Rarelibra (talk · contribs) and Supparluca (talk · contribs) are at each other's throats again over lame geographical naming issues relating to South Tyrol (see Provinces of Italy and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. This has gone on between these two users for years. I've told them both that they'd be topic-banned from this dispute, and I now ask such a topic ban to be endorsed by the community. These are otherwise constructive contributors (well, at least Rarelibra is, I can say that much), so I wouldn't want to see them blocked, but they both evidently have totally entrenched, intransigent positions on this particular conflict and need to be kept away from it.

I move that both Rarelibra and Supparluca be topic-banned from all edits (I'd say including all namespaces and talk) relating to contentious geographical naming practices relating to South Tyrol. Including but not restricted to: any changes to Wikipedia usage of the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other occasion where there is a choice between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal is too complex. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, those two guys will know perfectly well what it pertains to, no problem there. If you want simpler wording, just call it: "Hands off of South Tyrol Alto Adige Südtirol Bolzano-Bozen" (but there you get the problem again.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is probably too complex for the typical noticeboard thread (where everyone either overtly or covertly wants to ban everyone). Just file an RFAR. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is the last resort and probably ArbCom would just propose a topic ban as well. I'd agree that this board has to be limited to only serious issues that has taken long to get sorted out without success. However, I have no idea about this particular case but probably mediation was not tried? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd be loath to go to arbitration over a dispute that is so relatively minor and narrowly circumscribed. It's just these two people, with one or two allies on either side perhaps, and it's just this relatively small set of articles. But it's extremely persistent, has been going on for years, shifts from one page to the next (sometimes it's an article name, then an image caption, than a map legend, then a category renaming, then a POV fork, then a merger proposal, then a page move, and so on, but always about the same underlying issue.) I'm sure there isn't a dispute resolution technique that hasn't been tried yet; I seem to remember there was some mediation attempt once, back some time, in the late pleistocene or thereabouts, but it all came to nothing. At one point Rarelibra got himself indef-banned for making rather nasty off-wiki threats of some sort, then got back on parole under the understanding he'd be topic-banned, but he ignored that once he understood the other guy wasn't being topic-banned too. They just won't stop, and there is not a shred of AGF left between these two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPaS - I disagree. I cannot see where I am doing nothing more than defending the image work that I have done, in this case. You worked with me to an acceptable new image, and then Supparluca merely copied it, changed text, and uploaded it under the modified name (again - the image already exists in Commons). There was no need for Supparluca to do what he did, other than continue the agenda that was started years ago. You must admit that it has been some time now since I have participated in any disagreements about naming - simply stated, I've focused primarily on images and other geographic articles. The team you mention (Supparluca, Icsunonove, etc) all pretty much patrol those pages and focus all of their efforts on the continued push for name changing and article elimination (case in point was the valid and common usage name of "South Tyrol", an English equivalent of Sudtirol). I have avoided their name changing only up until it involved the removal of a valid image I had in place, with the substitution of the SAME IMAGE under a different file name. Rarelibra (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic ban as described in the paragraph above, "..relating to contentious geographical naming practices.." I think the above paragraph is clear enough for administrators new to the dispute to take action on it, if necessary. Any attempt by one of these editors to switch between German-derived and Italian-derived geographic names will trigger the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to make a quick statement here. Supparluca did not like an image I had up there (I specialize in maps) - so he started the recent actions. The image I had was approved by admins a while ago to be applicable because it covered the various language usages of the area. Please note it used the names that, by Wiki, are to be used - the common usage and English equivalents for the area. Supparluca merely downloaded MY image from Commons and made a local image in ENG Wiki for his special POV case. I tried to restore my image, and the result was the edit war. I then made the effort to UPDATE the image, making it better with more accuracy, color use, labels, etc. Supparluca simply took the UPDATED image and, once again, modified it to copy over his preferred usage. He made no attempt to contact me in any request for modifying the image or working out any requests to update, nor was there ANY ACTION on the articles for the need or request for updating the image. He is doing this as a POV move of his own volition. I did NOTHING MORE than restore the image (as my history will show), and create an update. My history will also show that my focus has not been this topic for some time, as my focus has been in many other countries/areas. Rarelibra (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fut Perf. I've re-read it and I think I understand what you're saying now. If you don't mind, I'd propose wording it as "Rarelibra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Supparluca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from all edits relating to South Tyrol, broadly construed. Included in this topic ban are: edits where changes are made to the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other change between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area." Is that okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Either FutPerf's original or Ncmvocalist's revision or whatever. I happened across this endless issue by accident a long time ago and carry the scars to this day. Whatever will end it, please do. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it was over two years ago that I encountered this dispute! Wow, I could barely focus for the 60 seconds it took me to track down that discussion... I can't imagine hanging with a dispute for over two years! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A topic-ban for these two seems reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been asked by Rarelibra (talk · contribs) to voice my opinion, I'd like to remain neutral because this topic has generated such an immense amount of ill-feeling I think it best I refrain from this discussion. Either way I have to laud Rarelibra (talk · contribs) for the innumerous constructive contributions he has done so far, a ban on him I do not consider fair. Gryffindor 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose. Sorry, but I just can't get behind any proposal to topic ban whose presentation is based solely upon links to account names and two articles. Future Perfect, I have the highest opinion of your judgment generally, but just isn't the sort of precedent we ought to set: AGF requires the rest of us to assume that no action is needed, and places the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate more clearly why it is. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the edit warring is pretty clearly the only issue that's a problem. If this will end the issue, it is a good solution. I can't make any sense at all out of Durova's justification for a procedural oppose. *dryly* It's as if you're saying we shouldn't take the word of trusted admins on these issues based on the evidence they put forth. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the community are not incapable or unable to look at the relevant pages and decide for themselves - I doubt this could be characterized as a case that is too hard to follow without some sort of guidance from the complainant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No matter how justifiable this particular request is, we should expect a substantive presentation in every request for community sanctions. The time it takes to prepare a set of specific diffs etc. is trivial compared to the effort it takes for the requesting administrator to determine that a request is necessary in the first place. We all know that wikilawyers abound: I intend to avoid setting precedents they could manipulate on future occasions. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Often, those presentations are lopsided to begin with, so they're often not very reliable on their own because they don't paint the full picture - in which case, we end up having to find the relevant pages for ourselves. I agree; we should still insist on them painting a picture for every case (more than just saying 'I want him banned' or more than just 'look at this page. do something'). But if uninvolved users have looked at it for themselves, then I'm not sure about the validity of such an oppose. While Fut Perf. did not provide any diffs, there was a substantial description given by more than one user as to the duration of this dispute, and the extent of disruption it is causing, and the sorts of pages that are affected by it. If we genuinely couldn't find anything, then I'd be opposing with you on the grounds that I couldn't see anything to support the need for a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a ban really necessary? I note that neither user has been blocked for many months. Can we try blocking rather than banning first? One user has no blocks at all, the other has several, but the most recent early this year. Mangojuice^talk 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a block necessary? No one seems to be looking at the facts surrounding this - for me, it was only about the image. For Supparluca and others, it is pure POV pushing. This, for me, was about the image. For Supparluca it was about manipulating an image I created for his own usage. I make regular contributions - a lot of maps, actually (it may be near 1,000 total maps I've created). So a block would decapitate me from even doing that - as I do geographic sweeps, I find places that need updating or creation. This, for me, is about the image, period. Can anyone NOT see that? Rarelibra (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question and Comment Has any form of mediation been saught? eg. MEDCAB or MEDCOM Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance at Provinces of Italy seems to indicate that they are indeed reverting the hell out of each other. My question would be: "Has any community/expert consensus been reached on whether either, both, or neither of their proposed edits are correct?" If neither or both name variants are agreed-upon as the common-use name(s), I'd say support topic-banning them both. But if only one is agreed-upon, topic-ban only the one reverting against consensus. arimareiji (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be helpful to explain a bit what happened:

