Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 4 August 2008

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you. Design copied from User:Duja.

Archives 21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008 2 January 2008 – 1 August 2008

Comment on reverts

I see four reverts of yours in a six day period whilst there is discussion ongoing on the talkpage. You did not know at the time that these users were banned users, they have only been blocked in the last two days. As such, the 3RR rule applies. As it is now, carry on the discussion on the talkpage regarding this, (and continue to revert blocked editors, though they are not yet banned). You don't need my permission to remove comments from your talkpage, you can do that whenever you want. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I included the IP reverts because they are still reverts, no matter who makes them, even if they are an editor cicumventing a block or 3RR. In those cases, they will be found out and blocked as has happened in this case. In terms of Decensi, yes, you can revert on site because he is effectively banned. The edits of banned users (including their socks) can be reverted on site. It is clear that someone operating that amount of sockpuppets will remain blocked indefinitely and as such can be considered banned. Remember, a Ban is different to a Block. Your course of action was correct, alert an admin through WP:AIV, WP:ANI and they will block them. In this case, it is obviously a sock so you can revert, but remember, if it is not 100% obvious, then wait for an admin/checkuser to look into it and deal with it. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Ok, but an RfC would make more sense. That's standard in these kind of disputes. --DIREKTOR 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Pax blocked? That's so hard to imagine that he used this many sockpuppets he usually "got his way" alone anyway by reverting as far as I've seen. I'm shocked by this I'll have to review the case first, thanks for telling me about this. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And he was a incredibly active user too I don't get how he could edit even more with different accounts. Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The latest sock doing the same edit as the previous ones confirmed before . Hobartimus (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV...

...is only intended for persistent vandals. Reports about sockpuppets are better placed at WP:SSP, where you can make more detailed reports, evidence is saved, and it's easier to respond to comments. If you could, please move your report there so it can be handled easier. Thanks. Hersfold 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but first and foremost, they're a sockpuppeteer. Since most site-bans relate to sockpuppetry, we need to gather all evidence of multiple account abuse on a single page. The directions at WP:SSP have you create a subpage, which then can contain evidence from multiple cases. At WP:AIV, reports are immediately removed once the account is blocked, and become very difficult to find for later review. Hope this helps some. Hersfold 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct venue for sockpuppetry is WP:SSP. Woody was giving you a general list of the sites where reports can be made, but from what I can tell, he wasn't specifically directing you towards any of those, and he didn't mention several of our other reporting noticeboards. WP:AIV is generally for severe and persistent vandalism that doesn't seem related to anything else, and WP:ANI is for severe and exceptional cases that often require discussion amongst several administrators and other users. If an ANI report doesn't go answered for a while, make a new comment in the same section and someone should notice it shortly. Hersfold 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken

I'm asking if the statements from the book are considered reliable. If they're POV pushing, then no they aren't. If they're NPOV then yes they are. Are the conclusions that Viktor Novak draws in the work NPOV? No. Are the quotes he collected from eye witness accurate? Most likely yes. That's what the RfC is about. Seeing if people agree that statements given to the author are acceptable, not if the work is acceptable. AniMate 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There is simply alot more information out there available to the English speaking world about Nazi war crimes and criminals is the easiest answer I can give you. However, I understand where you're coming from. I'm not comfortable with some of the huge block quotes that are currently in the article, but getting consensus takes time. You also have to understand that some of the best people for this kind of work absolutely refuse to do it. There have been countless arguments in regards to eastern Europe, and many qualified admins are worn out with the recriminations and accusations they receive when trying to mediate disputes involving the region. I digress. If people are willing to participate (and with Eastern European politics, there's a high chance they won't) we can at least get a general sense about what people think. They might all disagree with you. Are you willing to let it go if they do? Next step we can always try the Mediation Cabal or formal mediation. That's all the advice I can offer you. AniMate 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the way you feel. I'm glad you're helping keep sock puppeteers from editing, but don't let your dislike of them stop you from seeing that editors who agree with them might be doing so for valid reasons. Also remember, we're editors first, vandal fighters second. I must say, my experiences in this area are making me understand why so many editors refuse to deal with situations like the one we are currently in. Try not to be to stubborn, because fighting a sockpuppet isn't worth alienating your fellow editors. AniMate 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, Rjecina.
I don't know if you have you asked CU's services regarding this case, but I think I've found something interesting.
Recently, you've disguised a sockpuppeteer. I've been browsing some of edits of those sockpuppets, and I've found strange coincidence.
Remember banned user:Justiceinwiki (banned 22 Nov 2007} and his interest for the article Prebilovci? Here's his case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki.
See edit history of that article.
Take a look who else showed interest.
User Kirker (currently, you have talk with him on article about Miroslav Filipović).
See his edit history . First edit in 26 May 2007. See his area of interest. Userpage still empty (often case with SPA accounts; though, not necessarily). Does this ring a bell?
Who else edited that article? Recent 50 edits:
User Kirker appeared 10 Dec 2007.
Special:Contributions/62.63.212.13. See vandal revert (17:03, 18 December 2007).
Special:Contributions/217.209.200.153 (14:33, 18 December 2007) See comment on revert. . Kubura (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page. Kirker (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Look, Rjecina. We had an RfC. Did anyone say you were right and that the citations were in violation of WP:NPOV? You misunderstood WP:NPOV. Plase read the following carefully:

• Other articles have nothing to do with this one. Put them out of your mind.

• You do not even have to mention the Yugoslav wars. They have nothing at all to do with this whole matter.

• POV pushing.
  • The eyewitness accounts are well sourced and corroborated by User:Kirker. They are in accordance with WP:V.
  • The eyewitness accounts are, as Alasdair tells you, written in a completely unbiased way.
  • If they are sourced and written in an unbiased, encyclopedic way, they are absolutely and totally NOT POV-pushing. Do you understand?

• You have misunderstood the policy. It does NOT allow you to remove sourced data if you think the article is POV. You can't do that

There is nothing that allows you to remove the citations. --DIREKTOR 21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: quoting eyewitness statements is the best way to represent them in articles. Especially if they are written in an unbiased way. These quotes only say what happened, nothing more, nothing less. 2 short quotations is not too many. --DIREKTOR 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Your vandalism on user pages has been reverted. If you continue you will be blocked. This is your first and last warning.PaxVendetimus (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)