Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) at 12:25, 5 August 2011 (→Remarks by closing admin: markup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 53#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed  08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Closed number 2 for you guys. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, DQ! Cunard (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban: MakeSense64

See also: MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well (archive)

• Disruptive editing:

MakeSense64 (talk · contribs) has a history of disruptive editing on content relating to astrology, and pages whose content touches upon that subject, (eg, fixed star/constellation pages).

His disruption includes tendentious editing; irrational deletion of relevant content; disruptive cite-tagging; creating 'pointy' AfD's; refusing to engage in consensus building; misrepresenting reliable sources; rejecting community input; inciting division amongst the WP community (bottom line) (accompanied by); adopting an unnecessarily adversarial stance, and perpetuating disputes by restating unsupportable arguments which have been addressed and answered several times (line 612ff).

This has created a great deal of unnecessary frustration and time-wasting which is significantly hindering attempts to improve Misplaced Pages content; and has the effect of driving away contributing editors.

Here are examples of exasperated comments, all from different editors, and all expressing strong criticism of his disruptive editing and divisive agenda:

• Terrymacro
• Petersburg
• Dmcq
• Paul Quigley
• WhatamIdoing
• Robertcurrey
• Ken McRitchie
• Aquirata
• myself
• CycloneGU

• Conflict of Interest:

MakeSense64 appears to have instigated his WP activity to pursue a vendetta against western astrologers, based on his own preference for Chinese astrological methods. His initial WP activity, upon reactivating a dormant account, was to negatively target the biography of a western-astrology website owner who had banned him from her website forum a few days beforehand, for disruptive editing there (| see below for more details of this). Whilst withholding the details of this COI, he has frequently, unreasonably, proposed that citations which use a reference from that website are unacceptable (without good reason: the website is notable as a reservoir of republished articles and book-extracts and is regularly used as a reference by many published books | and a number of the academic works listed in Google scholar |).

His aims are contrary to the aims of Misplaced Pages. Whilst on the one hand he is willing to contribute positively to Chinese astrology pages |, all of his activity concerned with western astrology pursues the intention of deleting content |, polarizing opinion and frustrating attempts to provide appropriately neutral and verifiable content, |, removing relevant references by claiming imaginary consensus |, and editing to perpetuate misrepresentation |.

Recently, another editor made a complaint against MakeSense64 on ANI (removed, I better located it above CycloneGU (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)), with the suggestion that he is unlikely to be as new to Misplaced Pages as his contribution history suggests. This brought a lot of discussion, but no proposal for resolution. Whilst that complaint was ongoing, MakeSense64 instigated his own COI concern against several editors (myself included), with wide-ranging criticisms that editors who have spoken out against him are acting as part of a conspiracy |. That discussion should be read to understand how the complaints he issued were distorted, exaggerated and untenable, whilst his own COI was revealed to be substantial. In that thread several editors suggested that the only solution to the long-running problems was a topic ban against Makesense64, to prevent further unnecessary disruption on pages related to astrology and astronomy, including the talk-pages where he persists in divisive arguments |, |, |, |. One editor also proposed that he should be blocked from creating further ‘pointy AdF requests’ which serve his reverse-COI and result in a time-wasting drain on other editors activities |. An admin advised that the best place to seek community support for such a ban was here.

I am therefore formalizing that request because 1) the problems are significant and long-running and have involved numerous RfC 2) all previous attempts at resolution have failed; 3) MakeSense64 shows no intention of moderating his disruptive stance; 4) he is clearly negatively prejudiced and unreasonably emotive towards this subject, and 5) because of his COI he is unlikely to adopt a more balanced editing approach to these topics in future.