• 22/09 User:Supparluca ("S") edited the Provinces of Italy article, putting this image (A1) instead of this (B1), without explanation.
• 23/09 User:Rarelibra (R) reverted the edit without explanation.
• 23/09 S restored his version, saying that image A1, unlike image B1, contained the names used in the English wikipedia [check: [1]-[2]-[3]].
• 23/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 S reverted with a more detailed explanation.
• 25/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 R proposed image A1 for deletion, saying that S wanted "to push a POV agenda".
• 29/09 An unregistered user supported S's version without explanation.
• 29/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 01/10 Image A1 was kept, and R said to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (F) that F doesn't "see his agenda".
• 01/10 R uploaded a new version of image B1 (B2) with better graphics and the same problem of image B1.
• 01/10 S uploaded a new version of image A1 (A2) with better graphics but with more alternative names than image A1.
• 01/10 S reverted R's last edit writing "new image" in the edit summary.
• 02/10 R reverted without explanation.
• 04/10 - 06/10 2 reverts by S and 1 by R followed without explanation.
• 06/10 F said to R and S that he would propose a topic ban.
• 06/10 R reverted the Provinces of Italy article without explanation.
• 11/10 S wrote this summary.
• 12/10 User:Arimareiji (ARI) supported S's version without explanation.
• 12/10 R reverted without explanation.
• 14/10 Another unregistered user supported S's version writing "grow up ross..." in the edit summary.
• 14/10 R reverted writing "stfu and keep to yourself in VA" in the edit summary.

R has 6 blocks, S has 0 blocks.--Supparluca 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having more blocks is certainly circumstantial evidence that a user is not AGF, and has already come up in the thread. But without either 1) a cite of the nomenclature discussion/resolution or 2) an uninvolved (i.e. neither "R" or "S") expert speaking up, I don't think the fundamental question has really been answered. If one is correct by consensus, topic-ban the other. If neither or both are correct by consensus, topic-ban both.> arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it more thoroughly, I'd like to reword my statement as having been incorrect. If using both names is correct, topic-ban R. If using only South Tyrol is correct, topic-ban S. If neither of the above has been chosen by consensus to be correct, topic-ban both. Anecdotally, I'd note that when I did a Google search:

"Alto Adige" - 25m hits.

"Südtirol" - 8m hits.

"Suedtirol" - 1m hits.

"South Tyrol" - 1m hits. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that I can no longer consider myself an uninvolved party, as I just reverted the page myself to Supparluca's last version. I don't consider this to be the final word by any means; this is only meant to stand until the matter can be resolved. Supperluca's version seems more likely to be the one supported by consensus, and the page shouldn't be left uncorrected just to make a point. arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I forgot to put the relevant links: Region: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol; provinces: Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Note that image A2 has more alternative names than needed (especially if you compare that with the other images in Provinces of Italy), and I would agree on using the same names as image A1.--Supparluca 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to become another edit warrior. But as soon as I changed the Alto Adige / Südtirol / South Tyrol map in Provinces of Italy back to what reasonably appears to be the more-likely consensus version, Rarelibra changed it back. If anyone other than Rarelibra or Supperluca who is familiar with this issue could speak up, it would go a long way towards establishing which should be kept up transitionally. I hope that once there's agreement from people other than the two fighting parties, both of them will be civil enough to let the page stand until the dispute can be permanently resolved. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a key fundamental for me... Supparluca did not contact me regarding the image. He requested no name changes, nothing. The image I created was agreed upon for the multi-name usage and was in place for a long time. Supparluca then decided to, on his own agenda (there is no record on even the Projects of Italy page of the need to replace or rename the image) simply copy my image and upload against it. So he even broke Commons rules when a valid image already exists (and I don't see any rules against image names - they are simply reference names to the image). If it is a valid issue with the image names, Supparluca could have brought it up with the Projects of Italy talk page, or on the Provinces of Italy talk page, or on the Province talk page itself. It could then have been voted on and I would have made the necessary changes as the image creator. As it is, I improved the image, and all Supparluca did is copy my image (again) into a different image name.

If the image I created is a problem, fine. If it is voted upon that it is not consensus, I accept. But the original reason for edit war was because of the way he approached it selfishly without consultation. As far as pointing out blocks, I have made mistakes - but you cannot use my history against me. One can see I have contributed over possibly 1,000 maps or more - in many different articles. As opposed to Supparluca's POV push. My involvement with that topic has been very little since the last episode until now. But I do believe that both Supparluca and myself should be topic banned for the year because we are both guilty of something. Rarelibra (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra, your insinuation of consensus pretty flatly contradicts the contributions of other editors at Talk:Provinces_of_Italy#Trentino-Alto_Adige.2FSuditirol.2C_etc., continuing to the rest of the page. In fact, your insistence on using South Tyrol as the only name contradicts your own wording from when the dispute first started. And it's extremely hard to AGF when you say "Okay, you win, ban us both for a year" when you've stated elsewhere that you're about to be deployed to Iraq for 400 days, and the page is presently on your revert version. arimareiji (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arimareiji - it doesn't matter where the page is (now YOU fail to AGF). And where I go has nothing to do with it. Keep that in mind. Rarelibra (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hilarious to see all this going on again, especially with the accusations of POV pushing and picking out who is good and who is evil. Look, I'll propose a simple fix and this circus can be closed down. First, do not use the image name Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png OR Trentino-South Tyrol Provinces.png. Make everyone happy, as we did on Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, by making the file name Trentino-Alto Adige-South Tyrol Provinces.png. Is that really so difficult to do? Did half of you not learn now to share when you were in kindergarten??  :) Next, the map image should certainly have the provincial names (Trento and Bolzano-Bozen) and also the regional terms (Trentino and Alto Adige-South Tyrol). In that case, the current file Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png is the most all-inclusive, so rename that file, and be done with it. The users who insist to only use South Tyrol to describe this province need to finally learn to compromise; there is just no other way around it. They do not seem to comprehend that they are explicitly working towards removing the term Alto Adige from English Wikipedia. As in the article Province of Bolzano-Bozen there is obviously room for both terms derived from Italian and German. Now, I definitely Oppose a topic ban, because if you look at the user Supparluca, his passion is obviously for updating the pages of this topic. You ban him, that hurts his work on here. The other user, Rarelibra is enthusiastic in making maps, but has seemingly turned the Provinces of Italy maps into some sort of last stand. It will not be an equivalent punishment if he is banned from this topic, and that is why he doesn't care about such a ban; he will simply be "taking one for his team" and removing an editor he considers on the "evil" side. :-). He supported topic bans before that include himself, you have to ask yourself why he accepts it so easily. :) If you ban Supparluca for one year from this topic, then you have to ban Rarelibra from making maps for one year -after- he returns from military deployment. Anyway, I don't think anyone needs to be banned. If you all are really interested in a long-term solution to these prolonged arguments, simply make it an implicit rule that if there are such naming moves in the future, that a few unbiased admin mediators help form a compromise (Lar, for example). Somehow I'm guessing if Lar was here now, he would agree with the proposal I've made above. Share folks! Aren't there more important things to be concerned about??? No one is asking for only Alto Adige, the vast majority are asking for simply both terms, and that's it. If you look at Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, those pages have been so very peaceful after the compromise solutions, it is indeed amazing! That is opposed to the Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol that Gryfindor pushed for three years ago -- which ignited all these bad feelings. I noticed that Gryfindor had modified this image earlier [4] with this same tired agenda. That is water under the bridge now.. at least for most. Icsunonove (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name of the file was a problem; simply, you have to use different names if you don't want to block one image. And I think you can't use the slash, so using a name like 1-2-3, when in fact you mean 1-(2-3), and not (1-2)-3 or (1-2-3), would be confusing.--Supparluca 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Icsunonove. Thanks SO MUCH for bringing me here! :) The last time I tried to mediate this, I got so confused by all these names that I don't think anything useful got done. Even Giano couldn't explain it to me. You don't want me mediating it again, trust me. I hate to see people get banned, or even topic banned. I'd rather Rarelibra and Suparluca figured out a compromise between themselves that everyone can live with. (like what Icsunonove suggests, use both names for everything. Why not?) My suggestion would be that they need to go off and work through how they are going to work together, bring it here for discussion, and if it's approved, do it. If they can't... THEN topic ban them. Dunno if that would work. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any ban for both Rarelibra and Supparluca and substantially agree with Icsunonove. --Checco (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who has been involved in those discussion before (under my old account), I can approve Icsunonove's assessment and oppose this. Also per Durova, much more in-depth evidence including diffs should be provided before I could even consider as drastic a measure as a topic ban. Everyme 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this - the only thing I have a problem with is Icsunonove and his mention of my military deployment. There was an anon user who posted hateful statements here (and was subsequently removed and warned). The same anon user posted to my talk page (and was removed). That anon user referred to myself and Gryffindor by personal name, in some lame attempt of insult. The same anon user also sent me a personal email using an anon email server (old DOS trick) - not realizing that you leave an IP trail, also not realizing that certain resources can be used to find out the ISP and name/address of the subscriber. So now I will make it public - Icsunonove is the only one mentioning my military deployment because HE is the anon user that made the comments here and in my own mailbox. If he challenges this offline, I will provide the proof pointing this out. We all know it isn't hard to NOT log on to wiki and run an anon comment.

I want to caution Icsunonove about his previous anon comments and his being the only one mentioning my upcoming military deployment. It is not a factor in this at all - so the statement of banning me from making maps (and contributing to wiki)... let alone waiting until after a return (in 2010, mind you) is a personal attack and desperate measure at best. You should know something, Icsunonove - I VOLUNTEERED to go on the deployment. Karma is not a 'b*#ch' like you mention - though one day we may all meet her face to face. And while I appreciate your article on Nazi hunters in my mailbox, next time I also would appreciate it if you left to yourself. Not even Supparluca - for as much as we disagree - would stoop to the level that you did when you acted as you have.

As has happened before with many editors in the past, I concede and go on my way - I have better, more positive, more productive things to do than to be involved in this mess. But let us plainly recognize the actions that have taken place.

• 1 - Supparluca felt that an image needed to be changed or altered, without merit or request on either the Projects of Italy page, the talk page of the Provinces of Italy, nor the talk page of the province in question.

• 2 - Supparluca used GNU capability to copy an image already existing (rather than contact myself - the creator - to ask about updating it) and upload it into a new name. An IMAGE NAME is NEVER an issue on wiki or Commons, as many photos have weird or uncommon names that are not required for an article to be complete. It was an issue, rather, for the geographic names IN the image in question. By creating an extra image, Supparluca did, in effect, violate Commons rules and created a duplicate of sorts. It would have been a lot easier to update the image itself, or to update it and request a move to a new name, or to move to the new name and update the image, etc. So he went about it the wrong way.

• 3 - I acted the way I did to defend the image that was already created, including updating the detail of the image. I agree with Icsunonove that we can change the geographic names ON THE IMAGE to whatever is best for the article, but the creation of a very similar image (near duplicate) under a different filename is NOT the answer, and that is the crux of the problem.

• 4 - So my suggestion is - if agreed upon solution by what Icsunonove suggests, we delete all occurrences of the image except for the one that was originally created. Again - the IMAGE NAME is not a problem (nor are they argued about on wiki as seen here) - it is the names ON THE IMAGE that are an issue. So I can alter the image to have the necessary names desired ON the image. But certainly admins/editors can realize that the filename of the image should not be an issue as it seems to be here? Rarelibra (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra - If you have evidence of your assertion that Icsunonove is anony-socking you, you need to take it up directly rather than claiming it in multiple threads and inserting Icsunonove's name as a signature. And Icsunonove was not the one who first mentioned your impending deployment, you were. After that, I mentioned it myself earlier in this thread (as evidence of arguable bad faith in your request to be banned along with Supparluca). Icsunonove isn't the first to mention it, he//she's the third. arimareiji (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arimareiji - you've missed the boat on this one. I have provided sufficient explanation to someone offline who may decide to pursue this online. I will point out to you the obvious - the anonymous user commented earlier in the history of this thread (check the history if you need to) an was quickly removed and warned. The same anon user did so on my talk page and was removed. The same anon user also sent an anon email to my inbox - but email leaves more than just an IP trail (you should know this, Arimareiji). Go ahead and check Icsunonove's IP address and see how closely it resembles the anon IP. I also don't hear any rebuttal or evidence from Icsunonove as to his innocence - this is most likely because he knows I have already had it traced via email and corporate security. So yes, he was the first to mention it (anonymously) - you mentioned it, then I corrected you that it has nothing to do with this situation (after you made a biased judgment of 'bad faith' where you were incorrect), then it was mentioned more maliciously by Icsunonove. As I said, I agree with his assessment for the possible solution, I disagree with his lack of judgment and clearly poor approach in a personal attack that ended up in my inbox. You definitely want to stay out of this one. Rarelibra (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're saying about having evidence is true, then you're doing yourself no favors by trying it in the court of public opinion instead of letting procedure run its course. And I don't follow you... are you saying that he hacked your account to post that you're being deployed? Because I see your name under that first mention of it on 10/6, not his or an anonymous IP's. Finally, I don't take kindly to veiled threats to "stay out of this one," or dumb implications that I should be careful of email trails. Whether or not your past targets have had anything to be scared of, I know I don't. Stop skirting the boundaries of WP:LEGAL, and either say it directly or be quiet. arimareiji (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. What I am saying IS true. There isn't any "court" here, so get off the high horse. I won't explain it again - you seen too confused to understand. I didn't issue any threat - as you obviously don't understand I told you it is best you remain detached. There's no skirting here whatsoever, I have said it quite directly, indeed. So you need to stop pushing the issue and remain quiet. Rarelibra (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Woaa there cowboy. Rarelibra, you really have anger-management and paranoia issues. That is not my IP address and I don't even use a commercial ISP! So, if you can trace that IP to me with your DOS, or whatever you are babbling about, you are truly talented. I have no clue what your real name is (how the hell would I?), nor do I have the time or desire to know anything about you. That you have managed to get so many people pissed at your behavior on just this website, is your issue, not mine. You can make accusations until you are blue in the face, but as most people remember on here, you are the one who has made all these strange threats of legal attacks or getting your government or corporate buddies to hunt people down Wikipedia. It looks like you are resorting to threats on here yet again, and THAT is what must and will be reported. Why don't you, for just once, stop implying all your foes on here are evil, and just discuss the issue with regard to this TOPIC. Lar above mentioned that there is no reason not to use multiple names as is currently used in the pages. I can't figure out why you think you are going to 'win' something on here by pushing out the other valid terms. So you can both quit the revert wars, and just use an image that has the provincial and regional names on it, and then go your own ways. I haven't been on Wikipedia now for months, and coming on here for a couple days makes me remember why. Icsunonove (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, Icsunonove. Please. You and I communicated quite a bit via email when you were under the username of Taalo. Thus, you (of few people before) know my name. There weren't any threats made. There are facts. Trust me on this one.

