Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:54, 12 October 2009

• 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

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning specific editors from pages

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 Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Administrator_topic_bans. Nja 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)

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: , 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: & .

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

My edits were also supported by other users & 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: , 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 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 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 , 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 . It should also be noted once again that I wrote both versions, and improved upon the original. This took hours. By your own admission: 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

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)

Apologies

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)

Barack Obama page Templates Problems

I know that this might not be the place for this, but can someone please figure out why the templates on his page are not working. It seems that there are too many there. At issue is the fact that the Featured Article template was hidden for quite some time, and this can mix up perceptions of the page. Any ideas? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple didn't exsist (hence they were red) but all others are working and showing up properly as of this writing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They do exist. They are linked correctly in the editing stage, but when you click them, it doesn't work. I moved the FA template, as it was on the bottom, and it miracously worked. I think that we should figure this out soon, as it's rather silly for a FA to have dead template links. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Updated the header for better explanation of the subject of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

After messing around with the templates I noticed this warning at the top of the page: "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." Some of the templates have got to go or the template include size bumped up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I say we do the latter, since there will be more templates someday. Even after he is out of office, I still see templates being added, assuming he lives to old age, since it is unlikely he is just going to sit around for the rest of his life. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) The page is hitting the Mediawiki pagesize limits. The NewPP limit report in the page source says:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 192669/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2047999/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 991704/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 6/500

and the Post-expand include size is essentially at the upper limit, which would prevent the remaining templates from being transcluded properly. The large size also presents a server load and page accessibility issue, so it would be advisable to reduce the number of navigational templates on the page. Abecedare (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one box is probably going to go, so that's not going to be an issue. Would splitting the page up a bit more help, since it is such a large article? I did notice that it takes a while to load though, so splitting it wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Lets also consider that Obama's article is only 7 kilobytes smaller than George Bush's article, so this might be saying something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Abecedare, is there some way to bump up that limit size or is that as high as MediaWiki is willing to let it go? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The limits will have to be raised by Tim Starling or other developers, and though I have no inside knowledge, I would consider it unlikely they'd do so just for one or a few pages. FYI, without any of the navigational templates the page expands to around 1.36 MB, which is well within the mediawiki limit. Even disregarding the mediawiki limits, having a page size so large is arguably making it inaccessible to anyone with a "slow" connection, and that may well be over half of the world's internet population (just a guess).
  • By the way Misplaced Pages:VPT may be a better forum for questions and discussion. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a technical fix for this is really asking for special dispensation to be made for bad articles. When it comes to navigation templates this article is bad. The same list of cabinet officers is given three times in three separate navigation templates, for example. And that's far from the only duplication. The succession boxes are duplicated, too. Fix the poor quality of the article, and the technical limitations won't be an issue. Uncle G (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know which templates to remove, please feel free. I would mention why you are doing so on the talk page just so no one reverts you, it being a well-watched article and all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous amount of templates there, what happened to old fashioned prose? All opened they expand to a third of the article. Garion96 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the limits should probably be a bit raised, I know this is kind of a slippery slope argument, but there are articles like List of Heroes of the Russian Federation or 2009 in Australian FTA television with end templates not displaying and no easy fix. Cenarium (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can shrink half the references. They literally are half the page. I'm sure we can remove a fair amount of them as well as there are likely many duplicates there. I'm using a school's Wifi, and it's taking two minutes or more to open the page. It seems to be working now since a few templates were removed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian Page Issue

While we're here, I might as well address the Russian page issue. It uses 26 templates, one for each letter of the alphabet. Apparently an editor thought that it would be a good idea to do this, shrinking the page from 226 kilobytes, to around 1600 bytes. The problem is this has led to a reference list about 512 links long, and about 40 links that can't work because of this backup. This page should be expanded again, and this will kill the template size issue. Most of the links on the page are repetitive, so there are probably only 50 at a maximum there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the {{ru icon}} templates, not especially needed, may be enough though, but it would be tiresome to remove them manually. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do it, I just can't figure out how to get to the page. I definitely think that we should combine the links though, as there are too many repeats. Unfortunately, this means combining those templates. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

disclosure: bulk Afd newb bite undone.

Just a quick heads up to disclose my latest invocation of IAR:

Nezzadar stumbled across a series of shipwreck stubs recently written by a newb, and nominated them all, individually and simultaneously for deletion. I shudder to think how a newb must feel to log in, find their talk page filled with official-looking templates, and discover that everything they've contributed is threatened with deletion. And I can't imagine how they are supposed to spread themselves across so many discussionss. This seems to me a horrible case of newby biting, so I have deleted eight of the nine AfDs. The one remaining should suffice to test whether the broader community shares Nezzadar's concerns.

Links: User talk:Whodidwhat, User talk:Nezzadar#Two things.

