Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719

So I think your comment is more about the beef you have with me, than some deeper insight into Drrll's psyche. I would prefer to hear his reasoning, and of course opinions of people who do not patronize me at every opportunity :) --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your close violated

WP:CIVIL when you edit warred and deleted Drrll's final statement from the WQA report, not once but twice.[45][46] It remains deleted at this time. You should not have closed the report due to your heavy involvement in the discussion and your obvious "beef" with Drrll and the fact that Drrll himself objected to the close in the comments you deleted. When faced with such a situation, you revert your close and request the help of an uninvolved party. Viriditas (talk

) 04:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By this definition, pretty much the entirety of wikipedia is uncivil! I have no beef with Drrll, at all (in fact, I do not recall ever being in an edit conflict with him) - do have a beef with false reporting and false claims of personal attacks against admins and editors in good standing. I do find interesting in your logic you support his refactoring of my closing comment, yet not my reversion of his borderline vandalism - you seem to think my behavior was uncivil but not his. That's ok, it only solidifies my opinion of you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and no need to repeat I reverted him twice. I mentioned it at the very top of the report. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you fail to report that you, not once, but twice deleted the 182 word, 1049 character closing response from Drrll that commented on and questioned your close? Per

WP:BOOMERANG? Viriditas (talk

) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Yet you are hardly in the position to opine, calling me a troll, and instructing editors to engage in meatpuppetry:[47] zoooooooooom - thats the sound of

WP:BOOMERANG!--Cerejota (talk

) 07:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to 1) restore Drrll's comments that you deleted 2) revert your closure, and 3) request someone uninvolved to close the WQA? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not upon your request, for obvious reasons. And even then, I do not see the reason why, so I would need to hear a persuasive argument from a non-patronizing, uninvolved editor or admin whose judgement I trust, and who doesn't have a proclivity to poison the well when he doesn't like what is being said.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I would strongly urge you to avoid accusing every editor you're in a dispute with of being incompetent. That you link these accusations to

My apologies for not making clear that my use here was rhetorical (ie explaining myself) and not intended to be part of the report. I think Drrll is very competent and so is, obviously, Viriditas.--Cerejota (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would never have dreamed of closing that WQA, because after commenting on the situation in a way that one party wasn't happy with, it would not have been helpful. Cerejota has already pointed to the rule "competence is required". As a corollary, a certain minimum amount of good sense is also required, and this applies to Cerejota as well as everybody else. Hans Adler 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota: Except perhaps for Hrafn, I am the editor that has had the the most heated disagreements with Drrll in the past month or so. Quite honestly, I strongly dislike his editing style, fillibustering, forum shopping and general unwillingness to listen and accept consensus, and find it hard to empathize with him. Nevertheless, I was taken aback by your closing summary, and can certainly see why Drrll could interpret it as antagonistic, inflammatory and taunting (telling a forum shopper to continue forum shopping was especially questionable). All the more so in that it came from you, who has had a mano a mano with Drrll resulting from this WQA. I generally support you in your battle with Lionelt et al., but here I think you overstepped the bounds, and ended up pouring gasoline on the fire. Furthermore, I think your responses to Viriditas above were out of line. In my opinion, it would be best if your took a breather, refactor the closing comment to be as terse and matter-of-fact as possible, and withdraw this ANI. I don't see anything constructive coming out of it, or in any further discussion of the matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, and thank you for taking the time. However, who is this Lionelt you speak of and why I am in a battle with him? This is news to me...--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My mistake. I confused you with another editor who was in a dispute with Lionelt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Ruairí Óg's identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Vintagekits.

User:Ruairí Óg's despite me having already warned them here about it along with examples, has recently decided to plow through my edit contributions to either revert changes or make changes where something doesn't suit them.

Proof that they have been stalking my edit contributions is the fact that from 21:15, 31 August 2011 to 21:58, 31 August 2011 (here is their contribution list) they edited at least 18 articles where they had never made a contribution, but where i just had. You could argue that they were going through people articles to make changes, however when every single one is an article that i had just edited shows that that is not the case.

