Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive203

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Requesting undelete of my user space page User:Sidonuke[edit]

Resolved

Just as the subject says. I had it deleted a few months ago due to leaving wikipedia but I have returned. Thank you! --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back. Fut.Perf. 13:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Many have stated category:rapists should be renamed convicted rapists[edit]

I'd like Category:Rapists to be renamed Category:People convicted of rape or Category:Convicted rapists. On the talk page and in the AFD, many people stated that it should. Calling someone a rapist who hasn't been convicted leaves Wikipedia label, and there are rules against that. So only convicted rapists should be categories as such. Can someone rename that please? Dream Focus 03:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I created the Category:People wrongly convicted of rape. This is the base category, so if we can move pages into here, then I'd be all for it, otherwise I can manually do it over the next week. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
People wrongly convicted of rape? What? Unless the conviction was reversed in court, you can't say that. Dream Focus 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered taking it to categories for discussion (CFD) and propose the rename there? MuZemike 04:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, never mind. I'm too tired, tonight. MuZemike 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a page somewhere that list all these places that exist? I wasn't aware there was a page for just categories. And when you use the search thing, it ignores Wikipedia service pages, there no box to click to include them in a search. Dream Focus 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I created another one during that period named that. I created one with and without the word wrongly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Dream Focus: try searching here (hit Search and then choose Advanced, and it lets you choose the namespace where you want to search). Jafeluv (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this may be a WP:BLP issue or a matter to discuss on some wikiprojects affecting time, perhaps even WP:CfD. There is a broader problem that having committed a rape does not mean that one's identification as a person is a rapist. Committing a crime does not make one a criminal, nor does having played football make one a "football player". In all cases there is a question of whether that is how to identify a person. Whereas most of the people on the category are clearly serious criminals, usually serial murderers, one would have to be very careful for WP:BLP reasons that the category is not used to impugn people accused but not convicted, convicted but then exonerated, or who have committed lesser (albeit serious) crimes related to statutory rape, among other things. I'm thinking of Roman Polanski here. Without getting into all the politics, it would be needlessly contentious to add him to the category, but not nearly as bad to add him to a differently worded category relating to child sex abuse, for instance. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note you can link to categories using this syntax, just like images: [[:Category:xxx]] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unable to cerate a re-direct[edit]

Resolved: False alarm? Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make a re-direct from:

Milesian Monarch of Ireland

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland

Apparently some portion of this is on a "black list"

Please help,

Sake Wish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sake Wish (talkcontribs) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've already made the redirect: Milesian Monarch of Ireland. Is there something else you needed? Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, got it... Sake Wish (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed a summary of the final decision is available at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Motions: Law/The Undertow and Disclosure of known alternate accounts[edit]

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

In a series of motions, the Arbitration Committee addressed the matter of a blocked user (The undertow) operating under a new identity (Law) that successfully gained adminship. The Committee also examined the actions of three editors who assisted this new identity gain adminship, despite knowing that the individual was circumventing a block.

Motions: Law & The undertow[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[1] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block.

  • General motion: The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law, and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow. He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[2]
  • The undertow is banned 6 months: The undertow is banned from Wikipedia for six months.

Motions: Disclosure of known alternate accounts[edit]

In response to a case request submitted by User:Jehochman the committee decided to reject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion.

  • GlassCobra: GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.
  • GlassCobra admonished: GlassCobra is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
  • GlassCobra desysopped: GlassCobra is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.
  • Jayron32 admonished: Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.
  • Jennavecia admonished: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.
  • Jennavecia's resignation: Jennavecia resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.
  • Administrators reminded and encouraged: Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom or checkusers of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Clerk note - a previous version of this notice incorrectly listed a motion which had, in fact, not passed. This was an administrative error on my part and has since been rectified at all relevant locations. Manning (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You forgot the discussion page link, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Possible sockpuppet?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While this is a place for meta discussion, since this discussion mentions specific users by name it is not meta discussion. Another place for meta discussion is the village pump, and since this issue would be better informed with opinion from outside the admin pool, I suggest editors start a meta discussion where no user names are mentioned there. Hiding T 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: Not the sockpuppet that was suspected.
Durova322 05:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the place for meta-discussion.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello all --

It's come to my attention that there may be impropriety by particular user accounts, but I'd like some others to take a look and give their opinions.

