User talk:Haemo

Welcome to my Talk Page! You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. My reply policy is that I'll try to reply on the page where the first question or comment is made. So, if you leave a message on this page, I'll reply here; and vice versa. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Always remember — Non nobis solum.

 

Question AfD Decision

Where do we find the information for appealing an article deletion? I've never done that before and can't find the info. I don't actually care whether Dick Donato has an article or is just a redirect, but given the improper AfD discussion, this needs to be done over. People turned it into a redirect repeatedly during the discussion. One person who was not an admin proclaimed it closed. The AfD tag went missing for four days -- and the damage from that is illustrated by the fact that no new voices weighed in on the discussion during those days. Regardless of Donato's notability, procedure must be followed. Any information would be appreciated. Travislangley 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can request a new discussion at deletion review. I'd personally be okay with a new discussion, but the current one appeared to be stale, so I just closed it. --Haemo 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stale? Actually it had been pretty heated for the last 24 hours. Travislangley 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really; I'm not seeing any substantively new points being brought up. If you'd like me to reopen the discussion, we could try that — given the zaniness that occured. However, the debate might quite honestly be better served from a "do-over", given that (apparently) the tag was missing for something like 4 days and the subsequent exposure was lost. --Haemo 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the following before your latest reply. Yes, I agree, a "do-over" is really all that makes sense.

Okay, according to that link, I should first ask you to reconsider the close. We have two main issues:

(1) AfD was improperly handled along the way.

Several people kept blanking content and turning the page into a redirect before discussion was over. People must see the article to discuss it.

One person who was not an admin proclaimed it closed.

That person removed the AfD tag. During the four days the tag was gone, conversation died. When the tag returned, people started voting again. Tags must not be removed.

(2) Notabiltiy.

People can debate notability of a Big Brother winner, but the AfD nomination was based on the fact that this person was simply a contestant. During the four days in which the tag was missing, he won the competition. Notability of a winner is a different issue from notability of a mere contestant, rendering previous discussion potentially irrelevant.

Nomination should be closed with a keep and invitation to restart AfD properly (or however a "do-over" set-up gets worded).

Thank you. Travislangley 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like to get an outside opinion before we do this. File a request on WP:DRV, and I'll chime in support of re-doing the discussion. --Haemo 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do (as soon as I read through the instructions). Thanks. Travislangley 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; just drop me a note when you're done, and I'll wander over. I might not respond promptly in about a half-hour, but hopefully it should be wrapped up before then. --Haemo 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Here's the notice the instructions say I'm supposed to give you:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dick Donato. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Travislangley 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I commented. Hopefully the next one goes more smoothly. --Haemo 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hello! You blocked an editor that I just reported at ANI, should you wish to close that thread as resolved. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll never guess what tipped me off ;) --Haemo 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

:) By the way, why did you think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-off characters on South Park (2nd nomination) was "delete"? It looked more like a "no consensus". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "keep" votes were not policy based, or otherwise unconvincing. Your argument was probably the best of the bunch. :) --Haemo 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so take my suggestion with a grain of salt, but I think it is good to indicate some kind of policy or something then in the closing note, because that way, editors like myself will be less likely to question it. I understand that these aren't votes, but unless if I see a policy justification in the closure, I'm apt (as was this case) to add up the keeps, deletes, and merges. Also, thank you for the kind compliment. :) (We should be able to have emoticons, here!) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes in only vaguely contentious cases, I err on not providing a clear summary when the arguments make it themselves, since it leads to people criticising the summary I gave as an argument. Oh, and we have emoticons . --Haemo 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV on "Accumulate and fire"

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Accumulate_and_fire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Caudax 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking into my 3RR report on User:72.195.179.48 (diff, since it disappear: [1]). If this happens again, shall I post on 3RR, or to you directly? Unfortunately, this particular user has a habit of making one or two edits once or twice a week, so it's never really obvious to those who may monitor RC and stuff like that. Thanks again! Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Post to me directly; I'll handle it. You pretty much need a specific admin to handle extended disruption problems. --Haemo 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's baaack! [2] on the talk page again. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about citing policy

Given that you were the overseeing admin in our "incident," you were the first person I thought to ask about a continuing dispute between Hoponpop69 and I about citing sources on the deathrock page. The main point of contention is that I don't believe the article needs citations in three particular cases. You can see my rationale on Talk:Deathrock#2007, which I'll re-summarize here:

1. He wants a citation verifying that some bands use drum machines. I think that this is pointless, as you can follow the bands' wikilinks and see that they do or don't use drum machines.