Not all instances of his edits are reverts, however Ruairí Óg's is clearly trawling my edit contributions despite being told that it is harrassment.

Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule [[48]], where he simply removed it calling it vandalism.

Regardless of the 3RR and any content disputes - stalking and harrassment is very uncivil.

Mabuska ^(talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ruairí Óg's is definitely following Mabuska's contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that regardless of stalking etc. their edits on Luke Wilton seem not neutral, and their edit-warring is certainly not acceptable. The talk page discussion indicates that they are not even willing to engage in reasonable discussion on sometimes tricky issues. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which of my edits on the article's talk page indicate an unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion? I'm curious.

^Talk

10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Drmies is using "their" to refer to Ruiari, as in their edits, not everyone. Maybe i'm wrong, clarification please? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ruiari's edits are under scrutiny here, and I use singular 'they' to refer to Ruiari. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to all of us with a plural "they". My mistake. A most troublesome word indeed...

^Talk

15:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska is a biased and distruptive editor who crusades across wikipedia pushing a pro-British, anti-Irish agenda. That is a given and recognised and acknowleged be multiple editors in discussions with him. He is also backed up on every page by Jonchapple and the pair have been

inolved in canvassing with each other

to ensure articles remain skewed to their POV.

Yesterday I noticed a number of dubious POV edits carried out by Mabuska on articles on my watchlist, most of which were undertaken against policy and towards his POV.

Unless I am a complete idiot then I am of course going to look at the rest of his recent edits to see if he was up to the same mischief on those articles as well. If that is "harrassment" or "hounding" then this is a mad house. I would call it conscientious editing.

This is not stalking or hounding this keepin an eye on a disruptive editor, am I supposed to ignore edits which are against policy because they are made to articles not on my watchlist.

I will come back to the reasons that made reverts in a moment but I would like to deal with Mabuskas other claim first.

Mabuska states that "Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule 45, where he simply removed it calling it vandalism."

Who was I warned by? Mabuska. Forgive me if I take what Mabuska says with a pinch of salt. Mabuska warned me about edit warring on the Luke Wilton article page. You wont need to think to long about the reason that Mabuska was in conflict with regards this article.

As I said Mabuska has an agenda and a strong pro-British POV. That is to remove any reference to any person or body being 'Irish' and to push a 'British' and 'Northern Irish' identity on all pages. This is highlghted in this exact article.

Mabuska removed refereced material which described Wilton as Irish. Simply removed it, no discussion, no alternative source, nothing. Just removal. The removal of sourced information without disussion is vandalism.

Now Mabuska had been on this article before. Have a guess what the edit was? A very revealling one and one he makes on literally 100's of pages, a pattern I will explain and provide evdence for. He changes the nationality in the infobox from Irish to British. Cloaked under the wonderful edit summary "per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality". No discusson, no source to say why the current nationality is not the 'actual nationality' and no source to prove the altered natioality, pure POV and agenda. Now am I living on this planet or is this the type of dsruptive trouble making editing that needs to be stamped out.

I later changed it back, this time adding a source (how quaint) here.

But Mabuska did not like that and reverted back to British, removing the source and replacing it with his POV and NO SOURCE. Is this how wikipedia works?

Then after some edit warring his friend who has been engaged in canvassing with him,

WP:RS

anymore because we have Mabuska and Jonchapple, brilliant.

Above, Drmies states that I am unwilling to enter into a discussion. That is funny because I am the one that said the edit warring should end and the matter should be taken to the talk page. Maybe Drmies can also count my edits on the count page as well.

For example here is another article where this same pair are arguing that a boxer who's nickname is 'Ireland John Duddy, who is referenced to by multiple reliable soures as Irish and even is pictured with an Irish tricolor drapped around his shoulders is 'not Irish'. This is the level of the agenda that we are dealing with. This pair thinks they have make edits without needing a source and ignore sources that do not suit them.