Zac Δ talk 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

At the request of Penwhale, I have made some of the links to information more obvious. Zac is welcome to fix up the post further if I screwed anything up. CycloneGU (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

• I've added a reference to the AN/I archive from maybe a week ago which is where I first saw this. Above, meanwhile, my example in the group is the last one, and I've done a non-admin close on a very bad-taste AfD prior to (or at least around the time of) that comment. As I noted in the example comment, I truly don't care what happens, and will not benefit either way, but I do believe MakeSense64 has a COI that he refuses to accept and needs to be barred from the astrology subject. CycloneGU (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like that close, I must say. Firstly, the recommendation to ban MakeSense64 from further AfDs was badly misplaced. Fhe point of closing items early is to limit drama, so don't make drama-inducing statements while doing so. Firstly point one, there's no point making that recommendation there, as by definition discussion can't take place in that spot. Firstly point two, if you simply must make an announcement about an editor like that in a close, use a link to some place discussion is going on, and use a neutrally worded message. "Closed to limit disruption, discussion ]." would have done the trick. Secondly, the Afd had already resulted in sources being added to the article. Now you kids get off my lawn! - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at that AfD, and yes - I agree with Aaron here that CycloneGU comes off as a bit aggressive in the closing statements. You can give reasoning on closure of the AfD, but that should be just that. - Penwhale | 10:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Points taken - I probably said a lot more there than I needed to, and I concede that (it's possible MakeSense may not have even read it, though by now I'm sure he has). It still comes off as a pointy nom. however, given he had an astrology reverse COI. I should have kept it simpler. CycloneGU (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don’t want to divert attention away from this substantial complaint on this one point, but will add that CycloneGU took the initiative after he questioned another deletion request made by MakeSense64 the same day, and I informed him how I had been more concerned about that one, and had asked an admin to consider a speedy delete. (This was because that admin had recently dealt with other problems of this nature). The post I left on his talk page is here. This gives a better insight into why that AdF was so pointy, in comments that I didn’t make public elsewhere. I can see why the above criticisms have been made in this instance; on the other hand this situation has been going on so long and so regularly, that it’s hard for uninvolved editors to realise how much disruption it causes when mass problems are suddenly identified with a warning that content goes if not fixed in 7 days; and then even when it is fixed to a standard that should not leave remaining concern, the deletion request comes back to be unnecessarily argued over again. Also, for the record, at that time Makesense64 had ridiculously implied that CycloneGU might be ‘part of the plot’, for totally irrational reasons, so I think his eyes were open to the fact that unreasonable behaviour was taking place. To be clear about this, I did not even know of CycloneGU’s existence prior to the complaint; I’m pretty sure he did not know of mine, although this is another fact that MakeSense64 refuses to accept at face value. Zac Δ talk 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A brief confirmation from me that the AN/I thread at the top of this is the first place I saw Zac asking if he was allowed to provide evidence there, and I encouraged him to do so and even as a neutral party to contact people who might be "involved". MakeSense64 took offense to the fact I did not offer this same offer to him. CycloneGU (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Zachariel, could you write more descriptive link names other than just |? It's making the links hard to read, and people that are glancing at this wouldn't know what you are referring to (at a glance). - Penwhale | 10:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'll take a quick look and fix this, with a note following his post when I'm done. I already added the "See also" before noticing he had it covered in the "|" links, so I removed one "|" link already. CycloneGU (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very grateful CycloneGU. It took me a long to prepare this report in that way (which is what I thought I had to do), and I'm not sure what is required. You don't have to follow every link though - each gives a different example which demonstrates one typical example of the problem. The sequence of links to critical remarks at the end of the 'disruptive editing' section is to demonstrate that the patience of many contributing editors has been exhausted by these problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs)