2. He wants a citation to back up the statement that deathrock is not associated with death metal. I think that this is folly for two reasons. First, the statement in the article is just to prevent confusion; it's clear that both pages have sources detailing their musical origins, and show that they are separate. Would you ask for a source to verify that acid rock and acid jazz are not the same thing? Second, it's asking someone to prove a negative, which can't really be done.

3. There are places where citation tags have been placed after band names, apparently to verify that they are part of the genre. I don't see how this would be a positive thing in any way. The point of citations is that the user can click on them and follow the link (or find the print media) and verify it. The bands mentioned on the page have citations on their own pages. Adding a verifying citation to every band name on the page doesn't improve usability or verifiability, because it takes no more time to click on a band's wikipage and possibly visit a source linked from that page than it does to click through to find a source than to click on a footnote link and then visit a (probably less information-rich) source just to verify that yes, Band X is a Genre X band. I've looked at Alternative rock, Drum and bass, and Soukous three genre articles which are official Good Articles, and neither of them have a citation after every mention of a band name.

Bear in mind that none of the issues/statements for which he wants citations appear to be contentious; there's no debate on the talk page. He just wants more sources for the (ostensible) purpose of improving verifiability, and my opinion is that adding these sources would just be a lot of work resulting in no improvement in verifiability and decreased usability. However, he says that I am just "making up rules" and wants to see Wikipedia policies to back up my logic, and it appears to me that the guidelines on when and when not to cite have little to say on the matter. --Halloween jack 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I don't really want to get to pulled into the matter, but the following occurs to me

1. If a source is requested for a fact in a linked article, you should just be able to pull the citation used in the subarticle for the fact. If no source exists, then it need a source somewhere. For non-obvious facts, it's worth citing them in both the main, and linked article.
2. Citations for proving the negative are generally reversing the burden of proof. The linked articles should provide enough context for the genres to provide a cogent background, which would not require sourcing; the statement is, in essence a summary of the material in the subarticles.
3. Again, I would just err on the side of sourcing it; if it's non-trivial that Band X is in Genre Y, then you might as well source it using the citation on the other page. --Haemo 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Project (band)

You recently closed an AfD for Alien Project (band) by re-directing the article. I was surprised by this move as there did not appear to me to be a consensus decision in the debate. A consensus was not found initially, and when the discussion was extended, two more people weighed in on each side of the debate, which seemed to me to demonstrate that there still wasn't a consensus. Might you re-consider this decision? Bondegezou 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I counted 4 "delete, merge or redirect" arguments which all made the same point; not notable, should be covered under Steve Perry. I counted a single policy-based "keep" argument which disagreed. The general consensus seemed to be that its own article was inappropriate, though not inappropriate as a part of another article. Thus, a redirect with the possibility of a merger was the best option. --Haemo 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might contest your maths... Z00ropean (who created the article) and I both presented arguments for the article to be kept, plus M.V.E.i. also supported keeping the article (but presented no further reasoning). That's against delete/redirect arguments from Precious Roy (who proposed the AfD), David Mestel, Ten Pound Hammer and Melsaran, plus MarkBul also supported deletion (but presented no reasoning). faithless was ambivalent. Z00ropean put significant further work into the article during the debate: on comments since then, it's 3 vs. 3 (Precious Roy, Ten Pound Hammer, Melsaran vs. Z00ropean, M.V.E.i. and myself). Thus, that's why I felt there wasn't a consensus. On the merits of the arguments put, I obviously agree with myself. :-) Bondegezou 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The quality, not quantity of arguments is important; arguments without justification don't factor into a proper accounting. --Haemo 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Issue

Hi Haemo, Is it legal to commit copyvio for a short time on wikipedia like here [3] [4]- see talk page bottom as done by user snowolfd4. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically I don't think that's legal. However, since he's going to delete it I'll let him request deletion when he's done. If you're worried, ask him to request a deletion and just email them privately to other users if they request the source. --Haemo 20:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi,

I succeeded at my RfA self-nomination.