You've caught yourself in a deep trap, Icsunonove. You and I communicated quite a bit offline when you were under the username of Taalo. Funny how you forget that the history is captured here. At one point you even added an entry to my userpage [5], and you later updated it when you changed your username [6]. Remember now? If you want I will pull the emails and present them too, but the above proof should suffice. Rarelibra (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra, that is absolutely false. I swear to you and anyone else on here that we've never exchanged e-mails in real-life or through Wikipedia. The only e-mail I've ever received from you was through the Wikipedia e-mail service; that was anonymous, and I certainly did not reply. I have no clue what your real name is. I can't believe that you delete all your e-mails... please how me a single e-mail where either of us have corresponded using our real names? Man, it is just unbelievable the direction you take things on here. Listen, I don't care about your threats or your self-perceived facts, you've made all these before. You know what, I honestly hope you can deal with these anger issues, I do hope you have a safe trip to wherever you are being deployed, and that you somehow once and for all realize that we are not all evil on here because we advocated for these bilingual compromises. You never seem to realize that people on "our" side of the argument could have pushed only for Trentino-Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano, but we didn't. Yet the other side pushes only for South Tyrol. Think about that, will you? You really need to stop threatening people on here with WP:LEGAL or that you are going to hunt them down. Think about what you do to the Wikipedia environment by saying these things on here. You've done this to more than just me on two occasions now. Icsunonove (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I am going to say is I am quite surprised that you continue down the path of denial. I don't care about your words, insults, or otherwise. We really are here to find a solution - one that you have mentioned above and I responded positively to. All of the words in between (your judgments and insults about anger issues, etc) do nothing to contribute to a positive atmosphere as well. So stop dictating to me, I will stop things with you, and let us carry on with a solution, yes? Rarelibra (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm fine with focusing on just getting a solution about this map and everything else on this topic for that matter (future debates, etc.). That is why I even bothered to take the time to post above. You were the one who came on here with this huge post making all these accusations. You say I e-mailed you, I know your name, and we've had e-mail correspondence off-line -- but you know that just isn't true. If I've had some really bad case of amnesia, and you can show me these e-mail threads we've exchanged, then I'll accept you accusing me of denying things. But, come on now. Icsunonove (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot stress enough a simple pointer to when you even added an entry to my userpage [7], and you later updated it when you changed your username [8]. This, in of itself, may not qualify substantial to some - but is a strong indicator. Nevertheless, as we have said, let us move on, yes? As we are getting nowhere attempting to stand each other's ground. Right? Rarelibra (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say... :-) A dozen users know I changed my username. I'm not even sure what this is a "strong indicator" of. o_O But, yes, lets move on, again. :) I'm going offline now for the weekend, I'll try to see how things are going with regard to this debate sometime next week. I'll wait for you to post our e-mail threads too. just kidding! :) I'll state again that I don't think any editor on here needs to be banned; they all contribute a lot to Wikipedia. My idea for the way forward is simple: 1) maps with both the provincial (Bolzano-Bozen) and regional (Alto Adige-South Tyrol) names, per the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page. Same for Trento and Trentino. Name the file something that also causes no friction or bad feelings. Call it provinces-of-trento-and-bolzano-bozen-bulsan-alto-adige-south-tyrol provinces.png. Whatever! Then, lets agree that before we get into these childish fights or month-long revert wars, we cool down and ask someone like Lar to mediate. He is actually pretty fun when he points out the stupid arguments we make. Who knows, one day we may all be friends again, even with Gryf, and finally have our Forsts. Doubt it, but anyway! hah. Have a good weekend everyone. Icsunonove (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. User:It Is Me Here makes a convincing case here that Hemanshu is being totally unresponsive in the face of arguably counterproductive edits (and certainly non-consensus edits).

Hopefully this can be resolved without involving the Arbcom.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think ArbCom is necessary just yet, nor that anything can be accomplished here right now. But if he continues with such edits and remains entirely unresponsive, a block may become necessary, and should he then proceed to unblock himself despite consensus to the contrary, an emergency desysop by ArbCom may be the way to go. Weird stuff. At any rate, I've notified him of this thread, as should always be done. Here's also a permlink to the WQA section. Everyme 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Please note that Hemanshu's (contributions) last edit to his talk page was in April 2006 and it was to delete some messages. The last time he replied to a post on his talk page was in 2005 (which does also show, incidentally, that he does know how to do it). It Is Me Here (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also never uses edit summaries, something I have mentioned to him on his talk page. I think we need to try for a few days to discuss this on his talk page and if he doesn't respond and continue, I agree that he should be blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he also eats puppies. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's an Admin, we should expect certain standards of Admins. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note he's been editing for almost 5 years, things were different back then (not that that is an excuse). John Reaves 08:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of note: he is an administrator, yes, but he has not used his administrator tools for some years (with a single exception in February 2008: one, bog-standard anonymous vandal block). Whether that means he should be held to the same extent to the same standards of conduct as an active administrator is, of course, a parallel—but important—debate. – Anthøny (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone thought of emailing him their concerns? He does have email enabled. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, this is just like the CSCWEM mess. Everyone's like, "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." "No, uh, we already did that." "Well... do it again." "Okay". (time passes) "CSCWEM is not responding to talk page messages." "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." etcetra ;D

Anyway, yes, MBisanz is right, e-mail is the next step. If after a couple of weeks he doesn't respond to the e-mail and/or continues disruptive edits despite the e-mail, I agree next step would be a block. If he unblocks himself without responding, only then would be ArbCom. I only mentioned ArbCom in my initial comment because I don't imagine it will ever come to that point.

I guess I'll fire off the e-mail. I was sorta hoping someone who knew him would, but it doesn't look like anybody knows him. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full text of the e-mail I sent:

Hi Hemanshu. Please be aware of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_User:Hemanshu_making_non-MOS_edits_and_refusing_to_answer_talk_page

I'm sorry if my initial report came across confrontationally, I was mentioning what I hoped did NOT happen and I guess it came across as if I was suggesting it SHOULD happen. heh, oh well... Anyway, there are legitimate concerns over your Wikifying of dates (appears to be contraindicated by MoS) and multiple attempts to contact you on your talk page have not been successful. If you could just weigh in with an explanation of what's up, that would be appreciated. Thanks!

---Jay Sweet

Hopefully he'll see that and we can get this all sorted out with no mess! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to SUL Tool he has accounts on other wikis, we might try posting to his talk pages there and emailing there (if he has a different email registered at enwiki and ennews for instance). Jaysweet, since you did the initial email, could you do these as well? MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Since when did MOS become policy? If you disagree with his edits, fix them. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many situation, you would be correct. But adding links to dates is rarely useful and therefore has been largely abandoned, which means it's really not so much a matter of case-by-case editor discretion (although datelinks are sometimes useful) but of basic formatting. People just have to run around and clean up after him and the fact that he doesn't use edit summaries nor respond at all makes it a bit difficult to actually see the good intentions in his editing beyond simply assuming good faith as we all do. Everyme 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the "delete all date links" crowd has run roughshod over the opposition, it's not basic formatting, it's opinion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless overlinking and things like flagicon overkill are objectively bad. Some people just keep not getting it. Everyme 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violating MoS is not a reason to block, of course. Making a non-consensus edit (which, presumably, would be a valid way to classify any non-MoS edit), having another editor call you out on it, and then continuing to make the same/similar non-consensus edits without responding on the talk page... that's not an insta-block, but if it persists, it is blockable. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Hemanshu castes a decent internet presence. Jaysweet, I'm going to send you a list of alternate emails he uses that you might try him at. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Jaysweet, it appears your email is disabled. Is there another way I can send you his email addresses? MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another fresh addition of date links, still with no talk page response or edit summary. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally inappropriate behavior; he's acting against consensus on a mass scale and is unwilling to reply and explain himself. If he does this again, he should be blocked. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been of late a series of single-purpose accounts that have been attempting to insert (e.g. 1, 2) the same rather lengthy bit of original research into the Press TV article. The edit in question attempts to link Press TV with various controversial individuals (e.g. one Dr. Kollerstrom), but does so via synthesis:

• The first attempt at drawing a link between Dr. Kollerstrom and Press TV goes: "Press TV controversially chose to promote coverage of Holocaust Denial, hosting a work from the disgraced former honorary research fellow". However, the source which is placed after that assertion does not once mention Press TV let alone its coverage.
• The second attempt at drawing a link between Press TV and Dr. Kollerstrom goes: "Subsequently, Press TV commissioned him to write an essay which began: "The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs"". A link labeled "Press TV commissions attested Holocaust denier" is cited as "supporting" this claim. However, the link turns out to be a misnomer, as it leads to an article titled "The Walls of Auschwitz" on Press TV's website. In other words, the article is a primary source, and according to Wikipedia, "to the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should... make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." And this article predictably does not accuse Press TV of ever having "commissioned" Kollerstrom to write anything -- it does not once mention Press TV vis-a-vis him.
• The final attempt at drawing a link between Press TV and other people references one Michele Renouf. The edit goes: "She is featured regularly on Press TV and also claims to have been instrumental to getting Dr. Kollerstrom hired by the station". The source cited as supposedly "supporting" this assertion is, incredibly, an article that was apparently written by Michele Renouf herself (yet another primary source)! However, when one follows up on the link in question, it's obvious that here too there is no mention of Kollerstrom having been "hired" or "commissioned" by Press TV much less with the help of Renouf.
• The remainder of the edit is about Dr. Kollerstrom and Renouf and is not in any way related to Press TV.

In short, the entire edit is a pretty obvious attempt at synthesis and editorializing, both of which are against Wiki policies. The WP:SPAs don't exactly inspire confidence either. Nevertheless, the editor(s) keeps doggedly inserting the same edit into the article although I and another editor have directed him/her to a post fully explaining the problem with the edit. Causteau (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your approach is not particularly helpful. Many of the problems you are pointing out have been resolved in the meantime. You are not supposed to take a content dispute to ANI just because there are technical policy violations that can easily be rectified by the newbie editor who introduced them.

However, if you wanted to draw the attention of a more general public to what is going on at the article, then I am sure you have succeeded in that. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Not one of the problems I've outlined above as well as on the Press TV article's talk page -- problems which two other long-time editors have likewise pointed out in their edit summaries -- have been resolved. In fact, yet another single-purpose account (that just so happened to have been created today) re-inserted the exact same bit of original research as have the other two single purpose accounts cited above. I'll have you know that leveling charges of anti-Semitism at an international news organization as this edit does is no small matter. Also note that the Press TV article has a history of being targeted by confirmed sockpuppets, which makes the present editorializing by a series of single purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) -- all of which have been created within the past few days -- all the more troubling. Causteau (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious socking going on to circumvent 3RR. I indef blocked Solway08 (talk · contribs), and blocked Guddasimonardottir (talk · contribs) for 24 hours (though an indef might be appropriate there as well). We probably also want to take a look at the Michele Renouf article, since there seem to be some related WP:BLP violations going on at that one. --Elonka 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user Non-dropframe only putting Requesting speedy deletion tag on articles without cross tally references. please take action. for detail and how much Requesting speedy deletion tag he inserted please see his contribution Aminami (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the last 10 or so speedy deletion taggings by Non-dropframe. All of them seem perfectly normal and within policy. This one: Elahe Hiptoola, for example, is a classic A7 speedy deltion reason. The article does not say why the person in question is important. The complete text of the article is: "Elahe Hiptoola is film actress, prodcucer, costume designer". There are 7 references to trivial lists of the jobs she has held; however holding a job does not make one important or notable. If there were actual, extensive, texts which contains lots and lots of information about her performance at said jobs, MAYBE. However, all of his tags are entirely within policy, and are specifically tagging articles which qualify for speedy deletion. Many people misuse the WP:CSD#A7 rational for tagging articles. He clearly is not. If you are bothered by having articles which are constantly deleted, you may want to try creating articles which comply with our policies and guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be someone who, for wiki-social reasons, is uncomfortable having their speedy deletion nominations associated with their main account. That's okay under WP:SOCK as long as they don't do anything weird. --Masamage ♫ 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Masamage said. It's probably an alternate account designed to keep the fallout away from another, 'editing' account. If not, it's an SPA who is apparently doing good work. Either way, no problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is a "cross tally reference"? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

If this doesn't make sense to anyone just ignore it but... where have all the boxes gone? Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they're back... am I going mad? Guest9999 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

So today I came across this IP Address who started to act as a bot on WP:UAA & WP:AIV using the correct edit summaries and editing on the bot sections. so what I wanted to ask was was this a bot glitch or is this editor thinking s/he is very cleaver in tricking us to believe that s/he is a bot? Alexnia (T) @ 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:HBC NameWatcherBot - maybe it gets logged out at times and edits as an IP? The contribs suggest that might be the case. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I let Krellis (talk · contribs) know. Tiptoety ^talk 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks knew something was strange Alexnia (T) @ 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's User:HBC AIV helperbot3... I thought I had gotten it correctly detecting if it got itself logged out, maybe I'm wrong or misremembering. Either way, I stopped and re-started it so it's logged back in again, thanks for letting me know! —Krellis (Talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact purpose of {{Vanish}}, but it appears to contradict the rule that RTV is meant to be invoked only if someone doesn not intend to return. It says If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Everyme 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-worded it to reflect our current policy on a users right to vanish. Feel free to tweak it. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when I wrote the template the RTV policy either said you could do so, or was ambiguous on the point. Seeing the current policy, I have no problem with the rewording of the template. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that vanished users are perma-banned? Even if they left in good standing? 140.247.241.71 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can come back (as several have done) but are then subject to being connected to their previous identity. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add a redirect form William Penn Society to The William Penn Society, but found that the former has been blacklisted for some reason. I don't understand why. All I want to do is redirect anyways. Can this be fixed? --Jgenzuk (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Euryalus (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jgenzuk (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parties are directed to continue to comply with the existing editing restrictions detailed here until this case is resolved or until further direction of the Arbitration Committee. In the event of any disagreement concerning the scope of the restrictions, the parties should err on the side of caution and avoid any arguable violations. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case as soon as possible and to indicate when they have finished, so that the committee can reach a prompt final decision which will supersede this temporary injunction. Nothing in this temporary injunction constitutes a ruling on the merits of the case or reflects any prejudgment that all, some, or none of the temporary restrictions will be included in the final decision.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