In particular, edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 seem suspicious (by the Le Grand account and the Katerenka account).

If these suspicions are wrong, I apologize in advance. But I do believe that this is something that should be looked into. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this thread, MZMcBride. I am quite happy that I am neither Elisabeth Rogan, nor Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. If you would contact a member of the Arbitration Committee they can verify that this is the case as they are aware of my previous accounts name. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. So ArbCom only has an issue with undisclosed alternate accounts if they're undisclosed to them? Perhaps someone from ArbCom will be by shortly to comment. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:CLEANSTART. There's a difference between an alternative account and an abandoned account. I do not edit from my old account anymore. And, yes, I hope that someone from ArbCom will be along soon to clear this mess up. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing out. I only see one edit by Katerenka on the Kww 3 RfA: [3]. Why is this suspicious, and shouldn't it go to RFCU even if it was? -- Samir 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is on AN and not AN/I because I'm (also) interested in a broader discussion of the issue. The Arbitration Committee has pretty strongly spoken out against the use of alternate accounts. And people run across them pretty frequently. (And now we're distinguishing between "alternate" accounts and "refreshed" accounts.) All of this can create a lot of issues.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The arbitration committee did receive an e-mail earlier about Katerenka and the prior account used. The former account was in good standing with the clean block log, and the account's last edit was before Katerenka's first. So long as the prior account is actually RTV'd and edits don't start up again, we're good. (Plus I don't see how the kww edit is suspicious) Wizardman 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still confused about this. The account was in good standing and had no block log, but the user decided to simply abandon it? That seems pretty atypical. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Atypical or not, it's what happened. The reasons are private/personal and as Wizardman said, I've not used this account or my old account in any way that circumvents policy. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did the same thing, because my previous Wiki name was the same I use on other sites around the web. Given the disproportionate amount of drama that happens here, I didn't want it to spill to my other activities, so I retired the old account and made this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One more note: it's my understanding that the right to vanish explicitly involves a person choosing to abandon Wikimedia wikis forever. It was never intended to be used as a "clean start" mechanism; it was intended to be used as a "final goodbye" mechanism. Is the Arbitration Committee changing policy in this area? Or has it already? (Is any of this written down anywhere?) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor, RTV is virtually never used the way it's intended to be. People say they rtv then immediately get a new account. Happens all too frequently. If the policy has changed, it's happened naturally through the community. Wizardman 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Without knowing anything about this specific case, this is indeed not a WP:RTV issue, since the user is not vanished. Rather, it is a case of "normal" sockpuppetry, i.e., one person operating several accounts. This is allowed by policy for the purpose claimed here, see WP:CLEANSTART.  Sandstein  20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I find your choice of wording somewhat odd, given that "sock puppetry" is defined in WP:SOCK as the use of alternative accounts in violation of that policy, which is not the case here. Anyway, WP:CLEANSTART is definitely a different thing from RTV, and both are totally allowed by current policy. I don't think a person who's been confirmed by an ArbCom member to be acting within policy needs to be further questioned about their motives on a public noticeboard. They wanted to abandon the old account, and whatever reason they had for it is their own business, don't you think? Jafeluv (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I'm (still) having difficulty understanding all of this. The Katerenka account was created as a "clean start" account (according to posts on this board). But the account didn't start as "Katerenka." Color me confused. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think it's fairly obvious what happened there given that the other account was made and then immediately renamed and if you actually read the contributions you'll see the exact reason that she was trying to change her name (decided against using her real name) ok so a mistake to start it in the first place? Yea probably but suspicious? my god no, Not only do you appear to be beating a dead horse you appear to be outing in some ways as it took my around 1 minute to realize that was her real name. Jamesofur (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone should explain this to me (and to the larger community) in clearer terms. Scenarios:

  1. If someone registers an account, decides to drop it and switch to a new one, is the new account allowed to run for adminship later? If so, under what conditions?
  2. If someone exercises their "right to vanish" (and gets their user / user talk pages deleted) and then returns, what should be done about such accounts? Should the pages be restored? Should there be a way to look at the past contributions of an editor?