Thanks for trusting that my work will be "intelligent and mature". It is very encouraging. I shall not disappoint you! --Amir E. Aharoni 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear Haemo, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate...

...block conflicts? :-)

See [5]

- Philippe | Talk 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider them super-blocked. --Haemo 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have GOT...

...to stop meeting like this [6]. I guess that means this page is super-protected? - Philippe | Talk 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mega-protected, even. --Haemo 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your protection was longer than mine, and you were there first. I'll roll mine back. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg

Sorry that I haven't thanked you for judging replaceability of the image rationally and favorably. The editor who tagged the image originally never answered my polite argument, except for repeating himself. And, now that you have judged it irreplaceably, he has tagged it for deletion again. Though the image description page provides the source and a link to the source, he still claims the source is vague. I guess it should be noted that this particular editor has been trying to get almost any fair use image I upload, making use of all the possible automated processes. Image tagged for prod by him has been judged fair by experienced editors/administrators. Whenever I attempt to remove tags like the one I'm discussing now it turns into a game of reverts. Whenever I attempt to ask for clarification or something, he responses in four well practiced ways - ignoring the question (there's one on the image talk page already), repeating himself over and over again, rude responses or, if it's on his talk page, removing the question. It is fairly difficult for me to assume good faith here. Therefore I am seeking you third party opinion. Please, make haste, or the editor will become successful for third or fourth time to make use of automated/semi-automated processes to harass another editor. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't make false accusation. It's considered to be lack of Civility. BTW, provide the specific source. It's not clear either.--NAHID 11:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The source is clear to me, and the copyright claim appears valid. If you have some serious issues with the source, you should nominate the article for a deletion discussion, and not just re-tag the article with semi-speedy tags. Those tags are meant for uncontroversial deletions; it's apparent that this deletion is controversial. --Haemo 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of JJJ999

You reviewed and upheld the block of JJJ999. Another admin and I are interested in lifting it if the editor reviews the copyright policy. I wanted to get your OK before implementing (assuming the editor ever responds). Is that alright with you?--Chaser - T 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Haemo. I am an admin (not one mentioned by Chaser). The block reason given was "Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy: copyvio, recreation of deleted content, reupload of copyvio)" If JJJ999 was blocked only for one image license misideitification and one article copyvio, two weeks seems much longer than needed to protect the encyclopedia, particularly since JJJ999 indicated that he read Wikipedia's copyvio info. If you look at JJJ999's talk page, he seems to be tearing up Wikipedia so there may be justification for a two week block. However, unless someone particularly identifies those reasons, the one copyvio and one creation of deleted content do not seem to justify two weeks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Something's not right. JJJ999 has been with Wikipedia only since September 7, 2007. His seventh post included an edit summary that attacked an Australian actor. His eighth post was a PROD. His 12th post was a listing at AfD. He also has built up an unusual list deleted items for being here such a short time. Would a check user run be appropriate? -- Jreferee t/c 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need a suspected sock to request CU. As helpful as fishing is...--Chaser - T 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) BTW, there are some diffs my adoptee collected, but I'm not seeing it from those.--Chaser - T 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My block was contingent on his failure to understand copyright. If you feel he's learned, and isn't a sock, then go ahead. --Haemo 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley Kazim Uchea

As noted at the COIN post, I deleted the article and its talk page per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea, I added the redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea, and readded your protection. If this was not correct, please feel free to revise. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Haemo 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm really sorry to bother you, but I was personally rather upset by the deletion of the "One-Off Characters of South Park" article. I will admit that I am rather new as a user to Wikipedia, but I have been using the site for a long time. I was very fond of that particular page, since there would always be certain characters that may have made a special appearance in another episode, or a character that I wanted to look up and see which episode they were from, if I couldn't remember. Also, I'd like to note that South Park is a rather popular show, and there are far more obscure t.v. shows (for example, anime) that give tons of useless information about the characters, one-off or regular.

You could say I care too much if you want, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But is it possible to still get a hold of the article if I wanted to, save it on my computer for instance? Or perhaps in could be merged into the specific South Park Wikia, for those that really do want that information?

Anyway, thank you for your time.

-Leetie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetie (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I can provide you with a copy of that article if you'd like it. Just post here and request one, or email me. --Haemo 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DURN IT!

Stop. You're making it look like I don't even watch the pages. :) (Seriously, though. Good work you're doing on the project. Cheers!) -WarthogDemon 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The cabal needs many voices to shout down the little guy. --Haemo 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gale Pollock

I wanna translate this article to french but I can't find enough information, particularly the date of birth of this charming lady. Since you contributed to it could tell me when she was born. Mitch1981 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really only added some cleanup tags, but I would note that not all public figures make their birthdates public — especially women. --Haemo 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war or vandalism

FYI, the edit that you reverted by the IP that you blocked was restored by another apparent sock. I'm not as convinced that it is vandalism as opposed to an edit war. Regardless, it looks like protection will be needed. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like that's the way to go. --Haemo 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The section does not belong. Its only source is a user-created submission on urbandictionary, which is not a valid source. IP 71.225.245.85 has used wikilawyering and sockpuppets to attempt to justify its inclusion in the article. I think it would be best if the protected version was the STABLE version of the page that has existed for over 3 months rather than the version with the controversial text included. -Drdisque 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, that's not how protection works. After a week, we'll have a consensus. --Haemo 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I don't feel like dealing with this article anymore and I'm going to unwatch it. I'm fine with its inclusion as long as the urbandictionary post is removed as a source (since it isn't) and a {{citationneeded}} is added to it. -Drdisque 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'd just toss in those 0.02$ on the talk page before you go. --Haemo 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

hi what's up jonathan :) Dejaburn 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Happy editing! --Haemo 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

how are u doing today? Dejaburn 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but just so you know, user talk pages are not forums for discussion; they should relate to editing, and editing-related issues — see the talk page guidelines. I hope you have a good time here. --Haemo 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

where can we have casual conversations then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejaburn (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any one of the innumerable chatrooms online, or on Wikipedia's IRC rooms. --Haemo 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks! plz dont block me for breakin the rules im sorry i didnt know we couldnt talk here Dejaburn 19:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

Hi Johnathan. I am writing in hopes that you will reconsider (at least temporarily) your decision to delete this entry.

I realize there has been a debate about whether notability has been established, and I clearly believe it has. I believe that national press coverage about a person who created the most successful modeling scam and then the most successful phishing scheme established that.

Regardless, several editors and I have been working very hard on this article trying to get it into Wiki-shape and keep it there despite repeated vandalism by Mr. El-Difrawi and his employees. I believe a lot of progress has been made, and much more can be made. I think this is an article that needs more time. Documentation is sometimes difficult to find for someone who hides behind numerous aliases.

Those who argued for deletion fall into essemtially 2 camps. 1 El-Difrawi and his employees who are trying to keep his name out of the press. And some editors who would absolutely never be satisfied no matter what documentation was provided. One such editor referred to the Washington Post and LA Times articles as "Filler for local newsprint". This editor was not evaluating the evidence properly. That same editor said that criminals are included in Wikipedia based on the scope and nature of their crimes, despite the existance documentation that El-Difrawi was ran two of the most widespread and successful criminal operations in history.

I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the editors arguing were all in good standing, so I don't really see any reason to discount their opinions. You're welcome to work on another article in userspace, with the hopes of reposting in the future. --Haemo 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec

I'm not really sure how one back and forth automatically means it's an edit war. The page has already been locked for a month too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the continuation of the same 'ole edit war, so I don't hold any faith that it will stop. --Haemo 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On deletion of Artificial cornea

Hi! You've deleted the page artificial cornea recently. I became interested in creating at least a stub under similar name, based on news reports, PubMed info, etc. I have keratoconus so naturally the topic seems interesting to me. Why did you delete that page? Maybe the theme is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia or you had other motives? Best regards, CopperKettle 10:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because the sum total of the content was the word "honestly". I'm not joking. --Haemo 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood blog

It was I who contacted the Bollywood blog and got the license under 3.0. User:Riana and several other adminstators contacted the site also and recived an email of verification ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep! I actually thanked you for this a while ago. Good work! --Haemo 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

