!. Regarding your Croat ethnicity, I am just saying that you (an assumed Titoist and a Croatian) may not be the most NPOV person to find yourself owner of the trouth regarding a monarchic Serbian movement (quite logic, since they fought both, Tito and Croatia, and your repeated accusations towards me that I am a "Serbian nationalist" are much more offensive, since I am only partially Serbian, and much less can I be considered "Serbian nationalist"). I have Croatian wikipedians that in case of need may confirm my excellent relationship and total abscence of any nationalistic feelings not only against Croatia, but any nationality. I am quite a "non-national" or "world" person. Hey, I have Croatian friends, an ex-girlfriend and a house in Croatia (well not me, the house is of my family, we all use it, on the Adriatic coast).

I didn´t called no one terrorist. You insulted me on that ocasion insinuating that I am "paranoid" and that I have "the powers against me", to what I have said to you something like, well, it looks more like some minor annoying terrorist organisation that has been bothering me." If you insultuously troll editors on some serious discussion, this sort of unswer is the least that you can expect.

I have been lately very patient and polite with you.

You haven´t been with me: As clearly even possible to be seen here on ANI [33] but anyone can also go to the discussion talk page and see what is really going on (who is trolling, and who is being serious).

Resumingly, you are being "sickened" that I had insisted over 2 months, against all your obstructing behaviour, and get you to sign today a mediation request, so this dispute can finally be analised by someone neutral. I am really happy to get this going forward so we can reach an end to this. I had already asked you never to comment on my talk page any more, and I also really expect not to have any more contact with you after this gets over.

Ah! And just to demonstrate the kind of manipulation I have been taking from you: You claim I had insulted your IQ, well this is what I have said: [34] so by that, everybody can see that I just said exactly the oposite: "I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you." saying that I find you intelligent, and that was impossible, and bad faith, that you intentionally missunderstand something whan repeated to you over and over again. I also don´t beleve that you didn´t understood this (I even explained it to you), so again, your manipulation, and much, much bad faith. I really wished I had your ability to distorce the ANI reports as you do, and do it with impunity. (you even just called my ridiculously inexperinced and badly written on hurry report on you, an "cleverly written emotional text", I feel flatered!)

Btw, many of your diffs have nothing to do with what you are saying...

Oh, and about "simple", I just now understood what is about... It was when I´ve said to User:BoDu to "be kind with you because it seems that you don´t have too many kilobites to spend." But, how can you feel offended by this? when it was just after you had insulted the other editor that, because he disagreed with you, had you saying to him:"[35] that you want be responding to him any more because it was a "waste of type and kilobites". It is really you that should have been reported here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:I apologise for my enormous comment, but some things just had to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a new thread about this every day? Couldn't this just have been added to the other one which is still on this page? Anyway, mediation will have to resolve whatever content dispute you are in. However, it's quite clear FkpCascais can be quite insulting in his comments, as shown by those diffs. It seems FkpCascais acknowledges this, but finds this sort of communication justified in dealing with opposition, or doesn't understand how he is being insulting. In fact, he happily continues calling DIREKTOR a troll in his response here, again without any diffs to back up this serious allegation. I asked for diffs in the previous thread, a question which FkpCascais qualifies as borderline vandalism. I feel that if FkpCascais continues to sour discussions with his continued insults and assumptions of bad faith, he should just be taken out of the equation. Saves the mediators a headache as well, so we all win (except maybe Tylenol).--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment You forgot one big lost. Article itself. I think that that is the most important part in your equation. I hope that this massive content dispute will be fixed in the mediation. --Tadija^speaks 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I will kindly ask you to remove your comment Atlan. We don´t know eachother from nowhere, you are not an Admin, I have never been incorect with you (yes, your assumption on your comment was close to vandalism). You are being highly provocative towards me, and your comments are all but not fair. All this without any reason. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One comment: User:FkpCascais' preemptive "counter-reports", which obviously do not carry weight, should not be a reason for this serious report to be ignored. It is an old and generally known tactic: User:FkpCascais called us "terrorists" so I sternly warned him that he may get reported for this kind of behavior if it continues. As a response, he tried to get both User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself blocked with two very offensive (and annoying) false reports.

Posting massive replies and "counter-reports" are two basic methods for avoiding sanctions when reported on WP:ANI. I'm hoping they will not work here. My post is completely supported by diffs, its a simple account of offenses - please do not ignore. --

TALK

) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija, I mentioned I have no comment on the content dispute, as that is all way over my head. If you feel articles will suffer with the loss of FkpCascais, then I'll just have to take your word for it. However, and that was my main point, if all your one's comments are accompanied by assumptions of bad faith and plain insults, you one shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism here on ANI and even a block. I'm aware tempers might flare and discussions can get heated, especially in this contentious area, but that's no excuse to call other editors terrorists and implying their IQ is low, among other things. Futhermore, FkpCascais still fails to supply any diffs proving his allegations of lies and trolling and instead goes on counter striking any opposition he meets. I can't be particularly bothered by calling my comments vandalism when they clearly are not, but it does illustrate the problem with the way FkpCascais deals with other editors.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Atlan, are you sure what are you doing here? You have just told User:Tadija that he "might be on criticism here, or even a block"... because he said that he hopes the dispute gets solved??? I am sorry to tell you this, but from what I see, you are only making things worste for people you suposedly defend... I think direktor has been able to handle himself quite well in this conflictous situation. I even respect him a lot and I could easily call him a "specialist", or an "expert" on this kind of disputes, so I really beleve that is kind of offensive from your part towards him to beleve that he couldn´t survive this reports without your precious help. Anyway, you really should spare yourself from further embaracement and remove the unfortunate comments that you have made. I don´t see even one correct neither objective sentence in them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And also Atlan, regarding the IQ issue, what I said is the oposite, something like,"I don´t beleve that you are a low IQ that doesn´t understand when something is being repeated over and over again". I am already repeating this... FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, all I told Tadija is that I'll take their word for it if they say you are a valuable content contributor. The rest of my comment was about you, as is rather obvious because it's your edits under scrutiny here. I've altered my post to make that more clear.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the IQ remark: That one's equally bad. You basically say: "I don't think you have a low IQ, but it appears you have one anyway." Maybe not as clear an insult as "you are stupid", but an insult nonetheless, even if you didn't mean it that way. What it basically comes down to, is that you should be more careful in what you say to others.--Atlan (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, what I really mean could be resumed to something like, "I know you are smart, and this missunderstanding has another reason behind, that clearly is not your lack of capability in understanding it." I do recognise that I can be arrogant, but I didn´t insulted nobody, obviously because I have been very carefull, and measured all the words I have said. You must have in account that the majority of the diffs direktor provided are previous to a block that I already and rightfully had because of it. I can´t be punished twice for the same crime... The only ones that direktor has in this report that could be analised are the ones he calls: "simple", "terrorist" and this "IQ missunderstanding". (you can check and see that in all of the cases direktor made quite a missinterpretation and exageration in order to make it look like something that really isn´t). I could only be acused perhaps on arrogance here, but if you rally want to see, you should check the reasons why I have said it, so you could really confirm that they were really soft responces to much worste expressions that were directed towards me. Anyway, I do acknolledge that a really cleaver person would avoid answering to such provocations, but you must understand that after 2 months of this constant game, it is really hard for me not to come from time to time with some of this answers. I am guilty of arrogance, but you can also see that I am not pretentious, and that I fully acknolledge that on that subject, I am miles behind direktor, and he could really teach me about it. Anyway (I don´t have to, but I´ll do it anyway), I do recognise some reason on your critics about my attitude, and I promise you that I am going to be way less arrogant in future and even more carefull. I sincerely thank you for you having started to have consideration my arguments as well, and the explications I adressed to you, and I send you regards. FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the "Nazification" crack. How many insults of yours do you think I need to list before an admin should block you? If not 4, maybe 6? 7? 10? You were warned, disregarded that warning and got blocked, and then once again continued the exact same behavior. --

TALK

) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, 1 should be enough, but it has to be a real one... Since the block you got me, I did continued with exact same behaviour, I have been extremely patieny with you. Regarding "nazification", thank you for reminding me, I really think that you should treat this issues much more carefully. You have been giving yourself too much freedom on your description of certain historically sensitive issues. I have already told you that you shouldn´t behave so pretentiously about freely making characterizations without any support, just based on your assumptions. You continuously act as you know more than all the experts on the subject. Unfortunatelly, WP is an encyclopedia where some assumptions can´t be described as so because some anonim person calling himself DIREKTOR say so. I will really have to advise you for your own good to lower your level of pretention and open yourself for receving further knolledge. Each day is a new lesson, and fortunatelly for the ones that want, life is good! Cheer up, and if I were you, I would start preparing myself for the mediation, because I am sure the mediators want be so patient with your unpresicions and weird argumentations as I have been. Good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, only one more important thing. It has been very painfull to see the way you treat other users that disagree with you. WWII is over for a long time now, you know... FkpCascais (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be evading his Commons indef. block for uploading images without permission here on Wikipedia. Can someone look into this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please notify them.

talk

) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 year for uploading copyright violations. Any admin is free to unblock without consultation if they feel it would be appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your notification of this user for their 1 year block has been altered by User:Helloworldhelloiran to read that Helloworldhelloiran has blocked AH for 1 day. Weakopedia (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution histories it may be that AH has taken the new username Helloworldhelloiran and continued to edit around their block. Weakopedia (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Wiki talkpage policy I have undone the changes to the block notice. Weakopedia (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Helloworldhelloiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption and apparent forgery attempts. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)