These are just two fairly common scenarios. Surely others can add to this list. The lack of clarity in this area is an issue week after week. And whatever pseudo-standards ("guidelines" as we call them) have been created are haphazardly and inconsistently applied.

Is anyone interested in perhaps making all of this clearer and more consistent? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Anyone can start a wholly new account anytime they want. If they engage in the same pattern of behaviour as the old one, they are liable to exposure. If they tell their "friends" they are the same account, they are liable to exposure. If they make a genuine clean start, no-one will ever know, even the CU's after a few months. In that case, there is no problem.
  • I don't agree with user-talk pages ever being deleted (grudgingly acknowledge the case for real-named users who should've known better, but that can be noindexed). If old and new accounts can be reliably linked, either by personal attestation or behavioural evidence a la WP:SPI, then yes, they should be explicitly linked in wikitext so that the matter is transparent.
  • This is independent of ArbCom knowledge and/or tacit acceptance. If facts come to light, they should be made known to all, unless serious real-world issues are involved. Franamax (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone should explain this to you (and the larger community)? Who exactly do you expect has the authority to clarify this ambiguous edge of policy? If you think precise clarity is needed on this, you should ask the larger community and codify the resulting consensus. --BirgitteSB 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, amen to the last bit. Someone definitely should seek clarification and consensus in this area. My reason for asking people to explain it "to me" is that there seems to be plenty of people with all the right answers™ on this board (or they're at least willing to post without equivocation), so I figured they might be able to clarify this area for me. Though it seems most of these people have run off to do other things. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression this thread had been close but since you decided to reopen it my thoughts:

1. Why shouldn't they be allowed to run for sysop? The fact that they have exercised a very clear policy should somehow make them ineligible from being full members of the community? This seems to be totally against the entire idea of the policy and the community as a whole. If we are going to do that then we need to have a total conversation about the policy and get a consensus on changing it (I see no reason to). This is why we have people like arbcom so that people can keep a hidden connection between the accounts so that if something DOES come up (including any future sysop request) then we have trusted individuals who can show us that they did not have any problems with their old account. I find it very unlikely that someone would be able to get sysop without building up another large collection of material to gain the trust of the userbase.

2. I would think it depends on the situation. When you think about it how much actually gets deleted? Ok yes user/user talk pages get deleted. But admins (including arbcom) members can still see those and if the broad community doesn't know the connection between the accounts (as is the whole POINT) then who cares if the broad community can't see those pages? There really isn't a whole lot, if anything, that gets deleted especially if the old user had been here long at all since we're not going to delete contributions that are part of the encyclopedia since that would delete everyone elses work as well.

I'm going to be totally honest, as much as I respect you MZMcBride I am confused by this post. I can not see any real reason that Katerenka should have been brought up at all unless you were fishing for something. I really don't see any suspicious activity other then a new account that appears to be doing good work and trying to be active and hands on. Is this now automatic reason to be suspicious? There are MANY reasons to exercise the RtV and Cleanstart and most of them are for personal reasons that have nothing to do with problems that occur on wiki. Are there bad reasons? Of course there are and that is why we have Arbcom and functionaries who are able to look into old accounts. I think it is totally legitimate to want someone trusted to be able to look into the issue and therefore someone exercising Cleanstart to email Arbcom but other then that I don't really see any big problem with it. If the user decides to run for sysop I think that would be enough for most especially if the user is willing to agree to a checkuser to verify they aren't a sockmaster.