Going back to the edits from last night. I will go through a few to show you the reason I edited them. Please note I did not revert all of his edits just he ones that were blatantly POV pushing. Again, as always the edits will be to push a pro-Brtish anti-Irish POV across wikipedia.

• Bronagh Gallagher, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. He includes the spurious edit summary "and as far it appears, she has no connection to the RoI, so best to avoid a potentially problematic marker". The editor knows full well that you do not have to be from ROI to be Irish and that those from NI are equally entitled to be Irish or British. Again no fact tag added, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.

• Stephen McGonagle, Mabuska's edit is to add a Northern Irish identify. There has been a long understanding that the term 'Northern Irish' should never be used to desribe someones natoionality because it is technially not a nationality unlike Welsh or English. Whereas Mabuska crows and immediately reverts even when sourced edits are made to describe someone as Irish, here Mabuska adds the highly controvertial description of 'Northern Irish' with NO SOURCE.

• Eamonn McGirr, Mabuska's edit is to the removal of the term Irish and replaced wih 'Northern Ireland. No fact tag, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources would show that he is Irish. But that AGAIN does not suit his POV.

• Lisa McGee, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. No fact tag, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.

It is Friday evening and I am damned if I am to go through every single edit hypocritical, POV ridden edit that he has made but hopefully an admin with even a single bit of witt about them will see the orcastrated agenda and attempt to wholesale remove anyone from being desribed as Irish whilst replacing it at every turn with their favoured unsourced term and arguing black is white when a sourced edit is made contrary to their POV. If you wish me to further explain my edits I will.

Mabuska and his crony are here to cause a fuss and ensure no one can check on their POV editing, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruairi, so far as I can see, you are in the wrong on every one of those. The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality, there's no source demonstrating that Gallagher has Irish nationality, Mabuska realised his mistake with McGonagle and corrected himself etc etc. You appear to be edit warring on multiple fronts, and I suggest that you stop promptly and discuss the matter in a civil manner on the relevant talkpages. If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them. What is not acceptable is carrying on like you have above, and it will result in trouble if repeated.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in the wrong am I? "The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality". Maybe you are missing the point on purpose. Mabuska swapped the nationality from Irish to British - No source used whatsoever. Where is his source to "support identification as of British nationality"? I added a source which describes Wilton as Irish. But you seem to have an issue with that but dont have an issue with the editor that makes controvertial edits and nevers uses a source. I find that extremely strange. One person using sources is bad, the other person that feels they dont need sources is fine. Please explain to me the logic of that because I can not get my head around it.

Then you said "If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them", their is no policy that states their must be self identification. Take the John Duddy article, despite multiple sources calling him Irish and articles showing him with the Irish flag Mabuska and his friend JonChapple argue that he is not Irish. The is the kind of argument that I am up against. However, despite me putting forward multiple sources on that article these are not accepted by Mabuska and his friend but their UNSOURCED edits are supposed to go unquestioned for fear of being labelled a stalker. He plays a good game, I'll give him that and knows how to work the system. Maybe I need to be as sneaky, sly and slippery.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You want I block you for incivility? No? Then dial down the aggression please. Now, you and I both know that if someone is born in Northern Ireland to British citizens, they are entitled to British citizenship. We also know that ROI regards anyone born anywhere in Ireland as entitled to Irish citizenship, anyone born to an Irish citizen elsewhere in the world as entitled to Irish citizenship, and anyone born to someone entitled to Irish citizenship as also entitled to Irish citizenship. So he could be an Irish citizen, but then so could my kids and they are qualified to play cricket for Yorkshire. We also know that under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, individuals born in the six counties can hold citizenship of both countries or choose to hold only one. You are assuming he flew to the States to start his career on a green passport, and he's never held a red one. Do we actually know that for certain? Incidentally, boxrec seems to insist that he's British, on the grounds that your nationality is where you are born, which isn't always the case, so I think they are dubious as a source for that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You may have already noticed Elen of the Roads, but Ruiari Og's also likes to keep repeating the same old accusations without reading explainations given. I described the Luke Wilton edit below (before their last response here) but they ignored that and rehash the same accusation regardless. This is what i have continually had to put up with, and to me its bordering on serious disruption as they are totally unwilling to listen to other peoples arguements or follow reason, whilst making continuous bad faith and uncivil accusations that have no backing or evidence whatsoever despite refutes being given which show their arguements being utterly groundless.