File:DianaJohn.jpg in List_of_Torchwood_minor_characters

Hi there, I see this has been speedied and I must have missed the notification, so I can now no longer go to the image page to see if the Fair Use justification can be fixed. I've never had a problem with my own uploads elsewhere, and did not upload this image. Is there a way of looking at the FUJ? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image had no rationale whatsoever. If you'd like to add one, be my guest — I'll restore the page if you would like. Just respond here. --Haemo 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear whoever uploaded the image didn't take Fair Use seriously, but my philosophy is that if it can be fixed, it should be. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is located here: Image:Dianajohn.jpg. Remember to put the name of the article it's being used in on the fair use rationale. --Haemo 22:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, will fox fix --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Have added FUJ. Would be grateful if you have time to check it out. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Haemo 00:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik program

oops! - Alison ^❤ 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Happens all too often ;) --Haemo 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About the Zeitgeist Article

This is about the documentary called Zeitgeist. I was Just wondering how it is exactly that it is, and i quote, "Not Notable" enough for the article. I'm not here to flame, not at all. But i would just like to say that the documentary should be allowed on Wikipedia.

It is very notable, or famous i should rather say. It has been viewed by thousands upon thousands of people. It is on a 911 blog site, its on Google videos, its got its own site, and people spread the news about it as often as possible.

However, it has also occured to me to think that perhaps you also might find it to be some kind of propoganda... If that is indeed the case, i would like to merely state that it does offer a full resources page on the website. They had real sources, such as CNN, Historians, Theologists, scientific evidence, etc., etc.

I understand, that many people would disagree with the things in the movie, but it should still be open to the public through wikipedia, so that people can have the chance to watch it and decide for themselves.

sincerely, Anon-Rex

--Anon-rex 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see our notability guidelines for determining what is, and is not, notable. This was discussed earlier, and the community determined that the film in question failed these guidelines. Despite innumerable reviews since then, insufficient material has surfaced to change the communities mind. --Haemo 18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum

Just FYI, it's still ongoing here and here. • Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've given him a final warning. --Haemo 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

I've been gathering evidence for a while. BusterD 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd file a request for checkuser as well. You've got enough evidence for that. --Haemo 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You think? I think the evidence against Kraken7 is compelling but circumstantial. Checkuser would give more info, but if Kraken7 is not the culprit, it's a further slight against an innocent user. However, if Kraken7 is a puppetmaster account, then I think we've only scratched the surface of this case. Checkuser is supposed to be a last resort option, and we haven't exhausted other remedies yet, IMHO. BusterD 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. Just so you know, I found thirty other sockpuppets of Ghost account X. --Haemo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Only thirty? I thought the user was more dedicated than that. But it's not over, and won't be for a while. I do think we should keep the semiprotect going for the full 18 days. Will give us some time to sort this out. Was there a User:Kraken? Kraken1? Kraken2? BusterD 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, only one Kraken, apparently. I'd be interesting in that checkuser, though. --Haemo 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When and if it's appropriate, I'd likewise be interested in just exactly how many levels of puppetry are present. BusterD 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Undog

I've left a message both at Talk:Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and Undog's talk page asking him to relax with his ownership issues of the article and to consider branching out to other areas so he can get a better idea of how Wikipedia works. I think I've been quite cordial in my request, but a second pair of eyes and another opinion is always a good idea when it comes to these sorts of things. I don't think I've ever had to deal with such a contentious topic or a talk page that was such a soap box (though my brief foray into Sparta and trying to stop an edit war there comes to mind). It's hard for me to know if I'm being objective or not with Undog. I generally agree with what he says, but the way he says it and operates here is really frustrating to me. AniMate 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that. --Haemo 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Same complaint but some one elese at ANI

See this thanksTaprobanus 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he actually emailed me earlier and told him to "ignore it". This doesn't look like ignoring it to me. ;__; --Haemo 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you do this mindless reverting to things that will only cause confussion to the article. Don't you care about wikipdeia and clarity of knowledge, gianno and gustav have wlake away read gustav page. They were wrong- stop reverting to something that has already been established as wrong. Enough- leave Barbaro alone. Thank youSave venice 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)