Hesperian 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Ideally we would want to have obtained Nezzadar's concurrence before the deletion of the AFDs, but since the user is not around I think this was a good application of IAR to avoid driving away a new contributor. Abecedare (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was one article left nominated (fair enough I suppose) - Adele (1906). A little searching has turned it into a decent enough article which I've now nominated at DYK as it still within 5 days of creation. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure at WQA

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident. Indeed, it's a continuation of an incident that is still open at the incidents noticeboard. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker, where you will now find this. Please read the edit notice before editing this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bridgeman v Corel UK Petition

Just a quick note (technically a quick canvassing session) for any UK users: Only 11 days left to sign the petitions.number10.gov.uk/publicdomain/ PD petition on the 10 Downing Street website. In short, it asks the PM to review the copyright status of photos of public domain works of art. In the US, taking a photo of a public domain photo is legally OK, and the photograph would also be public domain. In the UK, however, the owner of the painting can - in some cases - place restrictions on even an exact replica of the work, meaning that out-of-copyright works are essentially still copyrighted.

What the petition asks for, in essence, is a UK version of Bridgeman vs Corel. This would solve a heap of mostly legal problems for OTRS and Wikimedia as a whole, as well as freeing up PD work for use in the UK.

Only UK/Crown Dependency Residents or Ex-UK/CD residents can sign the petition. Apologies for posting it here, but I think this is something that most of us would agree with, and the more people sign, the more likely we'll get a good reply from it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the UK, but those who are would probably appreciate a direct hyperlink to the petition.  Sandstein  20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI confusion

I've just tried to file an SPI, it is currently here. I used the automated system, which put it at /User:IP, it has been moved to /IP but has a notice (apparently placed there automatically when I filed it) saying it's been moved in the other direction. Someone has also removed the actual request from the page (I've undone that because it makes no sense). I am now thoroughly confused - can somebody please a) make sure the request is appropriately filed and b) tell me what's going on? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for a): It is appropriately filed. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for b): I replied on my talk page somewhat. If you are still confused, I will be happy to explain further there. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tango (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at 3RR

There is loads of work waiting for eager amins at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Many have stated category:rapists should be renamed convicted rapists

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: ] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page ban proposal on User:Calton and User:JohnHistory

Involved users:

• Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Applicable places of interest

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Continued P.A. Incivility by User talk:Calton
• previous discussion

Due to the continued attacks launched by both editors on each others' talk pages, I would like to, as a last resort before any administrative actions need to be taken, proposed a talk page ban for both users on each others' talk pages (i.e. Calton would not be able to edit on JohnHistory's talk page and vice-versa). Commentary by the involved users and other users are welcome at this time. Regards, MuZemike 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as co-nom — Ched :  ?  06:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: we're not seeking further sanctions at this time, simply fair and equal treatment of both editors to stop the disruption and bickering. — Ched :  ?  06:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support, subject to an initial fixed length of time being imposed, and any future non-civil communication thereafter invoking a block, as would a breach of the sanction. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, seems equitable and a fair test of both editors good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Calton needs to do something about his incivilities a page ban might help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reality check #5: not agreeing with your skewed and inaccurate characterization of events =/= "incivility".
• Reality check #6: applying double standards -- like your excusing ChildofMidnight -- gets noticed.

• Support. Both editors have rattled off at each other for far too long, they should take some time to cool down. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with LessHeard vanU. –Juliancolton |  02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Unless MuZemike or Ched objects, perhaps this wording can be used for the sanction logs: "Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing User talk:JohnHistory or any of its subpages. JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing User talk:Calton or any of its subpages." Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I did not know about the dispute before seeing this ban proposal, but a quick read of the two editors' talk pages convinces me that the ban is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Something other than a "quick read" might have been better. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the result; I have every objection to its framing, which is false in every important respect.

This "dispute" is about something fairly simple: JohnHistory is using WP -- and my User Talk page -- as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not to improve the encyclopedia, not for editing, not for anything productive; harassment and badgering without purpose other than his own ego, pure and simple. He was requested -- multiple times and in a variety of ways -- not to do so, told that it was inappropriate and explicitly unwelcome. His response was to continue to do so (I would have thought that this recent piece of idiocy would be telling), and I called his trolling what it is, trolling. What I was doing was reacting to his trolling. At which point politically sympathetic Ched Davis swoops in to protect him, like he does for ChildofMidnight or NYObserver.

The irony is that the talk page ban is not only exactly what I wanted, but it's the source of the damned dispute in the first place. And yet we get this proposal with its simplistic and phony equivalency, the sort of disciplining as practiced by lazy parents -- or by parents taking the side of their favored child.

I suspect some of you have decided -- like the US government convicting Al Capone of tax evasion -- that I need to be "disciplined" and are seizing upon this as a convenient excuse. If so, doing something for the wrong reason is always a bad idea, however justified you believe it to be. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unable to cerate a re-direct

I am trying to make a re-direct from:

Milesian Monarch of Ireland

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/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 (talk • contribs) 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 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting undelete of my user space page User:Sidonuke

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

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

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

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

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. 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.
• The undertow is banned 6 months: The undertow is banned from Misplaced Pages for six months.

Motions: Disclosure of known alternate accounts

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)

Possible sockpuppet?

Durova 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.

• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) — potential sockmaster
• Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs) — blocked account of Le Grand
• Katerenka (talk · contribs) — matches the pattern of the Elisabeth account; needs to be investigated

In particular, edits to Misplaced Pages: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: . 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: 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 Misplaced Pages and its policies and Misplaced Pages'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 MANMcBride in the presernty 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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive was. Ikip (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to include this: Misplaced Pages: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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards