Unblocked[edit] I've unblocked this User.
Removing messages from one's Talk page is not vandalism; please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. The "enemies/watch" list is a bad ideea, and I ask Croatian historian to remove it, but it is also not a blockable offence. I've looked at some of the accusations of personal attacks, and so far haven't found a single genuine example — though those attacking Croatian historian have been guilty of vandalism (removing comments from article Talk pages, which is vandalism and a blockable offence if persisted in), removing AfD notices feom articles when the discussion is still live, and genuine personal attacks.
Croation historian isn't perfect, and he needs to cool down — but I've seen nothing so far that justifies a block, while some of those with whom he's been in conflict have often behaved much worse, ann may well earn blocks themselves if they continue. I strongly suggest that both sides calm down — go and edit articles on things about which you have no deep and fixed opinions for while. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the list (which was only created in response to blocking and sabotaging my user talk page), as well as the other stuff which was result of Bormargaluski's reaction to my vote in his admin election. Croatian historian ( ) 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC) My IP address is still not unblocked. Note also that User:OrbitOne deleted the above comment. Croatian historian ( ) 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Response[edit] Response to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#User:Croatian_historian
The watch list was only created after Serbiana and other users started spamming my talk page with bad faith warning templates, and reverting my deletion of trolling and personal attacks on my own talk page. The templates were in the first place added by Serbiana only in retaliation to my opposition vote in his failed admin election. In addition to making large numbers of personal attacks, oft in foreign languages, deletion of comments on article talk pages etc. this user is suspected of other offenses. A warning template added by this user in retaliation is utterly trollish. Anyone participating in the trolling and vandalism of this user are hence also guilty of trolling and vandalism. All this information has all the time been available on my talk page. Vandalism is a problem for Wikipedia. A list to keep track of people who break rules is not against any rules. I consider the edits made on my talk page to be simple vandalism and thus justifying monitoring those responsible. The case was extraordinarily grave because the same users blocked my account in contradiction with policy, to prevent me from defending myself against attacks. However, as I expect my talk page is not vandalized more, I have removed the list. If I am wrong, however, I will need to reconsider this decision. I have never been legitimately blocked for anything else than the 3 revert rule violation on Serbia on March 23 (where my opponent was deleting any reference to Yugoslav wars from history section). All users involved in harassing me on my talk page should ask for apology. If they don't, I will consider filing a complaint against each of those who have used admin powers to block an opponent in an edit war or protect their own version of a page. This is serious abuse of privileges and should generally lead to losing them. Croatian historian ( ) 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Adminship abuse complaint draft[edit] "User: LBMixPro 1) vandalized my user talk page, 2) restored trolling comments and threats from Serbs nationalists which was deleted and NOT WANTED at my user talk page, 3) blocked an opponent in an edit war (where he was vandalizing the talk page of another contributor) and 4) protected his vandalized version of my talk page. I ask that this user has his admin privileges removed. He has abused his admin privileges to help push the Serbian nationalist agenda of User:Bormalagurski and attacking users who oppose such nationalism and Milošević apologetics, and has thus shown himself unworthy of the trust of the Wikipedia community.
Allow me to clarify my invlovement in your past dispute: I have absolutely no knowlege or interest of your view of Serbia, and have no invlovement whatsoever with the actions of User:Bormalagurski. The reason I came into this situation was a response to a admin's intervention against vandalsim report. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Vandalizing user pages and user talk pages is very serious offense. It is up to the user to determine the content of these pages, and he is free to remove trolling as well as organize his own talk page as he wishes. The trolling (bad faith use of warning templates) and threats by notorious POV pusher User:Bormalagurski he illegally restored at my talk page was related to my opposition vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bormalagurski. See comment at that page, which speak for itself. I suspect the User:LBMixPro took part in the ugly campaign of nationalistic pro-Milošević Serb Wikipedians to have Serbiana made an admin."
I apologize for misinterpeting the vandalism rules, causing your inconvinence and I thank Mel Etitis for pointing that out to me. I know I cannot undo the actions of the last few days, so I'm hoping you'll accept my apology. From this point, I'll leave your page alone, but before I go, let me leave you with some words of advice: In case you are faced with a notice that you feel you shouldn't have, the best thing you can do is to ask an admin to remove it for you. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 23:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I accept your apology. Croatian historian ( ) 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Looks like you were cleared Croatian historian, but please keep a cool head and go to the admins to remove your warnings instead of doing it yourself. I have nothing against you, but from my view the last few days, it looked like you were breaking the rules repeatedly. Next time (if there is) something like this starts, stay calm and ask for an administrator to help you remove the warnings. They will investigate and help you out. It is much easier on everyone. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a sad day for Wikipedia. I will not give-up on watching this user's every single move, and wait untill he makes another mistake. The spreading of Croatian propaganda MUST STOP!!! --Serbiana ₪ 02:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
3rr vio at Serbia[edit] Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Serbia. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 00:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Srbofobija. Šteta što nema lek za obolele. --Serbiana ₪ 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
![edit] Wow, there, don't you think that you should ease down a little with thy right-wingeness? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Which right-wingeness? What is right-wing with opposing Serbian nationalism? Croatian historian 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that in precise, I meant other things... as well. And opposing one nationalism, seems like supporting other nationalisms. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Note[edit] I have slightly modified your userpage. There is nothing particular about poisonous Serbian nationalism to distinguish it from other types of poisonous nationalism; stating that there is can only cause divisiveness. DS 13:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one. Croatian historian 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
But surely you then rembember the German, Italian and Japanese nationalism and the Ho