• Support topic ban (astronomy and astrology) – My initial contact with MakeSense64 was as a neutral party on 4 June where I supported his request for stronger verifiable sources. However, what I did not know then was that since reactivating his account on Misplaced Pages on 27 May 2011, MakeSense64 has pursued a personal campaign to eliminate all references to a particular well-respected resource: skyscript.com and the owner of that site. This COI has not yet been denied. The personal vendetta soon escalated to any topic or individual or group in the field of western astrology which is covered by skyscript (over 90% of his first 1000 edits). This includes pages where astronomy and star lore overlap – a speciality of skyscript. MakeSense64’s familiarity with Misplaced Pages rules means that his tendentious and disruptive editing can only be seen by looking at the entire pattern (especially before 20 July when I first filed a complaint) as whole rather than single posts. This has entailed ignoring clear arguments, repeating the same arguments several times, deliberately presenting an incomplete version of events, attempting to polarize opinion and provoke edit wars, accusing neutral editors who disapprove of his disruptive hyper-activity as having COI or being meat-puppets or working in collusion or pursuing a campaign, unreasonably (and without consensus) blocking change with reverts, removing cited material without reason, disregarding consensus, filing inappropriate afds and finally excessive and indiscriminate tagging (approx 93 pages all connected with one specialist field between 9 June - 19 July). All these points have been supported by links above and in the previous threads. Robert Currey talk 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I believe that I originally encountered MakeSense64 at RSN in June. He was trying to argue that an article written by an apparently reliable source in 2002, and copied (with zero changes and documented legal licensing) to a website running Mediawiki software in 2009, magically became written on an open wiki (years before said wiki was created) and therefore automatically unreliable for any purpose. The material in question is not apparently contentious; as far as I can tell, he just didn't want it to be possible to include the material in Misplaced Pages at all, especially not to something with a handy convenience link to a free, online copy at a website that apparently banned him.
  I don't see this as primarily a COI problem: Sure, he's pro-Chinese astrology and anti-Western astrology, and he apparently got banned from some website, which could sort of be a COI with respect to the one website. However, I think the bigger problem is your average, basic POV pushing: his editing is biased, and when other editors don't roll over and play dead when he wants to delete sourced information about Western astrology, then he disrupts the community with nominations for deletion, endless talk page disputes, and rudeness. I believe he could be a productive editor outside of the one subject area. I do not believe that letting him continue his disruption of astrology-related pages is in the best interests of the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - There was a notice about this over on the WikiProject Astrology page. I recently started trying to revive that project over the course of the past month or so (I originally founded it a few years ago), and in that time I've noticed that a lot of worthwhile astrology articles are getting tagged for deletion by MakeSense64. I haven't really seen him contribute anything valuable to the astrology section, but instead he just seems to be queuing up large portions of the astrology articles on Misplaced Pages for deletion. I don't really know what his problem is, but this doesn't seem very constructive, and I would rather he wasn't free to continue to attempt to delete worthwhile content on the site. --Chris Brennan (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - I support the topic ban. Makesense does not work from consensus. As an example, I proposed a change from the primary definition of astrology as a form of divination, while not disagreeing that it could be divinatory in some forms. I supplied scholarly references. Makesense kept saying that no change should be permitted unless sources were provided. On three occasions I provided sources and he refused to acknowledge them, just repeating his demand. Meanwhile other editors were having a perfectly reasonable conversation. Makesense is not intersted in consensus, largely obstructive and only interested in imposing his own point of view.Paul Quigley (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - I'll support this suggestion. I don't think that MakeSense64 is a terrible editor overall, and isn't entirely unreasonable in discussions. But I believe that he has had a great deal of difficulty working with other editors on astrology topics, and has shown a troubling amount of disruption in the area. This includes making unsupported accusations against other editors, tagging dozens of articles in bulk with contested tags, and removing sources that link to a web site he has had a personal dispute with in violation of WP:COI. If he can avoid articles related to this topic, I hope to see much less disruption and more productive editing. -- Atama頭 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - The disruption helps nobody, and like his handle, he doesn't make sense at all. The explanation below turns people off by trying to deflect attention against him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MakeSense64

My answers to most of these accusations are already in MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well (archive) and in COI on astrology pages
If some question is not adressed there, then let me know.
As for the most recent complaint that I am making pointy AfDs, I welcome admins to have a look at two AfDs that Zac nominated recently. AfD:Stars in astrology and AfD:Ophiuchus_(astrology).
(In both cases Zac couldn't be bothered to notify the creators of those pages, so I ended up doing it.)
He wanted these astrology pages deleted because they didn't suit his arguments on another page, as you can see from his comments in the AfD discussions. As the deletion discussion didn't go his way, he tried (twice) to change the name of Stars in astrology and make it into a list article. All because he refused to take it on board that the astrology of Algol belongs on that page, and not on Algol, the astronomy page. And I was certainly not the only editor pointing that out to him. See long discussion on Talk:Algol.
And that's the editor who is accusing me of being disruptive and tendentious. Enough said. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM - Even though it talks about being blocked, the principles of that apply here. This is about you, not Zac. If you want to start a thread about Zac, wait until this is concluded and deal with it afterwards (no sense having two conflicting ones at once). CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if your only defence is to be critical of me then it's a very poor one, because what you imply is not the case at all. They are the only pages I have ever proposed for deletion, both on the same day, and I didn't realise it was necessary to see who originally created the page and inform those editors. By the time I did, it had already been done. The first page | Stars in astrology at that time had practically no content, but you were insisting that because it existed, with one editor's personal suggestion to place star information into it, then no culturally-significant information could go into any other WP page. Once it was established that the editor's suggestion was not going to be read as a formal policy (as you were suggesting) I was happy to withdraw the deletion reuqest myself, and subsequently contributed to the development of that page.