Also, may I ask why if you thought these were socks you didn't bring this to WP:SPI? I could even understand bringing it to BOTH locations but it appears you only brought it here. Jamesofur (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, you're speaking about an area you're clearly not familiar with. Anyone familiar with the events of the past year wouldn't be so confused as to why these questions are being asked. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't presume to know what I know and don't know. My confusion has nothing to do with why your bringing up the policies (which I have no problem discussing). My confusion is why you seem to be targeting one specific individual and to be honest hounding them. There have been way to many sock/alt account issues recently and I understand that. But the fact that you bring a sock accusation here and won't even bring it to SPI makes me think you may have had alternative reasons OR you were just fishing and knew it would be denied at SPI. I may have only been active for a couple months but I have been lurking around ALOT longer and have never edited on another account. The recent problems are BAD and I do not try to undermine them and would be more then happy to talk about them and my comments above are part of that I just think we're focusing on the wrong thing here. One of the biggest problems with the issues we've had recently is that it undermines legitimate reasons to cleanslate. Have there been issues in the past where arbcom has verified that a former account was ok but that has turned out to be wrong? I will admit that there have been cases that I have tried to read that were "blanked as a courtesy" but actually had no history so I couldn't read them at all (which is frustrating). I'm not trying to say thats the only reason that could get you concerned but it's one. Jamesofur (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what it is you want from me? An Arbitrator came to this thread and confirmed that I am not circumventing policy and that my old account has not been used to edit since I have been editing with this one. I am also neither one of those users that you accused me of being at the opening of this thread. So I would ask that you please stop targeting me. If you would like to get policy clarified that is one thing, and something I would support, but I do not see why I have to be dragged into it. Thanks, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


  • There is a reason for the mantra "The Arbitration Committee does not write policy". Simply put, the Arbitration Committee makes its decisions based on application of (often ambiguous, if not contradictory) policies to the facts of a specific and narrowly focused situation. Limitations on the circumstances in which an individual must use only a single account, or at minimum an account that is publicly linked to the main account, are detailed in WP:SOCK. In the specific, narrowly focused case in which you refer, an editor who was currently blocked for a set period of time (after having his request for unblock refused by the Arbitration Committee) established a second account, began editing with that second account, and only then sent in a second request for unblock. It is acknowledged that the current Arbitration Committee cannot identify any formal response to this request, but in the absence of "yes, you may edit again", the status quo remained that the block was in place. In other words, there is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. Using that second account, the editor ran for adminship shortly after the block on the original account had expired, and did not declare his prior account. This situation is not fully anticipated in written policy, nor does it have to be in order to make a determination that the failure to link these two specific accounts had a material effect in this particular RfA. ¶ I agree that there are good reasons to look closely at the alternate account policy and streamline it; I will also note that there are some extremely good reasons for editors to use alternate accounts (both declared and undeclared), and for having serial single accounts. The discussion should probably be on WT:SOCK; indeed there has already been some discussion there. I do, however, urge the community to talk first and alter policy second; reactionary editing of policies often creates more problems than it solves, and basing policy on a one-off situation is a mug's game. Let's all take our time to work it out properly, instead of waving around an Arbcom decision. Risker (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting choice of MzB to focus on a user with whom he has repeated hostilities as accused sockmaster, and the total randomness and lack of basis of the person picked on to be accused of being the new sock, without the least supporting evidence? (and a totally different behavior pattern, totally different areas of interest, and who didn't even give an opinion at the AfD in question but just posted stats and resolved a technical error) This serves him as an excuse to prominently repeat a name that exercised RTV, and to use it where it will be seen as part of a large discussion on general issues. I ask for redaction or possibly oversight--in this case I'm not going to redact it myself. I'm not sure whether to call it hounding or bad faith. I would support a motion here to bar MzB from ever commenting on that particular editor again. The general question is very important, and can be discussed elsewhere, without the use of names. (I should mention that i might well support MzB on the general question--I think our present policy of "see if you can get away with it" absurd and self-contradictory.) DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's wild to be suspicious of accounts that show up with full knowledge of both Wikipedia and its policies and Wikipedia's sister projects (like Meta). It's equally wild to be suspicious of accounts that make a concerted effort to try to show that they're female. And, of course, it's wild to be suspicious when someone says they went for a clean start as a particular account when that account has quite clearly been renamed recently. I don't know who MzB is or what position you're in to try to ban people from discussing the backward-ass and contradictory sockpuppet policies that this site has created. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
MzB, if your really could not figure it out, is my abbreviation for MZMcBride in the presernt context. Im trying to suggest he not discussa particular editor, but discuss the general policies, where he well might even have my support. What's weird is not the noticing the account, but making the connection. (now, i admit the possibility that I may have been greatly deceived, in which case I will of course apologize--I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be). But if it is as weird as I think it is, it seems to be a matter of trying to attack unrelated and parties to try to get rid of a particular editor, which is harassment plain and simple. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you absolutely certain you aren't confusing MZMcBride for User:MBisanz (The latter being a certifier of this RfC)? Protonk (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride, if you have any solid evidence, other than just a "gut feeling", then do a checkuser, otherwise this is "fishing" just like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive was. Ikip (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to include this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive it was closed "Checkuser is not for fishing, and I don't see enough evidence warranting a checkuser." Which can be said for this ANI. Ikip (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Question to Wizardman[edit]

Extended content

Your explanation above states, "The former account was in good standing with the clean block log" without actually confirming or denying whether Katerenka is Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Posting this query to clear up possible confusion.

Two accounts are listed at the start of this thread. The Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles account block log shows only one procedural block pursuant to account renaming.[4] The Elizabeth Rogan block log shows one indefinite block[5] pursuant to a checkuser request. Arguably, that block was also procedural because the Rogan account was not used in violation of policy and the account was abandoned when the user renamed. If that editor is not the same person as Katerenka then read no more because it's none of our business who else it is. If Katerinka is the same person, then read further. The block log is far from clean; he's formerly sitebanned.

Most of the user's block log is summarized at this page. Note the 6 week block for Attempted vote fixing at AfD, gross violations of WP:POINT., followed by an indefinite block for Sockmaster of User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? The latter was his community siteban. The pertinent discussions are [6] and here

Possible and confirmed alternate accounts and IP addresses:

The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend account began editing before the six week vote stacking block had expired. When disruptive participation at AFD resumed he came to the attention of the administrators and his ban ensued. I gave him a good faith unblock several months later after he promised to stop the shenanigans.

In August 2008 he invoked the right to vanish, yet soon afterward began a new account and resumed controversial activity. He failed to disclose that account to his mentors and denied his former username onsite until checkuser actually confirmed it, and for these reasons I resigned from mentoring him.

Now a new account appears that begins editing two days after Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody began. If these accounts are the same person, their edits do overlap--both in time frame and in subject matter. Note participation on both accounts at two recent RfAs. If that doesn't actually cross the line it skates far too close for comfort when it comes from someone who was previously blocked and then banned for outright votestacking.

If I'm smoking crack here, please say so right now. Are these not the same person? Durova322 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they were confirming they are not the same people. I do think if we are concerned about it though just to do a CU request (though I would say the CU shouldn't out the old account just because). It was said that the previous account had a clean blocklog which would rule out A Nobody right? Jamesofur (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like either arbitrator has actually come out and said these aren't the same person. If these are the same editor, then what apparently happened was he misrepresented his history and the Committee failed at due diligence. Durova322 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Katerenka's not A Nobody or any of his accounts. Wizardman 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (Indenting weirdly due to following comments): Confirm that they are not the same person. Risker (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
RfA/Pastor Theo: "Support, will make a great admin. Wizardman"[7]
RfA/Law: "Strong support, Wizardman"[8]
67.160.100.233 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Collapsing query. 98.176.30.148 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have uncollapsed it. I don't think anons are allowed to collapse or close a thread. If I am wrong (my apologizes up front), please revert. - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Per an email contact, I am recollapsing. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a noticeboard[edit]

First: MZMcBride, you know where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motions: Law/The Undertow and Disclosure of known alternate accounts is, should you wish to discuss the latest Arbitration Committee announcement and the resulting confusion. (Manning forgot to add the link to the discussion to the notice, but I've since rectified that omission.) You also know where Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry is. Second: It is most definitinely not good "to be suspicious of accounts that show up with full knowledge of both Wikipedia and its policies and Wikipedia's sister projects". It's downright foolish at this stage. On that point, you (now) know where Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users is, too, where that discussion belongs.

This is a noticeboard, for notices aimed at (all) administrators. For policy discussions that involve the editorship at large, from the community's stance on sockpuppetry to how the community treats newly created accounts, the policy and guideline talk pages, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and pages that address the community as a whole, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), are the places. Follow the good example of the very Arbitration Committee notice that you are questioning: Put a notice here (on this noticeboard), and link it to where the proper discussion pages elsewhere are. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning specific editors from pages[edit]

Do we have any precedent for admins banning editors from specific pages? We've got edit wars at Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics). I don't want to protect them because that feels anti-wiki, but I do want to stop the edit war and I think page banning the two editors might produce a resolution. I'm not really interested in blocking the two editors, it doesn't tend to solve the underlying issue. Although there's a school of thought that indefinitely banning one user might solve a lot of problems. Hiding T 11:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Administrator_topic_bans. Nja247 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Or just WP:ARBMAC. I see no problem with being a tad creative with precedent if Hiding thinks its appropriate. Moreschi (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I think I'll act citing those. Hiding T 11:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DrBat and User:Asgardian page banned from Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics)[edit]

I have page banned the above two editors for one month or until a resolution is reached regarding the dispute, whichever finishes sooner. Both editors have been warned that any editing of the pages in question prior to a resolution of the dispute will result in a block, initially for 24 hours but escalating to a maximum period of one month. Hiding T 11:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal: As per Hiding's advice here: [9], I wish to formally appeal this decision here (now if this is in fact the wrong place, please cut and paste this to the appropriate area ande drop me a line).

With all due to respect to Hiding, who has offered good advice in recent times, I believe he has erred here and misread the situation. Yes, I have been editing both Abomination and the Rhino. I have, however, been as the Edit Summaries shows not reverting but rather making constant improvements: [10] & [11].

DrBat, however, has been making constant reverts, and adding nothing to the articles, despite being initially invited, then counselled and finally cautioned: [12] This user was also uncivil towards myself: [13] and formally warned about being abusive: [14]. Please also note that this user warned was last month about constant reverts [15].

My edits were also supported by other users [16] & [17] at Abomination and it is frustrating that despite this "hint" DrBat continued to revert at Rhino to an inferior version. I pointed out that this version lacked a correct lead and other material: [18], and that we could retain the peripherals and cotinue to work on the bulk of the article. Despite this advice, he continued to revert.

I have contributed to dozens of articles and make every effort to improve them. It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished. A check of the Edit Summary [19] and this line - The Rhino proves to be a perennial favourite in Marvel publications, appearing in over a dozen titles in solo capacity or teamed with dother villains - shows that I was just about to take the advice offered here [20] and create a summary of the signifiant issues, as opposed to a laundry list. Please also note that I wrote both versions, hence improving on my own work is hardly outrageous. The summary would number no more than six points, as opposed to the dozens of listings currently present in the 1990s-2000s section.

In conclusion, I do not appreciate the completely unhelpful attitude displayed by DrBat, and the fact that Hiding automatically places me in the same category as this user. Despite the claim on my Talk Page [21], I did not edit war. As the evidence shows, I did try and discuss the issue, on several occasions. I feel I do not deserve this punishment.

For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian has already admitted to intentionally making the article unreadable before to prove his point, so I have a hard time assuming good faith here.
Furthermore, Asgardian's reference to my being "warned last month about constant reverts" was only over whether or not a category should be included in the article. Asgardian has his own history of edit wars, and it looks like he's getting involved in one right now over at the Dormammu article with two other users who don't like what he's doing to it. --DrBat (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You have already been advised by one administrator that this was really nothing more than a bold edit, and demonstrated one style [22]. It should also be noted once again that I wrote both versions, and improved upon the original. This took hours. By your own admission: [23] you claimed that it would take more work to improve those versions, and yet when I continue to improve on what you felt was messy and overdone, continued to blindly revert. It is you who have not shown good faith, by being an obstructist and reverting every step of the way, and even resorting to namecalling, as shown above. You persisted until others supported my changes to Abomination.

Finally, there is no "edit war" at another article (only several users who did not grasp the principles of one of the Guidelines as to the inappropriate use of fictional statistics), so please don't cast dispersions. This is the issue for discussion, and I'd suggest letting the administrators deal with it. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You admitted to deliberately making the article unreadable to prove your point. Anyone who clicks on my link will see that for themselves.
This is the issue for discussion, and I'd suggest letting the administrators deal with it. Thank you
Then what does my editing the Stewie Griffin article have to do with anything, since you brought that up?
As for the advice you were given, Emperor said "I suppose it depends - some characters' appearances may all be worthy of mentioning. If it is merely 'and he turned up and battle X. The he battled Y and went of to fight Z' then no, only mention the important appearances. You need to judge it on a case-by-case basis." "and he turned up and battle X. The he battled Y and went of to fight Z" is a lot of what you were doing to the articles, listing pointless appearances like "Abomination fought Angel in the sewers." --DrBat (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are presenting opinion. Asgardian (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity[edit]

Just for clarity, I present diffs so that everyone can make up their mind. At Abomination (comics) we can see a diff between Asgardian and Dr Bat here. Notice the many differences, mainly consisting of mentions of individual issues, for example, Solo Avengers #12 and Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 3, #6 - 8. Now we can see a diff here, which covers twelve edits to the page over the course of two days, four made by DrBat and five by Asgardian, the other edits from anonymous or uninvolved editors. The diff is from an Asgardian edit to an Asgardian edit. Contrats with another diff, from DrBat to DrBat, again covering two days and twelve edits. As can be seen, both editors are revert warring to their preferred version of the page. As to the idea that the matter was nearly resolved, see this diff, noting the commentary in the two edit summaries. Asgardian appears to have rejected the idea of discussing anywhere, preferring instead to continue the dispute through editing the page. Hiding T 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears you've taken a very narrow and limited view of the situation. The response ignores DrBat's overall conduct and the fact that I attempted to speak with him on his Talk Page on several occasions. You have also neglected the fact that he has constantly reverted back to inferior and incorrect material in the lead and other areas, a fact that he was advised of by another user at Abomination. I also advised you on your own Talk Page that I was attempting to communicate with him and remain impartial. As I said, the article was only one session away from a successful resolution before you unilaterally acted. Through all of this, DrBat added nothing to the process, preferring to revert, revert, revert. Asgardian (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Clickety click too fast on the mouse and I reverted the above by mistake a while back, situation all normal now. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, just saw that. Thanks for jumping back in. Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category moving[edit]

I was wondering if there is an easier way to move the category "Rapists by nationality" to "People convicted of rape by nationality" than by doing this manually. I would do this manually, but it will take longer than I would like. As discussed above, the category has support in this move, but this should be moved soon. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It really should be listed and discussed at WP:CFD. If there is consensus, there are bots that would do the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
At the CFD for the category, it seems that that occured. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist or edit filter[edit]

I've been dealing with a sockpuppet on and off for the past few months. He seems to like adding links to his website, however I'm not sure whether or not the spam blacklist or the edit filter would be best to block these edits or at least be able to identify that the user is editing again. The website is www.japanhero.webs.com, but for whatever reason, he just keeps registering new "domain" names on webs.com and it ends up being www.[something]japanhero.webs.com. I know the edit filter will at least pick up on the text added, but seeing as the filters are deactivated every so often, would this string of text also be able to be blocked via the blacklist? It is a URL that has no use on Wikipedia (free web hosted webpages).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also it'd be nice to get some sort of block on this guy's IP because the last account (SygtWES (talk · contribs)) was created mere hours after the last edit of the previous account (KamenRiderDouble (talk · contribs)), and several accounts were found after I requested (via email) a checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content