To further highlight Ruiari Og's unwillingness to engage and eagerness to twist things to suit themself, on the John Duddy article talkpage i offered a compromise that the picture might be enough to state he is Irish if its in context, yet Ruiari states that compromise is "utter lunacy". I gave him an avenue to have Irish added to the article but he threw it back in my face. How can i work with this? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I expected more groundless accusations, but by heck your really ramping it up a bit to drown out the discussion. Whilst i know better than to bite, i have to refute these utterly groundless claims and twisting of things to suit the false picture Ruiari is trying to paint:

1) Ruairi Og's claims of a so called anti-Irish, pro-British pov, are supported only by a very select picking of my edit history. Notice how they never mentioned all these articles i've edited but never removed the term Irish from:

I also suppose articles that i've created or greatly expanded such Cruithnechán, Keenaght_(barony), Lecale, Tirkennedy, Tirkeeran, amongst many other articles are all anti-Irish despite the fact they almost all solely go into Gaelic-Irish history and i've made quite a bit of use of Irish-Gaelic in them!

2) In regards to "canvassing", i warned JohnChapple that his message to me could be considered canvassing. Where has any canvassing actually gone on? More than likely JohnChapple has been doing the same as you - trawling through edit contributions, and that is no fault of mine.

3) "Who was I warned by? Mabuska." - JonChapple left you this warning for you breeching 3RR which you removed. I think he may be in breech of it himself.

4) When it comes to Ruiari Og's sources, they have been told even by an administrator, User:Canterbury_Tail, that the sources don't backup Ruiari's claims, but they argued and reverted an administrator anyways! Every source they've provided doesn't mention what they use the term Irish for - it could be nationality, ethnicity, or topographical, or simply an abbreviation of Northern Irish which is all too common with the press. They've been told of this before but act on regardless. Their sources aren't explicit enough for a problematic and tricky issue. That is not pushing a POV or anti-Irish agenda - thats trying to keep the article neutral.

5) When it comes to these articles: Bronagh Gallagher, Eamonn McGirr, Lisa McGee - i contravened no policy. There is no evidence or sources in the article that they should be listed as Irish above anything else especially when they could also be easily called British or Northern Irish. The most neutral path is to leave it out altogether without explicit evidence. I was recently told by several editors and a couple of admins that for UK BLP's we have to go with self-identification due to the problem of Irish/Scottish/Englush/Welsh or British etc. None of Ruiari Og's sources meet that criteria. In fact most BLP's on NI people leave out a description altogether which makes perfect sense considering the problem!

6) Stephen McGonagle is a different kettle of fish altogether. I left Irish in the article and added Northern Irish seeing he was from there and spent most of his trade unionist career in Northern Ireland. I kept Irish because he later in life moved to the Republic and was a member of its senate which would clearly mark him out as also being Irish. Quite obvious really.

7) Also who is saying Northern Irish is a nationality? I've never said it was. It's a topographical term meaning someone from Northern Ireland - if your born in Northern Ireland it's quite safe to say that they are thus Northern Irish regardless of your citizenship - and sources are only really needed for questionable statements or things open to question. Terms such as Irish and British are problematic however and many editors who work on Ireland related articles would tell you that. Also there is no clear marker as to whether a term in the lede is being used for nationality, it's not an infobox where its explicitly stated as "Nationality".

8) On Luke Wilton, he wanted to fight for the British title, and well seeing as Barry McGuigan had to get British citizenship to fight for it all those years ago, i'd assume you still have to be a British citizen to fight for it. Maybe i shouldn't assume things.

I'll let our actual edit histories do the talking, and from what i can see there is no justification for Ruiari Og's to be stalking my edit contributions.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This SPI is probably relevant to the discussion. Valenciano (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an impressive piece of work. If that SPI does not lead to an indef block (and I don't see how it couldn't), and wiki-hounding is not deemed established, then a block for edit-warring and disruptive and tendentious editing is still an option. Drmies (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sod it. I thought he sounded familiar. The first thing I wondered when this came up was 'why has this account 2007 managed to avoid a block previously, given its manner.' The answer is that it was created 28 July 2007 - two days after Vintagekits was indeff'd for the first time - but stopped editing 14 April 2008 when Vintagekits was trying to get unblocked, and had been rumbled for socking in February of that year. Didn't come back until 21 July 2011, so that's what six weeks from starting editing to ending up here. Blocked indefinitely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Note for anyone editing in this contentious area. The Good Friday agreement included the following provision

• (vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. ^[1]

This gave bodies such as FIFA and the Olympic committee conniptions for a while, until they all decided to accept whatever it said on the chap's passport. In determining what to put under 'nationality', other than 'Northern Irish' - which just describes where they come from - no assumption should be made, and a source should be sought. If they have a passport, it may be reasonable to go by that, as FIFA does. At the same time, if according to a reliable source, someone from Northern Ireland describes themselves as "Irish from Derry", it should be taken that they have identified as Irish, as is their right (or equally, if they declare themselves "British from Londonderry" they should be identified as British). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've no problems with any of that at all as self-identification is the most neutral way to take it IMO when we can't get an explicitly clear source.

Wierdly enough i always suspected that Ruiari Og's was a sockpuppet for somebody, but i never guessed it would be VintageKits who i can still remember. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never spotted the VK link, something I should have done given how involved I was with VKs editing. I must be getting old. Canterbury Tail talk 11:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report predominantly for this: "Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary). Iam not nationalist, I have adviced him to move the page Principality of Hungary to the sandbox, because there was a lot of unsourced matherial [49]. It is very hard to make a conversation and compromises with this user because he is confident about his right. Instead of the discussion, he calls me again a nationalist and contact the administrator [50]. He often finds a contradictions without the reason, for example at Andras Hadik page: [51]. Btw I used the Hungarian source in this article. Also I have used the Hugarian sources in the articles about Janos Jedlik, Imre Thokoly, Balint Balassa and others. So to call me a nationalist who hate the Hungarian pages touched me deeply. He and his meatpuppet[52] Koertefa vandalized my talk page for a few times with unjustified warnings. I have read them, accepted and deleted but they were put back [53]. He also abused other editors because he is too keen about his own right: [54] [55] The most significant problem is that this user redirect pages, delete or rewrite a lot of matherial without the discussion or consensus [56]. He just tries to use his own point of view and the sources which he likes (usualy magyar nationalistic, or as he said "patriotic" sources) - this is a English wikipedia and all significant points of view should be mentioned and we should discuss the big changes or the new articles. And I was deeply touched by this: [57]: "Now I know who is the disruptive user. I did not want to believe your editing at page of Principality of Hungary or Page of Hungarian invasions of Europe". I just recommended to move his new article to sandbox - they were like a not neutral high school essays and I opened the discussion. Because according the majority of english language source (including the sources from hungarian authors for example: http://books.google.cz/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=history%20of%20hungary&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false) the Hungarian principality in the 895 is the fiction, they just came to the Carpathian basin. Hungarians started to make their own state of the modern type after 955. It was the conquest of the Carpathian basin by Hungarian and Kabar tribes. From the article: its not known where each of the tribes settled the originaly. Tribal chiefs became a local aristocrats. In the book is nothing about Hungarian principality before 980. There is written: There is no reason to believe that the conquering Hungarians considered the Carpathian basin their final home. The were a semi-nomadic people. So are we creating a new Hungarian history in wikipedia? About Hungarian invasions: Invasion - "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer". According to the majority of sources it were raids, they just wanted a food, guns and gold. The semi-nomadic people were not looking for a permanent territory. Hungarian raids: 522 searches - http://www.google.cz/search?q=%22hungarian+raids%22&btnG=Hledat+knihy&tbm=bks&tbo=1 and Hungarian invasions of Europe has a 0 hits: http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22hungarian+invasions+of+europe%22&btnG= So are we going to create a new famous Hungarian history in the 21. century? So the points for a ban: this user attacks the other users, this user is not open for a discussion because this user tries to use only "patriotic"(as he said) hungarian sources supporting his point of view, this user manipulates with facts, this user removing big content or redirect the articles without consensus. Its my report, thank you. --Samofi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins, Samofi wanted a speedy deletion at page of Hungarian invasions of Europe, and a speedy deletion at page of Principality of Hungary. He did not appreciate my work. I used reliable sources about the themes. I was upset because of him, because his aim is to ruin my work. I apologized about my tone at talkpage of Principality of Hungary. As you see, he uses offensive tone in reference to me.Please check his editing. at Page of Natio Hungarica or Page of Martina Hingis. He disregarded the admins two times. He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, be careful with his links, for example, my conversation with RHaworth was not full citation. User_talk:RHaworth#Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was just a nomination for a speedy deletion, i recommended to use a sandbox and the discussion was opened. You attacked me that Iam nationalist and you called admin. So why did not you discuss with me? I have not deleted your work dear friend. And you again dont discuss about you just a blame me. This is not about me but about You, so stop to attack me and stop to show a strong battleground behaviour. Talk about You and not about me. I did not know firstly that users were admins - so I made it in my best will (after i knew thant they are admins i stopped). So stop to talk about my edits and stop to be offensive to me. "He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians". Why do you say it? Why do you make a chauvinist from me? I like to edit historical articles related with the Kingdom of Hungary and I try to discuss. Its you who tries to make a nationalist form me. Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban. --Samofi (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi, Why do you threat me?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reported your behavior and I dont threat you. Only you think that I threated you. Your reactions to me are not compatible with the rules of wikipedia. personal attacks, not asooming a good faith, no discussions, removing a content without consensus ([Royal Hungary]). My opinion was that principality of hungary did not exist in 895. The majority of the books about Hungarian history says nothing about this early principality. I cited from one of them, but I can find much more. What was your reaction insted of discussion? You called me a Slovak nationalist and you told a much more bad things about me. So thats the reason why I reported you. --Samofi (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban"- You have threatened me. You would like to see me as a banned user. I apologized because of my statement (talkpage of Principality of Hungary) a few days ago, I do not want to repeat myself.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

it was just a statement and not threating. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threatening --Samofi (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black. User Samofi is much more guilty of these issues than user Fakirbakir. I agree that user Fakirbakir should not have said that sentence (and it is good that he apologized), but he was obviously provoked by user Samofi. User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions. He doesn't really know what "good faith" means: he rarely discusses the issues on the Talk page of the articles before giving warnings and accusations. An example could be his attack on my Talk page User_talk:Koertefa#Google_searches. Therefore, user Samofi is the one who disturbs others and unable to settle differences by civilized discussions (which should be primarily done on the Talk page of the articles). The aim of the whole accusation of user Fakirbakir is that user Samofi wants to intimidate editors with different opinions. -- Koertefa (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a next personal attack:"User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions." Which one negative statement have I used? Did I delete a whole article? I have a real contributions. Its user Fakirbakir who delete the reliable content: [58] here is the lot of sources: [59] Than he redirected article Royal Hungary without discussion and consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history And please to translete what have you written about admins in your talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koertefa):

"Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history however they can judge existence of page without any (proper)historical background. But, your comment will help us because that page can be "free" again, it depends on wish of admins. Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) Fakirbakir (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" "You're welcome, and it is sad that articles such as this could be redirected based on vague arguments, for example, claiming that it was an unwanted fork. I think that this topic clearly deserves an own article and hope that the protection will be removed, soon. Probably, as you suggested, we should find an unbiased admin for that. Naturally, we should not give up, even if there were some malicious edits and unfair redirections (és ezen az átírányításon én is eléggé meglepődtem). -- Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" --Samofi (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not assuming a good fight?! [60] Must be some sort of Freudian slip from the filer. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean Peyton Ross (talk · contribs) Not sure if this is the right place for this. I posted a message regarding concerns about the content of the user's userpage with no response. The user has since posted more links to unrelated websites and personal information. If this is the wrong venue please let me know and I'll take it there.

I moved this from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User

powwow

19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you think is wrong with the user page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong his user page by itself, but the only edits of this account are limited to his facebook-style user page. His "friends list" made me chuckle. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone just needs to tell him that we expect people to start editing articles, too, not just userpages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Done (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 10:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article provisionally restored per IAR and AfD re-opened. Hope Fastily won't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fastily deleted the article CustoMess as a copyvio of a book. I informed the admin that the book got its content from Wikipedia because the book's description says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" Apparently I'm being ignored. Can someone undelete the article so that the AfD can continue correctly? SL93 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on Fastily's talk page (and informed him of this thread). From what I can see you are correct. Fastily doesn't seem to be editing right now; if he doesn't come online sometime in the next few ours I guess I'll go ahead and restore it, and re-open the AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I didn't inform because I didn't think that it was necessary since it isn't meant to get him in trouble. I am hoping that he didn't just skip over my message to respond to other later messages. SL93 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" ... it's pretty unambiguous (

BWilkins ←track

) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

However, this was a simple request for undeletion: the AFD, not Fastily or Fastily's behavior, was the subject. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Exidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for incivility and personal attacks. If you go through his contributions, the examples are plentiful. I gave him a warning about this and received this response. In light of his incivility taking place throughout his entire "career" and his user page's statement, I have blocked him indefinitely. Review is welcome. either way (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Has he been blocked before? That seems REALLY like overkill. You should never block someone indefinitely as a first recourse, even if they tell you to fuck off as he did. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A block would be good, but a permanent one seems a bit harsh. GiantSnowman 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. He was very civil posting on my talk page.

exquirere bonum ipsum

) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Schyler, the post he made to your user talk was a template. The only thing that was his personal writing was the "You think you're smart, don't you?" heading. The notification of being on ANI was through use of {{ANI-notice}}. either way (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is what Schyler was referring to... GiantSnowman 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He has not been blocked before, but if you look through his edit history, there are plenty of examples in a very short "career." Also, if you read his user page, it's clear his intent is to not work within the parameters of a Wikipedia environment collaboratively. I'm headed offline, so if a consensus is reached to change the block, I'm more than okay with it. either way (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In checking his contribution history, he's been here since 2007. One of the tenets of civility is that we don't template the regulars. While I think he should not have used profanity, it is not a requirement that we always demonstrate perfect behavior in Wikipedia. We're expected to be Civil, but not to stop being human and fallible. I think this block needs to be removed immediately and a discussion needs to take place first. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that nobody was "templated," I've always gotten the impression that

WP:DTTR is a means to protect the average, well-meaning editor from getting a generic nastygram after messing up once or twice. That clearly isn't the case here; it only takes one look at the user page to see that User:Exidor is acutely aware of the rules and just doesn't care. Orange Suede Sofa (talk

) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He may have started editing in 2007, but he's got 189 total edits, took a pretty lengthy "break" between October 2009 and January 2011, and is clearly abusing edit summaries and other editors. He's not a "regular" as meant by the DTTR essay. Doc talk 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x158 Good block. @Giantsnowman: This is NOT a permanent block. As soon as he demonstrates he won't behave incivily, he can rejoin the Wikipedia community. --Jayron32 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)