I would still argue for the deletion of the Ophiuchus (astrology) page. The page is loaded with false information and to be developed it has to change direction completely. That seems to be the opinion of most other editors (notice the section of the talk page, created in January This article is total crap, which begins with the observation "Its junk like this that makes so many people devalue wikipedia"). Even the creator of the article admitted he thought so too within the deletion request, and had created the page mainly to get the rubbishy information away from the main Ophiuchus constellation page. My argument was, and remains, that there is no justification for "total crap" on WP, not even within astrology-related content, although you are always fiercely opposed to attempts to replace crap with verified clarifications. When I get time, I hope to be able to improve the Ophiuchus (astrology) but it will need more than a sticking plaster to bring that one up to standard.

I think it should be said that I spend a great deal of time trying to rectify the problems in astrology-related content. To my knowledge you have not attended to a single problem, nor provided a single substantiating reference in any of the 100+ astrology-related pages that you have tagged with problems that could lead to deletion. You have also caused articles and bios to be speedily deleted before I could get chance to attend to the problems, even when I have declared the intention to do so very shortly. Zac Δ talk 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In comment to the last paragraph, pages can be userfied if you wish to continue work on them rather than outright deleted. This was done with Nail Yakupov at one point, in fact (check the history), and now it's agreed that he meets notability guidelines so it's no longer necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to close

There have been no comments to this section for nearly 41 hours. I'm posting this to ensure it doesn't archive before it's closed. I believe there is enough of a consensus above to enact this topic ban. Could an uninvolved administrator please enact the agreed-upon topic ban herein? CycloneGU (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd comment by MakeSense64

Is concensus counted by votes or by arguments? WP is not a democracy, or is it?

A few brief remarks:

* Not a single example has been brought of an article that was unfairly tagged by me.

* As for the complaint that I am repeating arguments. What is wrong with repeating arguments if they have not been refuted? What is wrong with rephrasing a question if it was not answered? That's actually what should be done according to the book "How wikipedia works".

* As for the theory that I am a Chinese astrologer with a COI, intent on removing Western astrology. Have you noticed how many words are spent on Chinese astrology in the article Astrology? Answer: zero. It would be much easier to make the case that Western astrologers have already removed Chinese astrology from the generic article about astrology.

* By the way, complaining editors never posted any warning template on my User_Talk, even though I often invited them to discuss possible problems on my Talk rather than in the article pages, where we are expected to focus on content. Nobody has ever filed a wikiquette alert or a request for comment. Now they want me topic banned right away. They complain that I know the rules well, as if that is crime.... Could it be they just don't want to work with anybody but pro-astrology editors?

Is WP about outnumbering others and about lobbying around? If so I will be more than happy to be banned from this place.

If I am banned, then I am looking forward to see the motivation that comes with it. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

First, you don't have to headline every comment you make with "Comment by MakeSense64"; it's not common practice. I'm sure you have your reasons for it, but just letting you know.

Second, you have completely ignored the one mentioned in Zac's complaint that I personally closed. That was nothing more than a pointy nom.

Third, I've informed Zac of this comment by you. He knows a lot more than I do about the circumstances leading to this request (I can see it's been over two months), so I'm sure he'll be happy to answer your concerns if this isn't closed by then. Any admin. can look through all the conversations as well if they'd like and find some as well. CycloneGU (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Here is how that article looked like when I nominated it:

Google search yielded only links from sites of their own "chapters" in the first pages of results, so that are not independent sources. Zac added two references, but they were low quality as well (astrology a-z type books). So I put it to AfD. Nominating an AfD that results in Keep is not a reason for a ban. Many AfD result in a Keep every day.

According to WP, banning an editor is not done to "punish" him, but to avoid damage to the WP project. So, where did I damaged any page? It will be very easy to make the case that many astrology pages have been improved since I tagged them or worked on them; articles that had not been improved for years.