material reverted, user blocked by vigilant admin; block independantly reviewed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... reopened to address question of new BLP issues, and ask for block review. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this diff a cause for concern vis a vis libel? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEW, AFTER FURTHER REVIEW: The user has now posted links to articles here, avoiding the copyright problem, but potentially still raising a BLP/libel issues. Is this appropriate? Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does posting links to reputable news articles raise BLP/libel issues? Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles themselves attack a public figure and do not contain or discose independant sources. It may be a reach, but there could still be libel liability issues. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are reliable sources. There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Used on a user page, they pose an undue weight problem. The user is welcome to disclose that they have had prior conflict with that judge, but not to present biased viewpoints, even if they are reliable sources, (see WP:COATRACK as well). WP is not a blog or a forum for continuing conflict from elsewhere. Admins should review the deleted edits on this user's page for more insight into why this is problematic. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, as few people will have the background on this situation: On her userpage, this editor posted (1) a copyright news report and then (after it was removed and she was warned not to do it again), (2) a series of links to news reports with respect to the same person, with the edit summaries "my good news hurrah hurrah". It should be noted that this editor has a real-world adversarial relationship with the subject of these news articles (administrators can see her description of it in the first version of her userpage, now deleted in part for BLP reasons). The links were not proposed for article space, they were put in userspace by a user who has been asked repeatedly to leave the external battles behind. Behaviour like this is exactly why WP:BLP applies throughout all areas of the project. Risker (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Risker. Since we're here, let me ask for review of my block of Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). See my talk page recently... (topic "Query": User_talk:Lar#Query). I blocked this editor for a week (the next step up from 3 days) after my initial removal of the BLPvio/Copyvio text was undone by placing these links. Those who know me know that I am very reluctant to block, in general, and quick to give second chances and try to find other ways to deal with issues. This user is intransigent and either cannot or will not work within our norms and it's time to cut our losses and reduce the disruptive effect this user has. So far everyone who has reviewed it on my talk page has concurred with it, except Elonka. She has engaged in rather a long dialog with somewhat shifting goals as we've refuted various points raised. Right now I think she wants the block undone (since she doesn't agree it is a BLP violation to cite sources showing a clear adversary in a negative light without a chance to make them balanced as we do in an article) and redone under some other pretext. I'm not sure that's a good use of anyone's time and I ask that my block be endorsed, and her going to the user's page to contradict what I said be pointed out to her as less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone on Lar's page agrees that a block is called for, leaving the only area of disagreement the reason for the block. My two pennies - given her history here, the statements she has made regarding her case and the judge in the past, and the seeming agenda with which she edits Wikipedia in general... it is reasonable to interpret her posting the bit about the judge with the edit summary "my good news, hurrah hurrah" as violating BLP. Folks might disagree with how serious a violation it is, given the news has apparently been covered in reliable sources, but the presentation of the material is not irrelevant in considering the BLP policy.

Kay has been blocked before, and has had the full attention of two administrators and a number of editors for quite awhile because of her disruptive and at times combative editing style. She has been warned repeatedly about soapboxing about her personal legal history, and a block is warranted this time around solely on that basis. Whether BLP was the best of the various reasons to use in the log is irrelevant - the block is good, and Elonkas suggestion to unblock and reblock with a different reason is a nonstarter. Avruch ^T 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Kay's unblock request doesn't help matters at all either. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Avruch's evaluation of this matter, and concur that Lar's original block was warranted. Anthøny (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. I've had my fair share of differences with Lar on many previous occasions, but not on this occasion - I am in complete agreement with Avruch's view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block Proper block, within discretion, no need to unblock at this time, let it run its course. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. User pages should not be used as a soapbox in real world legal battles. Also I do not consider some of these sources as reliable(e.g. [9]); they are breaking news (i.e. wild speculation), without a named journalist. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody stop over and check out the edits QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is attempting to make. Grsz^X 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11 has repeatedly made bad faith allegations. Consensus is good faith editing and not bad faith. QuackGuru 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're comments have nothing to do with the fact that you shouldn't add your POV to a template. Grsz^X 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy I can't edit a template and why did you accuse me of vandalism twice. Why did you repost your comments of bad faith on my talk page? QuackGuru 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, for QuackGuru and Grszll: please resolve any personal disputes on a relevant user_talk page, rather than on a public noticeboard; airing your differences here is not very helpful.

Secondly, again for Quack and Grs: I caution in the strongest possible terms, both of you, to refrain from revert warring with one another (as you did at template:Controversial). It's truly not a helpful practice to engage in, and indeed is somewhat disruptive.

Lastly—and, oddly enough, this point is also directed at both of you—you both need to strive to keep a distance between the two of you. I sense some personal history between the two of you, and my suspicion is that this dispute is not the first to have arose between you two. If you cannot work together, keep separate; and, for heaven's sake, don't actively go looking for each other. "Ignore" is the key word here, methinks.

– Anthøny (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never came across him before. I'm simply trying to understand his comments at Template talk:Controversial. Grsz^X 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's simply a clash of personalities, then. Either way, my request stands: if you two can't get along, keep apart. Anthøny (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue still stands. He added text to Template:Controversial after an edit he made at Sarah Palin was rejected for being against consensus. I reverted (I had not been involved at the Palin article) and asked him to get consensus before making an edit to the template, and he claimed because he supported it and I was acting in "bad faith" the result is consensus. Grsz^X 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11 repeatedly accused me of vandalism. Part of consensus is AGF. This has nothing to do with the Sarah Palin article. That was more bad faith by Grsz11. The template did not mention anything about consensus or DR. The template should reflect Wikipedia policy and not be vague. QuackGuru 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to declare another editor in good standing's position on a point of contention to be bad-faith based on your own assertion and then overrule their involvement in discussions and editing based on them being outside consensus. That is ludicrous and WP:POINTy. Stop this. It's disruptive, and you should know better by now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any admin action happens here its going to be the blocking of all the revert warring parties. I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to admin action being taken, I request the review of grsz11 (talk · contribs) 's use of the roll back tool. The following diffs concern me. [10] [11] [12] [13] They are all not vandalism and the last few are clear WP:BITE 's. Thanks! Mww113 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the diffs? One IP added "lauren" to the top of an article, one created a redlink, one added a BLP violation, and QuackGuru (the only questionable use of rollback) added a statement against consensus.

The third edit was definitely vandalism (check the revision before the IP's edit), and the fourth one was in complete compliance with WP:BLP (removal of unreferenced inflammatory claims). —Animum (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't know the proper way to go about this matter. I am totally a third party but I have noticed that user Mitsube in recent edit comments (16/01 19:25 item C) to an article entitled Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen seems to have disclosed the real-life identity of another user. My understanding is that this is absolutely forbidden. Could some administrator please look into this matter. I draw this to your attention because I value my own privacy and this behavior worries me. Anam Gumnam -- अनाम गुमनाम 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't absolutely forbidden. If a user discloses his own identity, and then engages in sock puppetry, then it may be acceptable for another editor to penetrate the disguise. That appears to be what Mitsube thought was happening. I don't know the article well enough to say whether he was justified. Looie496 (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no evidence here of sock-puppets. There was a user Tony Page quite some while back but he seems to have stopped editing at the beginning of 2008. The user Suddha has just recently started editing. There is no continuity of use to suggest they are really the same person or other tell-tale signs of multiple identities, so user Mitsube is speculating about a common identity or probing for the identity of user Suddha. If they are the same person, then he/she might have valid reasons for not wanting their real-life identity exposed -- there is then a invasion of privacy. I still think that this is not acceptable. I hope some other administrator could take the time to look into this. -- अनाम गुमनाम 05:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is User talk:98.169.210.188 appropriate use of Wikipedia? Free speech, or bad faith of a disgruntled editor? Background: one of several IP's used by a previously enjoined editor found to have been used to manipulate consensus discussions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to suggest. If this were a registered user, I'd say it's inappropriate use of a Talkpage, and strongly suggest it be moved to a User sub-page and/or be discussed at MfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam? Grsz^X 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to the last good talk page version. BJ^Talk 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commerical [sic] aircraft redirects to Aircraft. Commercial aircraft redirects to Commercial aviation.

The first redirect contains a typo; when I try to move the page to fix the typo, the system does not allow me to do this.

I don't think the same term (commercial aircraft) should redirect to two different things.

Can someone help eliminate the typo and the redirect inconsistency? Thanks from Denver, Colorado, Denverjeffrey (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed Commerical aircraft to redirect to Commercial aviation; there's no need to fix the typo. Indeed, redirects that cover common typos are useful and beneficial because they allow the reader to get to the article they meant rather than a search page. See WP:REDIRECT for more info on redirects. Good job on spotting that inconsistency. Reyk _YO! 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noticed a large number of articles about non-notable bands in Edmonton, Canada? Most of the A7's I've deleted so far have been created by different users about different bands. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind I just found Talk:Operation Midnight Climax (band), it's a school project. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange assignment. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange indeed. I can't imagine any teacher asking students to use Wikipedia for class, especially if they don't know how the article creation process works themselves. Gary King (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it. I can also imagine kids saying it was an assignment when it wasn't. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've speedied a few of these already this afternoon. I did think it odd that they were all from the same place. Has anyone tried to get a hold of the teacher to point them towards this discussion? This is a classic example of why you should ask first before getting your kids to put a whole bunch of effort into creating articles that are only going to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

We could ask. They might be willing to make an account and we could point them toward Wikipedia:Schools'_FAQ and maybe Wikiversity. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, another wave of these have just appeared in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. I've left a note at Talk:Operation Midnight Climax (band), although it's parent has been deleted and the talk page itself probably doesn't have much longer for this world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• I listed a few at AfD. What links here is organized by date of page creation. If you look at What links here, you'll see that there are not many of these recently created, Edmonton music pages left. There are some user pages with article content on them, but they were recently created so there's not much to do with them at this time. -- Suntag ☼ 10:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I found out it was a school project I began leaving messages at the posters page linking to a section on my talk page rather than reposting the same message several times. I gave them a link to the notability page, the school project page and asked them to explain to the person who set this. No reply from the teacher so far. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Look, at this point I don't care if you're the crap entering her toilet. You're not going to get the article deleted just on your say-so, and your belligerence has only gotten you an extended block. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sisters name is Julianna Mauriello. she has a page on this website where people are adding stuff that is not true. I have fixed the page to show what is true. But some of the stalkers, I mean people on this site, keep changing it to not true stuff. My sister knows about this website. She knows it is full of garbage. we either want her page removed or to show real information. she was on a show called Lazytown that finished filming in 2007. she will be attending Vasser college for elementary education in 2009. i dont know how sourced you want then that. i was told in email that her biography page was to have incorrect stuff removed asap, well i am trying to do that but a few people are fighting with me. Not coincidentaly, they are the same people who have had control of her website on here for years and have riddled it with misinformation. I, We, would like the page removed. My sister is a minor, the misinformation on the page could be considered dammaging. since i have been to this site 3 times in my life, chances are I will not be able to find my way back here so you may email me at (email address redacted by Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} thanks --Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tough. We have an OTRS system which will work with her to fix or delete the article; we can't act on IP addresses' say so because we have no way to verify you're actually her brother. I've also taken the liberty of removing your email address so as to prevent people from grabbing it and sending you harassing/spam emails. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And extended to 48 for calling others pedophiles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone oversight the email left in one of the edit summaries left by the IP as well? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That diff has already been selectively deleted. Oversighting probably isn't needed. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can/should a user who has voted on an XfD close the XfD or would that represent a conflict of interest? I'm asking here because I do non-admin closures on AfDs and am thinking that maybe I shouldn't vote on them if I'm going to close them (provided it's a keep of course). I ask here because (hopefully) some admins will know the answer. Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would definitely recommend that a user not close any XFD in which he has participated, with the possible exception of where he is closing based on an almost-unanimous decision which is against his own point of view. Goes double for non-admins. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-admin closures says "Non-admin closure is not appropriate when the non-admin ... expressed an opinion in the deletion debate." -- Suntag ☼ 09:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opps, didn't see that one :-) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to close an XfD you participated in if the nominator has withdrawn and there are no extant delete !votes, or if the page has been speedy deleted. the skomorokh 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, no one, admin or otherwise, should close a debate/rfa/xfd/etc they participated in. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick question

Also, would it be alright if I started to close AfDs (unanimous or very close) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 13 now? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OAFD for debates that have been open long enough to close. the skomorokh 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen users close pages before 5 days is up (usually late in day 4), is this alright? E.g. this AfD was closed on the 16th at 3:28 (UTC), when it was opened on the 12th at 22:46 (UTC), making it listed for roughly 3 days and 5 hours (I think). Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking that close was naughty, but Z-man is an admin and it did look like a snowclose. Early closing may be appropriate in the case of snow, nominations withdrawn, XfD's opened very soon after a previous XfD on the same page, speedy deletions and bad faith/banner user nominations, but really there is no deadline and non-admins such as yourself are best advised to leave things run for the full period as early closes often lead to unnecessary drama. the skomorokh 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-administrators should wait the whole five days until closing, or else I or someone else will likely rollback the close. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an improved version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SVG.svg (visually almost the same, details neater now, file size down a lot, source bit more readable)

I temporarily put it at http://steltenpower.com/svg.svg (careful with case/caps) Please tell me at svg@steltenpower.com when you fixed it.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the world could just edit the SVG source code right on Wikipedia? Of course not allowing the edit if it's not valid SVG.

Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia. That image is hosted at Wikipedia Commons, their administrators' noticeboard is here. I also opened your image and at least in my browser (Firefox 3) the source now runs off the background page, which I would not consider to be an improvement. Thanks again for your interest and effort.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is great. Wiki syntax however keeps most people from helping (just put ALL your coding/math/tech skills (and interests!!) aside for a minute and remember most people are like that) Is there an editor for non-coders that can be put in a not-to-miss place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.134.79 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title added. You may want to have a look at WP:WikiEd. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's scary stuff like this which prompted me to shut down my account and watch the goings-on from the sidelines. I've seen the sheer stupidity of garbage like the organized "Grawp" vandalism (which I was a victim of, by the way), nearly one thousand blocked socks of User:MascotGuy in a four-year stretch and the ongoing sockpuppet wars here and there but never in all the years I contributed to this site have I see something so egregious as those revolting and incessant attacks on User:Nancy. Why do all the sickos have dynamic IPs and why in hell has this been allowed to continue? I tell you, I'm at the point where I don't even want to casually surf this site, let alone contribute. I'm happy on some smaller specialized wikis which never get bothered by this insanity. If the attacks against Nancy aren't a clarion call for the Wikimedia Foundation to press charges against those responsible, I don't know what is. Heck, just a quick perusal of the new user page mostly turns up childish vandals with a penchant for fart jokes, wildly nationalistic editors with axes to grind regarding their perceived misrepresentation of their country and spammers, spammers everywhere. Very few new accounts actually seem to be constructive. That said, I fear this Nancy attack is far more dangerous than the threat posed by the bored teenagers who perpetuated Grawp. This is obsession, plain and simple. Good luck. As for me, I think it's time to just go away cold turkey and never return. Just no fun anymore.  :( Thanks for listening. Regretfully, --70.104.7.231 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Nancy is an admin, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, quite capable of taking care of herself. Sorry to hear that you can't stand her page being vandalised though. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, as long as there are vandal, we have plenty more good editors who will clean up their messes. Nancy's a good admin too, I'm sure she can handle the childish attacks on her page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you guys have her back covered. My concern was over the rather obsessive behavior of this one, well, jackass if you'll pardon my French. She's made of some strong stuff if she can keep on taking that ridiculous taunting without walking away...and I wouldn't blame her if she did. Thanks for the reassurance. Sincerely, me again at work via --76.79.100.242 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to unify the deletion delay on categories like replaceable fair use, empty category, possibly unfree images, and redundant templates, changing them all to five days. Please visit WT:CSD if you wish to discuss this. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please full protect this page. Numerous editors are inserting material that is attacking this person. Primarily editors are trying to link him to the Keating Five scandal because he has the last name as one involved. Even though there is no proof at this time that he is related or has anything to do with this scandal. Additionally, people are inserting his tax problems into his bio which have no relevance to the article. Arzel (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP, please. I'm not taking this as I have very strong political views and do not want to have them displayed on Wikipedia. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, wasn't the AfD for Joe the plumber closed as redirect due to WP:BLP1E? This seems to be a recreation of the same material. Of course WP:CCC. VG ☎ 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the second AFD where the brilliant close was to keep it temporarily.[14]--Cube lurker (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the new policy is to keep articles around until "the spotlight has moved to another political talking point". My mistake. VG ☎ 23:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally love the closing admin's statement: "While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made". Really? We make exceptions for the BLP policy? All my respect goes to whichever admin deletes this article. - auburnpilot talk 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just as little impressed with the close on the AFD, but I think rather then wheel war and cause havoc, the best thing to do is get it to DRV, which I've already done. SirFozzie (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BillCJ (talk · contribs) left a really uncivil comment on the page accusing me of ownership with the article after working around the clock since, well September really, to clean-up cites and expanding in line with various good film articles, released and unreleased. Bill clearly doesn't want to discuss this any further, and apart from this he seems like a great editor (look at all those Barnstars), so I'm just concerned about him suddenly going on the warpath with the usual "fan" insult and brazen rudeness. Should I have just undid his comment which had nothing to do with improving the article regardless of his good past form? Alientraveller (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour." BillCJ indicated that he is de-watching the article and the talk page and won't respond to comments about it. While probably uncivil, I think you should just archive the discussion and let it go, but I'll notify him anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per this, I think we are done. Mark as resolved and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, not sure if this is just my end, but I can't seem to revert to the revision of 7 (number) which doesn't have "OVER 9000" spewed all over it. The rev I want to get to is here; I've tried "undo", "edit" and even manually copy/pasting. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. SMC (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The undo buttons aren't going to work. I've reverted back to the last good edit. —kurykh 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but when attempting to create a redirect from John Henderson McConnell to John H. McConnell, I found that the former page was blacklisted. Since this is his full name, I believe it could be useful as a redirect because he is sometimes referred to by his full name to distinguish, and I have yet to find any other such uses with notability for Wikipedia, I am requesting that it be removed from the blacklist for the purpose of creating this redirect. Thank you. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you want WP:RFUP for requests like these. However, I see no protection currently in place, and nothing in the page logs... am I missing something? Tan | 39 05:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to match either the local or global blacklists, either. What exactly is the error message you get when you try to create it? --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interestingly enough, I am no longer getting an error message. The one I was getting in a red box above the edit field told me to post here to "request removal from the blacklist", which it was on. Oh well, I got it done. Thanks for the help! – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 06:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it mentions "blacklist", it'll be the title blacklist or possibly the spam blacklist. If it continues to be an issue, post again with the full exact message. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we ever get concerned when someone writes something like this? I hate to think it's an actual threat, and it's probably just a joke edit, but maybe it's better to find out what's going on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUICIDE recommends action, although it's not a policy. Tan | 39 06:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that admins should handle this. I'm a health-care professional, and we have a policy that every threat should be taken seriously. Someone needs to handle this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting checkuser request. Tan | 39 06:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See request here. Tan | 39 06:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my post to the RFCU case:  Confirmed this user is editing as an IP and as the named user. Both IP and named user edits are very child like and even several vandalism in nature. I can tell what city this seems to be coming from but did not find enough to contact any authority about. In my personal opinion, this is some kid fooling around. I've even blocked the named account as a vandal only account. I want to say the users reporting this to AN and RFCU did the right thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)...PS someone already blocked indef for vandalism. Blocked IP for a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've used accounts in the past that have got blocked, but I don't know if that constitutes a WP:BAN. You don't need to revert my edits or try to censor what I say; I'm not dangerous.--BlockDropper (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, What were your previous accounts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't really matter. The problem is that the personal temptation to edit Wikipedia when I'm bored is still there, and I will still do it, albeit not necessarily in a particularly helpful way. If you, the administrators, stopped with your censorship and totalitarianism, then this place might be fun to edit.--BlockDropper (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to vandalise, edit Encyclopedia Dramatica - it's vandal-city. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed. And in less than one minute after I blocked, he requested unblock. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – all fixed by various edit-conflicting admins. Bencherlite^Talk 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User moved user talk page to article space talk page. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And AFD closed as a WP:CSD#A7. --Rodhullandemu 16:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=== Unblock problems ===

Resolved

 – I've cleared the autoblock. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background is this was a very bad block I was willing to let slide, but it seems that while it was an honest mistake, the blocking admin has no barrier to guide him between good and bad, I made peace (I thought)[15] after the situation was explained[16] and asked Tanthalas39 to acknowlege a misundterstanding by tweaking the block record with the summary "misunderstanding".[17]. Instead I am left with, permanantly "misunderstanding? I have misgivings - "prick", "twat", etc - but per JayHenry". Thats no small thing and will always be there as lond as I edit here. A huge disgrace, and highly highly offensive. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the 15:17, 18 October 2008 Tanthalas39 post summary[18] is not appropriate, you can post a request at Wikipedia:Oversight to have it removed. -- Suntag ☼ 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ceoil is not looking at the time stamps properly. My initial block - while I thought he was harrassing JayHenry - quote his edit summaries (prick, twat). We determined this was two guys having fun, apologies were made all around (see his and my talk pages), and I did a one-second block where I clearly state is was a misunderstanding and that Ceoil did nothing to warrant the initial block. I thought we all made peace; I have no idea where this new animosity is coming from. Tan | 39 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm incapapale of intreparing the diffs, or that I'm a liar. Its one or the other, and bear in mind I am basically accusing you of being a liar.[19]. Which it it. To reming you you followed unblocked "Ceoil (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (misunderstanding? I have misgivings - "prick", "twat", etc - but per JayHenry) with Explaining previous block. Misunderstanding based on "rivalry" with JayHenry. User did nothing to warrant previous 72-hour block only after I complained here. Fucker.

I should know how to fix this but I don't. I used Twinkle by the way. The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Holst is showing up as a red link, and when you look at the template via edit it says 'keep'. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]