As for some links and references to Zac's "favorite source" that I have removed. The point seems to be missed that the reliability of this source was questioned by several independent editors who passed by on these pages. Here is the latest example: and

Dedicated astrology sites are also considered unreliable here: WP:CRUSH

But that information was never taken on board.

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Remarks by closing admin

Firstly, I don't believe I have ever edited an astrology article, or even expressed an opinion on astrology, be it Babylonian, Chinese, Vedic or as purveyed in the Daily Mirror. So I have looked at this purely from the basis of "is MakeSense64 causing a net improvement to the project by editing in this area" and "are six supports sufficient for a topic ban". In this case, I believe the six supports are enough - they are editors in good standing, and have not all come to this from one dogfight. It seems clear that while MakeSense64 does work to improve articles, the way he does it is causing serious stress to other editors. Also, his sustained attack on one source for which the consensus is that it is a WP:RS for the purpose for which it is used, is clearly POV pushing of some kind. For this reason, I believe a topic ban would be appropriate. I note that no duration was suggested initially. I believe in carrying out the minimum sanction necessary to restore calm - in this case, I think six months would be appropriate.

User:MakeSense64 is accordingly topic banned from the subject of Astrology, widely construed, and including all project spaces for a period of six months. I will make the appropriate records. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics RfC needs closing

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC has been opened for 30 days, and needs closing by an uninvolved admin. However, to the closing admin, please note Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC#International canvassing, which discusses canvassing, before closing the RfC. HeyMid (contribs) 08:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to act on this particular RfC, but for future reference, where does it say one must be an admin to close an RfC? Jc3s5h (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the closing user is an admin or not is not important, but it'd be good if an uninvolved user could close the RfC. HeyMid (contribs) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Closed with the "no consensus" result that probably anyone looking at it could have expected. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist attention needed

Several requests have been made at the Spam-whitelist Talk page, and new requests have not been attended to by administrators for over 10 days now. I have one such request. Could an administrator go through these, please? Thanks, I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to unban User:LiteralKa

Proposal: Make file uploading a separable userright

Just thought I'd advertise this here too: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Make file uploading a separable userright Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed

An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
2. Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Block review

New admin here with a question about a block I just made on Atterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Atterion, apparently has a problem with the content of Green Leaves, and, allegedly, a COI with respect to the property (I don't know what prompted that allegation, merely that it has been made). In any event, after some edit warring on the article, Atterion filed an Afd on the article (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Green Leaves). Well, that's alright (unless the COI is demonstrable, then it's possible a bad faith nomination), but what brings me here is that soon thereafter, Atterion created 2 sock puppets to also vote in the AfD. After a Checkuser confirmed all three are the same person (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Atterion), User:DeltaQuad blocked the two puppets indefinitely. DeltaQuad, though, didn't block the socks. After User:Sitush raised the issue of the AfD on my talk page, and I investigated, it seemed to me that Atterion needed to be blocked as well for intentionally disrupting the AfD process by creating the appearance of additional support for xyr position. As such, I blocked Atterion for 1 week (i.e., to run until after the AfD is complete). However, I have never enacted a block of this type (i.e., one for intentional disruption of WP processes) before, so I've brought the issue here for review. Was the block of the master wrong? I mean, is there any reason to believe that a reasonable person would actually think it's okay to create fake identities to influence the outcome of a deletion discussion? Or was the block too lenient? Input requested, por favor. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Small update: The COI admission is fairly minor; on User Talk:Sadads#Moving pages, Atterion says, "I know because I'm a descendant of that house (hard to believe, I know!)" That might explain the enthusiasm, but probably ends up not having much bearing on the immediate issue of socking. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand on Qwyrxian's last, Atterion has at some point said that they return to the house each year to conduct tours etc. I haven't yet found that diff, but it is definitely there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's a good block. The CU came back as confirmed, so it's fine. — HelloAnnyong 01:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, this was a good block. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:216.169.108.204

User talk:216.169.108.204. 216.169.108.204 is threatening to kill himself. I thought I should notify admins of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative Philosopher (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• emergency@wikimedia.org notified. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Conservartive Philosopher, but this is just the proxy suicide vandal trying to scare people. See the block list. I've been deleting and salting his pages for a couple days every time he makes one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards