Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98

Me, Andre and WJBscribe have created a set of guidelines for the changing usernames process, in an attempt to standardise our existing practices, as well as create a formal set of guidelines that reflects current pratice. Note that if the community decides to grant this guideline status, then there will be very little to no change in our existing practices at changing usernames, and usurpations. I am posting notices on several pages in an attempt to gain consensus on the talk page of the proposal to promote it to guideline. All input is welcome. And yes, I've posted this other places too, but I am posting here as it may be relevant to administrators, and to increase exposure. --Deskana (banana) 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify the policy on awards pages? I noticed this article: List of Queen Latifah's awards and nominations. There used to be similar articles for Michael Jackson and La Toya Jackson, although they were both removed by User:Metros to try and "teach me a lesson" (as a side note, I used every possible option to have something done about this, but it seems that all involved admins were on Metros' side, and he got away with it). Anyway, if awards pages are truly not permitted, List of Queen Latifah's awards and nominations should be deleted. If they -are- permitted, than the pages for Michael and La Toya Jackson should be reinstated, and User:Metros should have a serious talking-to. Rhythmnation2004 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:Since you put "teach me a lesson" in quotes, I assume that you're saying Metros said that specifically. Could you provide a diff so we have context? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you missed the point of this post. He never said that specifically, but that is what he did theoretically, hence the quotes. Anyhow, I'm still looking for an answer on WP's policy toward award pages. Rhythmnation2004 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think we usually only add wins (as notable award wins, not nominations, are part of WP:N for people, though obviously not the only criterion), and they go in a subsection of the main bio article. MSJapan 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, wouldn't List of Queen Latifah's awards and nominations be a candidate for deletion? Rhythmnation2004 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be reasonable to list Latifah's page on WP:AFD to find out what the community thinks about this. >Radiant< 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to check a range of IP addresses to see whether they've edited Wikipedia. It's a fairly narrow range but a bit large to run manually. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:You should be able to use a wildcard as described here, but I can't get it to work.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::No you shouldn't, see [http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=21379 r21379]. I believe VoA has a script for this. Prodego ^talk 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I remembered that they communicated that we could do it. I didn't remember that it got removed (or maybe it wasn't communicated). Oh well, that explains why I can't get it to work ;) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay is there any working tool for this? Durova^Charge! 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I could whip up a pywikipedia script if you want, all I need to know is what you want in the output. ^∆ 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:The only "working tools" I know who will do this are developers :) -- it's a SQL query. If I'm wrong and there is a way, please let me know too since I need this all the time... Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::VandalProof can check a /24 pretty easily. I haven't tried any other ranges. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I'll echo that request. In a few cases, I've wanted to know what the contributions from an entire /14 (yes, that's a slash-fourteen looked like to get an idea of what the collateral damage associated with blocking (short- or long-term) a particular ISP would be. If I had SQL access to the database, I could do it that way–but I don't, and I can't. I'm certainly not going to hammer the server with a quarter million separate contributions requests (most of which would probably turn up empty anyway). Maybe this should be over at WP:VPT? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can think of an easy way to do this! Download GNU wget, set the base-url to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/, put the list of IP addresses to check into a file. Give the file to wget as a list of files to download. Once it has downloaded them all, go to the folder in which you put them, and do "sort by size", all the ones with no contributions should have the same file size, and be the smallest files.

Also you can write a quick bot if you prefer and make it search the files for the following phrase : "No changes were found matching these criteria." Make it write a list of all the files in which it was not found: that is the list of users (or IPs, because you could put user names in the list too) who edited wikipedia. I was thinking just a quick and ugly bot like :

SYSTEM(dir /b /on > list.txt);
ifstream list("list.txt");
char IP[50];
list.getline (IP,50);
ifstream contribs(IP)
and then search the stream, using a premade library or using a getline loop.
then if "No changes were found matching these criteria.", is not found output IP[] to a buffer.

Jackaranga 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Note if you were to use this method you wouldn't see the deleted contribs I'm guessing because you wouldn't be logged in (as admin), you may be able to pass the login cookie to wget though, I'm not sure what would happen. Jackaranga 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if admins can clarify if this is a violation of policy. I recently noticed this message in a WikiProject banner at the top of Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid.

:This article was written under the auspices of Wikiproject Zionism, an effort sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry to ensure a favourable portrayal of the State of Israel on Wikipedia. [http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11] If you would like to participate, please contact Hasbara Fellowships to receive a list of open tasks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a concerted government-sponsored effort to especially give a "favourable portrayal" to any country a gross violation of the neutrality policy? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

: It was pretty obviously a very poor taste joke. I've removed it as vandalism. Still laughing, but I guess it wasn't really funny. Thanks for pointing it out! I'm not an admin; but hey. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::To admins - here's the version of the Talk page before the message was removed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&oldid=148648692]. To Duae_Quartunciae - are you so sure it was a joke/vandalism? The message linked to this article[http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::It was inserted by an IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid&diff=148637340&oldid=148588464 here]. No other edits, obviously someone trying to be funny. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::There was discussion on WP:AN/I about this solicitation (which is real, from Hasbara) a few days ago. Obviously, someone who thinks that these AfD's are insufficiently contentious and rancorous thought it would be humorous to reference it in the AfD. Removing it was the right call. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Meh. The faux "Wikiproject Zionism" banner was intended as a sarcastic commentary on the brouhaha around the "Allegations of Apartheid" series, not as graffiti, and I apologize for the disruption caused. The shitfight has driven any reasonable voices that might have offered a solution away and will convince any onlooker that Wikipedia doesn't live up to its aspiration to be a serious encyclopedia. Let's look at it like this: at least one editor thought that the wikiproject may really have been genuine and that there really is an organized campaign underway to "improve" Israel-related articles. 129.170.116.177 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As a prelude to the flags of several countries being deleted, you may encounter the following:

Vector-images.com image warning Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Flag of ...x under the following license :Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision [link to "decision" not provided"] was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia.

Albeit for me to speculate that the images were fine for our purposes, but the ever-so uncommunicative, for-profit forces decided that they'd rather have missing flags and coat of arms in country articles because, in theory, some corporation would not be able to profit from said images. I did say albeit! A little communication goes a long way. Also, sound bot planning also goes along way, esp. when it comes to redundant multiple sections (ie having a bot coded so it limits multiple image notices to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZscout370&diff=148381099&oldid=148376677 one section]). El_C 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:Be aware that certainly in the UK, and I would think in the U.S. also, there is enough individual variation in an artist's rendering of a heraldic blazon for that rendering to attract copyright on its own account, in addition to the copyright in the underlying design.

:From what can see of Vector-images.com, their license agreement with the user is very limiting, and specifically excludes further sub-licensing. So these images cannot be considered free. But since, from the original heraldic specification, they should be eminently re-drawable to avoid Vector-images.com, this looks to me like a clear case of WP:NFCC #1 (Replaceable non-free images).

:Frankly I'm surprised that BCbot isn't tagging them all for deletion straight off. But IMO you would be wise to consider use of these images to be running on borrowed time, and to consider making plans to replace them. Jheald 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com. Chick Bowen 00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the link. It seems Vector-Images.com sees its business as selling vector versions of its images, and is happy for the promotional raster preview version it supplies to be used without restriction, so long as it is identified as the creator. This includes commercial use. It is not 100% explicitly clear that it includes modification -- eg tracing to produce competing vector SVG art. It seems the balance of opinion on Commons is that that is permitted too. So I am now slightly at a loss to understand Zscout's assertion that "The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines". But perhaps he can clarify.

::::What is recognised as a potential problem for Commons is any copyright remaining in the underlying heraldic specification. In very many cases this will now be PD. Where it is not, WP:NFCC #1 would not apply (we wouldn't be able to redraw our way around it), so we would then need to consider whether fair use was appropriate.

::::However, that no longer seems to square with what Zscout is saying, so this may need a further looking at. Jheald 08:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I clarified for Jheald on my talk page; anyways, many of the images tagged now are Commonwealth arms and I am not sure what is the copyright status of those. While I said two weeks in the template message, I honestly believe that it might take longer than that. Plus, there is always deletion review if I managed to make a boo-boo on one. However, if there is one thing I wish to say, El C, I wish you spoke to me first about the situation before you came here. I could have clarified it for you and would have helped you through the process. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::I've followed this up on Zscout's talk page. In particular, I don't think he's entirely correctly interpreted the discussions on Commons. Jheald 10:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Even after playing email tag with the site owners, people still agree that they will review each image on the Commons and will determine what will be kept. The main goal of the whole notification thingie is that this tags purpose as a license is depreciated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Read the Commons discussion more closely. The problem is not with Vector Images' copyright, nor their release. The problem is whether, for some of the images, there may be copyright in the underlying heraldic design. That is what the Commons images are to be reviewed for. Jheald 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The deletion page for the template is a mess anyways; people are just voting to keep pictures and not about the template. The Commons is already killing new uploads with the template, they want to depreciate the use of the template as a license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link. Y'Know, BetaCommandbot in general really annoys me for some reason... David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I expect that Betacommand's official spokesperson, Durin, will soon be by to explain to us why the notice didn't include a link to the "decision," which dosen't even appear to have been concluded yet (!). Needless to say, I await it with an especial trepidation. ;) El_C 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::What, no spokesbot? Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::: :D El_C 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ok why am I getting drug into this? Zscout370 asked me to notify all the users who uploaded images with that template. The task and text was generated by Zscout370, not me. Please address all issues to Zscout370. ^∆ 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::You are ultimately accountable for the actions carried out by your bot, as the bot owner, even if they were requested by someone else. That's why. It's ok to direct questions to ZScout, but should something go wrong, you can't just claim no responsibility. pschemp | talk 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that I am responsible for the bot, But the issue is not with the bot, but the message and the fact of the message. As the saying goes dont shoot the messenger for the fact that you hear bad news. Shoot the creator of the news. ^∆ 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Providing "the news" isn't suppressed in the message! El_C 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, leave Betacommand out of this. As I noted at the bottom of the notice, which was composed by me, I said that any questions or comments should be directed towards me. It seems you ignored the last part of it. I also signed the message that BC issued, because he had a notification bot that worked well. I even got messages from this round of notification. Please, come on, stop beating up on Betacommand on this issue. Remmeber, my talk page is open, let's go there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:Care to comment, here, about the "recently, a decision was made" bit? I do find that mode of communication problematic and I wish to see it addressed in a venue that's wider than your talk page, especially seeing how the discussion is already somewhat under way. Thanks. El_C 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Sure. I mainly wished yall came to see me first before the bot was getting attacked again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Whenever you're ready... El_C 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I was born ready. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::If you don't want to comment that's your prerogative, just be straight-forward about it. El_C 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in the message that I wrote that was sent to the talk pages. Anyways, many of the images from the website were accepted in Wikipedia, especially on the Commons. Some people, like myself, decided to copy the template license over from the Commons to here because some just don't have Commons accounts (in my case, en.wp is my test ground for images). There has been email discussions in the past between Russian admins and the site owners, asking to clarify the license. Before the March 2007 decision by the Foundation, the only thing the site asked for was a reference to the website and that was it. This was the basis for many of the CIS based images we got. But after the Foundation set down their new image policy, the Russian admins decided to play email tag again over the template. While they gave the same statement as last time, our asking of the image license clarification went on deaf ears. We also had Belarusian administrators email the company to no avail. Then, it was decided in May 2007 that all new images uploaded with the license are going to be speedy deleted. Later on, on the talk page, they decided to depreciate the template and put it up for deletion. Right now, many users are not understanding the deletion debate. People want the template gone, but the images kept. Here, I was looking for a review of the images and it would have been best to notify all who uploaded images from the site and see what happens. You got hit by it once, I was hit by it three times and others were told about it. I have begun to review some of the images now, but many of the ones that are left are Commonwealth coat of arms. I am not sure how long the review will take, but I hope it doesn't take very long. If you think the image makes fair use, write up a claim. If you can find a free image, then use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I entirely follow that, but thanks anyway for the detail. Again, my problem was that you write "recently, a decision was made" but fail to link to this decision. Do you not see anything wrong with that? El_C 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, that was an oversight on my part. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius criticized my action today, so raising this for broader discussion. Quick summary: two separate threads at WP:CSN concluded with consensus support for a full siteban on Bus stop. I implemented the first one, then tried a conditional unblock if the editor accepted formal mentorship and agreed to avoid two articles. Fred Bauder adopted Bus stop, but problems continued at related pages until I opened a second thread for a full community topic ban (with Fred's approval) on Judaism-related articles. During that discussion Bus stop's behavior degenerated so badly that I reimposed the original community siteban and edit protected the user's talk space. Feedback at that thread after I implemented it was overwhelming in support.

Then Dweller attempted to broker a second compromise. I went along with it, reduced the indef block to 3 months, but IMO Bus stop's next posts just weren't up to par. Not extreme enough to normally merit the banhammer, but here's someone who's already been sitebanned twice and looked more interested in settling scores than moving forward. IMO the block reduction had been a courtesy. I don't think I should need a third consensus to reset to indef again.

Bus stop is fully informed of his/her right to bring any grievance to ArbCom through e-mail. Have I overstepped? I don't think so, but I'm open to comment. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• original ban discussion
• new ban discussion
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABus_stop&diff=147586417&oldid=147585570 a few choice words (others have been forgiven)]
• the current state of things

:Durova^Charge! 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:I have taken a cursory glance. If the editor proves and promises through the contributions that they will spiral back down, then the disruptions to the project must stop. Especially if that is the communities consensus. In my opinion, I do not think you have overstepped. Navou ^banter 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't understand why people are making such efforts to make Bus stop their darling pet project. He has been indef banned twice already and nothing has changed. I would drop it like a hot brick and move on. Its not worth anyone's valuable time and energy. Drumpler 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:No comment on previous sitebans, but since then (in fact only one day ago) Bus stop was unblocked under the mentorship of Dweller. We know what has happened in the past, but Bus stop has apologised to Durova. It is not appropriate to wield old diffs as above. The idea is to attempt to move forward from this point. Bus stop has not repeated remarks of the kind he made previously and an instant re-ban is premature. At the very least, Dweller should have been involved in this decision. Durova has been criticised by Bus stop and immediately re-bans. Better to have left anything like that to a non-involved party to avoid even the appearance of a personal motive. Tyrenius 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Correction: Bus stop was not unblocked one day ago. I reduced a block from indef to three months. Then I set it back to indef. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:: I am inclined to agree with both Drumpler and Tyrenius. Like Drumpler, I don't understand why anyone would bother with this, and IMO it is not worth the trouble.

:: On the other hand, my own understanding of what other people might do is irrelevant. Some people enjoy hopeless causes; and who knows... maybe it will turn out not to be a hopeless cause. Given that other people might like to be more helpful for Bus Stop than I think worth bothering about; the question is whether Durova was premature in preventing them. I agree with Tyrenius that Durova was premature; and as an involved party she is better to back off entirely and let Dweller deal with it under the mentor process. If she is unhappy with any recent activity — and the recent activity precipitating this latest ban seems pretty mild overall — then she should contact the mentor and perhaps the mentor can give some useful advice to Bus Stop about how to let it go. Good luck to them in that; but they should be permitted to try out this mentoring process. I'm not 100% sure I'm working on full information, but that's how it looks to me at present. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Bus Stop made a half-hearted apology to Durova ('"OK I apologize"--if that will get be unbanned' is what it sounded like) only after repeated prodding by Dweller that's it's a mandatory condition to get him unblocked. Furthermore, to this date he has not shown a scintilla of contrition for his actions. After every block/banning, he seems to be fancying himself to be a victim (of some Christian conspiracy, evidently) and stayed combative and insulted/accused others of wrongdoings against him. In the interim administrators, for whatever reason, have been taking turns making him a pet project, and try to get him unbanned/into mentorship--at the expense of the community. I guess quite a few admins believe they can play psychiatrist and change an individual's personality and morph him into a non-disruptive editor and create some sort of a feel-good-story--however how is that fair to other editors who already bore the brunt of his disruption, and will continue to be subjected to his disruption as he go right back to his old ways after every unblock? Tendancer 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How many chances do you get? From reading the discussion on Bus stop's talk page, it appears that he's still under the impression that everyone's out to get him in some way or another. Until he realizes that it's his disruptive behavior, not a vast conspiracy, that led to this situation, he's not going to change it. I see nothing to indicate he's come to that realization. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) Tendancer, that's a very poor characterisation of Bus stop's apology, which in full reads:

::OK, I apologize to Durova for the comment that I made last, containing the profanity. I retract it, if that is possible. And I apologize for using such base terminology. Thanks for the chance, Dweller.

:I fail to see how that doesn't show a "scintilla of contrition". Your post is mainly irrelevant to the current situation and quite insulting to other users and admins. I was able to work constructively with Bus stop without major problems in a contentious editing environment on Michael Richards, and editors on art articles (which is his other interest) have not had these problems, so there is no need for any morphing or psychiatric practice there. One wonders exactly why it has become so difficult elsewhere. Certainly an editor who continues to post on Bus stop's talk page after he's been banned, because "it's at least a bit amusing", is not without blame for exacerbating matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drumpler&diff=141914532&oldid=141001838] My participation to date has been fairly minor: I was not involved with unbanning or mentoring Bus stop. I am not saying he should have been unbanned, but the fact is that he was and it was agreed that Dweller was to mentor him. That then needs to be allowed to run its course. Tyrenius 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Tyrenius, first I was referring to his complete lack of attrition for his disruptive editing. Now even assuming we take into account the "apology" for his vile insult of Durova--first if Bus Stop is a reasonable person he should've made the apology without any prodding after making such a statement. Then even after Dweller had to ask him to apologize, his immediate response was to bargain that "[he] will apologize to Durova in exchange for an apology from Durova." After Dweller stayed firm that the apology is "not negotiable", we get a half-hearted apology primarily addressed to Dweller and referring to Durova in 3rd person just to get himself unblocked. The moment Durova accepts it, the response is "Apparently Durova fails to accept responsibility for even one iota of her wrongdoing." Combine that with the complete lack of admission he has done anything disruptive, and the continuous accusation of other users of supposed wrongdoing; I do not see how any fair minded person can deem him to have shown contrition.

::While you and some visual arts editors find him easy to work with (probably because visual arts is far less of a hot topic for this editor, and the inherent subjectivity renders his POV tendencies less problematic), I think it's fair to say it's beyond clear dozens of others editors, admins and non-admins alike, find Bus Stop extremely disruptive. I stand by my statement: I think your and Dweller's apparent attempts to get Bus Stop unblocked are, while certainly well-intentioned, unreasonably unfair to the community. This is not just between Bus Stop and Durova, as Durova banned him based on community consensus--and the community, with some editors who had months and months of experience having to deal with his disruption, has already twice now opined he should be banned after being subjected to his disruption and incivility, and now we're spending (wasting?) time on a third time because admins propose (again) to put him through mentorship (again) as a pet project. Maybe to some admins it's just "giving someone a second third fourth chance", to the editors who have been/will be on the receiving end of his disruption and actually deal with the brunt of the consequences, it's not quite such a noble and magnanimous venture. Tendancer 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Huh? Am I being put to blame for exacerbating the problem? I'm sorry, but when you try to explain to an editor why he's in his predicament, and why other individuals have tended to disagree with him, and he simply continues to believe that his opinion is the only acceptable one, it is painfully amusing, and unfortunate.

:::The simple problem is that Bus stop doesn't listen to anyone else's argument, and he doesn't understand the concept of consensus. He'd make accusations that we'd simply voted to get him banned from the original discussion because his argument was "too cogent". This, if anything, is at least a show of narcissism (or simple naivete) which leads me to question if the user has a Jekyll-Hyde editing pattern when exposed to Judaism-related topics. After all, he does seem to make positive contributions to art topics. Take a look at his Judaism-related edits, and you'll begin to notice that he pushes his POV as authoritative even when everyone else is opposed to his changes.--C.Logan 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::I do believe that the problematic point was after Bus stop apologized- and then requested an apology from Durova. See, Durova invited him to join the discussion on WP:CSN, and later banned him from that discussion, as it appears, for making several distasteful comments which compared the discussion to the Holocaust (and this is a habit of his; both user Drumpler and I had been involved in a long discussion with this user, and he often attempted to malign our arguments by comparing the situation to medieval events and calling our actions "proselytization"- unique, because Drumpler and many other users involved have no religion, AFAIK).

::The problem lies in the fact that Bus stop wants Durova to apologize to him for banning him from the discussion, as he claims he could not defend his case because of that. Sorry to say, but considering the comments he was making, Durova owes little apology to Bus stop for the ban. The fact that he's asking for an apology in this instance hints at the fact that Bus stop still doesn't realize that what he's doing is disruptive.

::Concerning the prematurity of the re-ban... yes, I believe it was a little premature. If anything, an explanation of the reasons for the ban should have at least been given to Bus stop beforehand. He may just drop his attitude to get out of trouble, but if this second mentorship works, we could have a very useful editor involved in art-related topics. Better that than a total ban. However, I'm still unsure about allowing the editor to edit Judaism-related topics- seems like it's simply too hot-button for this user to handle without pressing his POV.--C.Logan 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Dweller's terms were a three month block, followed by a (minimum) 3 month ban on Judaism-related articles for Bus stop, so that is not an immediate concern. We don't need penitence; he doesn't need to realize he's done wrong - he just needs to act differently, whatever his motivation to do so. Asking for an apology and sounding off a bit doesn't merit a re-ban. It might merit an explanation of the type you have provided above. We can't expect someone to change totally overnight, but we can expect a move in the right direction, and certainly the new remarks are a distinct improvement on the earlier ones you have referred to. Such extremity has not been manifested in other subject areas, as I have said above, or I would be less sympathetic to his cause. Tyrenius 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::He apologized, which is great, but it's another story if he's going to be a wrench in the gears about things unless Durova apologizes to him for banning him from a discussion in which he was being rather disruptive (and if someone isn't able to see how he was being disruptive, they have little experience with this user's habits). We shouldn't expect a brand new user within the course of a night, but unless he starts over by (first and foremost) swallowing his pride, it may just end up being another course where we cater to a user who still believes his POV is the law about things. Bus stop is wrong- he doesn't deserve an apology for being blocked for disruptive behavior. Again, though, I agree that Durova's ban this time around was a bit of jumping the gun.--C.Logan 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• :Frankly I wish people would have given Dweller and Bus stop a little more time and space to hash things out. All of a sudden, people jump in, things get crazy, he overreacts somewhat badly, and then Durova shuts it down. I hope something via e-mail between Durova to whom I apologize for Bus stop's rude language as I didn't like seeing that, and Dweller and Bus stop can diffuse this tenderbox. Tyrenius and I have worked with Bus stop and he is capable of doing good work. Although I think he has to let go of the past, things need to settle down, obviously feelings are still raw. Modernist 02:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'd trust {{user|Dweller}} to handle this; his conditions seemed fair enough. I agree though that ideally something would be worked out by Dweller, Durova, Bus stop, and perhaps Tyrenius after a cool down period and preferably away from situations that will just continue to heat up the rhetoric.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did anyone check if this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=147830793] was really Bus stop, or some jokester trying to smear his good name? Those "pedophile" comments seem a little goofier than the Bus stop I know and love, but if that was really him, you might want to take that into consideration.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'd forgotten about that, hmm. Who the hell would impersonate Bus stop for that specific purpose? When I'd seen his last comment before bannage, and then saw "his" comments as Bus stop at the otogar, I thought he'd finally gone off the deep end. Someone should definitely check that out.--C.Logan 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Büyük Otogar is a bus terminal in Turkey, in case anyone cares. Anyway, I don't think that was him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:04:56, 1 August 2007 is the start line for a new start, and that is a prior edit, however it came about. Leave it. Tyrenius 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::That's generous of you, I guess.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::: Sure: any second/third/fourth/whatever-it-is-by-now chance is generous. But having decided to go ahead with another try — and there does seem to have been a general consensus on that from all concerned — it's just common sense to draw a line in the sand and leave prior history out of it as already having been considered. The question is really only whether the most recent contributions since 04:56, 1 August 2007 are grounds to re-ban. I don't have any great hopes for the new process, but I also don't think the subsequent contributions are grounds for the attempt at rehabilitation to be unilaterally revoked by someone so deeply involved in the disputes. (No offense intended Durova; I just think you are better to leave it to others not so involved.)

::: There are only two contributions to consider. They are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bus_stop&diff=prev&oldid=148512994 15:26, 1 Aug] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bus_stop&diff=prev&oldid=148516593 15:48, 1 Aug]. Both contributions indicate that the mentor has an uphill task in explaining the principle of No angry mastodons. Neither was worth immediately revoking the attempt to help, however futile you think it might be. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Someone could checkuser this if they really wanted to, but I doubt {{user|Bus stop at the otogar}} is the same individual as {{User|Bus stop}}. Bus stop was previously blocked for a fair amount of time and never sockpuppeted. Plus, {{user|Bus stop at the otogar}} seemed to be going well out of their way to make sure everyone "knew" it was "Bus stop".--Isotope23 ^talk 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think Durova jumped the gun too much. Bus stop immediately came firing back again with the same old accusations. I would consider maybe giving him more cooling time before deciding to bring him back. Maybe a few months. Drumpler 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:The question would seem to be, at least to me, whether the editor in question has learned that his or her own actions which precipitated all of this were incorrect and unallowable. The appearance of these most recent comments would indicate that no such lesson has been learned, and that, on that basis, it is extremely unlikely, at best, that the editor's behavior ever will improve. Basically, if s/he's still insisting his/her own violations of policy are and were justified, it's reasonable to assume such violations will continue. The only way I can see in which there would be any hope of redemption of this editor would be to get it through to him or her that his/her actions were clearly well outside acceptable guidelines. Whether such is possible is, to me, an open question. I can't at this point fault Durova for the follow-up block, although I wouldn't object to seeing it rescinded if the editor in question ever acknowledged that his/her violations of etiquette, guidelines, and policies were extremely problematic, and indicated they would try to adhere to good conduct standards in the future. Right now, though, it don't look real likely. And I can see how someone with pronounced self-aggrandinzing tendencies, as this editor has displayed, would compare their being banned/blocked to Turkish repression a la Midnight Express. I wouldn't mind seeing a checkuser on that account. If it was Bus stop, s/he should be made to understand at least that such conduct is also explicitly unacceptable. John Carter 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Look what happens when you're offline for a few hours. I guess I should apologise to those who feel that my intervention to give Bus stop another chance has caused disruption to the Project; although I'm not entirely sure that's a fair characterisation, I'm happy to apologise for inadvertently being the cause of upset to other editors in good standing.

At this point, my main concern is with Durova. I'm not doing anything to trample a well-respected contributor in favour of my efforts to rehabilitate someone with a block history that doesn't augur well for the future.

This may be arrogant, but can I please request that everyone stops discussing this, as any further disruption is now entirely being caused by admins discussing the disruption! I will discuss this with Durova and with Bus stop too. When I have a clear picture, I'll post a new thread here or at CS, whichever seems more appropriate at the time. --Dweller 12:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:NB This may take some time. Durova's actively editing at a time when I'm supposed to be sleeping, so dialogue will necessarily be rather clunky. --Dweller 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dweller and I have exchanged a couple of e-mails about this. First I want to clarify that I didn't restore Bus stop's editing privileges the other day: I shortened the ban to three months, then restored it to indefinite. I have a standard offer to community banned editors that I'll support their return after half a year if they don't violate WP:SOCK, promise to abide by site policies when they come back, and don't go around bashing Wikipedia at other websites. At Dweller's request I cut that time frame in half, and as a gesture of goodwill I put it that into the block log, which is a notation I almost never make.

::Upon reflection I decided I'd made a mistake by resetting that expiration time formally. Return from an indefinite ban is something that needs to be earned. Bus stop's demand of an apology is right in only one respect: I owe an apology to the rules-abiding editors who couldn't improve a page I edit protected after he gamed an unblock offer I had extended. I owe an apology to the people who attended second ban discussion I opened, and now for my actions that necessitated this AN thread. Why did I bend over this far for an editor who acted like he was doing Fred Bauder a favor by accepting an unsolicited offer of mentorship? I should have seen where this was headed and cut the losses sooner. I hoped that a few positive contributions to visual arts were enough to build on, but obviously they weren't. And it should have been obvious sooner. I apologize for wasting the community's time. If anyone wants to unblock his user space or restore his editing privileges again, that's up to them, but until a few months pass I think a return should be out of the question. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally don't think that any apologies are owed to the community by Durova for giving this editor another chance. Hope springs eternal, and all that. Apologies from Bus stop are another matter entirely. John Carter 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Y'know, John, (and thanks for the affirmation) I do. It's no secret that I don't like the current policy language on community bans. I argued against it, now I work within it, but it still rubs me the wrong way. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I just don't like how my opinion about a ban or an unban carries more weight than that of any other editor in good standing, particularly since they're the ones who have to deal with the fallout when sysops try a lenient approach that doesn't work. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::For my part, I want to make clear that Durova has my complete support. If and when the community should decide to accept any future request by Bus stop to return to the Project, I would be happy to pick up my offer to monitor and mentor an effort at his "rehabilitation" to full editing rights. --Dweller 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I hope this doesn't seem in any way confrontontational, because it isn't intended in that way, I'm just seeking clarification. Are you saying that, if at some point in the future Bus stop requests again that he be unblocked, and this request meets approval, you would be willing to do so? If yes, are we to understand that you now consider the most recently made request void in some way? Again, just seeking clarification. John Carter 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, the most recently made request ended in an agreement to reinstate after 3 months. I posted a statement to Bus stop's talk page that I'd go back to my usual offer of 6 months if I thought the opportunity was being gamed. So basically we're back to the standard deal: I'll look at how things shape up after half a year. It's possible I might be persuaded to dip that again, particularly if Fred's persuaded too. But I don't think a time frame of just a few days or weeks is realistic. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been reverted several times on 42 (number) by {{user|Numerao}} (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=42_%28number%29&curid=191178&action=history history]), with the rationale that I am not a member of the appropriate Wiki project, and thus have not thought the issues through. I have been deeply disturbed by the amount of incredibly trivial information that number articles tend to accumulate, and I've started occassionally pruning them down to something approaching sanity. I've left a comment here, on their project page. I am deeply concerned about a WikiProject being so exclusionary. --Eyrian 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::I didn't see you complaining about this when someone added a rookie's jersey number and got reverted on the grounds of criteria given at WP:NUM. Anton Mravcek 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::This pushed me over the edge. The criteria given by WP:NUM are bad, and should not be listened to. --Eyrian 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief. The jersey number of random sportsmen? One of the six "Lost" numbers? Battlefield 2142 (huh?) .. the number of illustrations in Alice in Wonderland? I think you were quite right here. You've since been reverted for the third time, btw. ELIMINATORJR 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Eyrian was right about random sportsmen but wrong about Jackie Robinson. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::: Now then. The above user, who in over two years has edited nothing but music articles, has just put all that (non-musical) trivia back in again, in his/her first edit for nearly four weeks. (Numerao would've broken 3RR). Not too suspicious, really... ELIMINATORJR 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::At the risk of coming under your suspicion, I'd like to point out that Volunteer Sibelius Salesman's 50 most recent edits also include two articles about episodes of The Simpsons and an AFD vote on the Red Sox's #55 draft pick, Nicholas Hagadone. As for the music articles he's edited, at least in the most recent 50, many of them are about symphonies with numbers, such as 2, 36, 3, 48, 4, 29, 97, etc. PrimeFan 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::: Indeed. Even so, that edit had my duck detector quacking rather loudly. Still, I'm assuming good faith for the time being... ELIMINATORJR 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a short note for Numerao, about the behaviour being inappropriate WilyD 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• The lack of a 42 (disambiguation) seems to be generating at least some of the links there and a quick review of :Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers indicates that most numbers don't have dab pages. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian only pays lip service to general policy. His goal appears to be the enforcement of his will over a concensus built months ago by project members who didn't just think about reader expectations for the topic at hand but also considered general policy and even made concessions to fanatic deletionists. What would happen if Eyrian succeeded in enforcing his will on 42? Would he then expect WP:NUM members to re-shape the other number articles according to his established willfulness? Anton Mravcek 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:You know, rhetoric without evidence is of little worth on this board. —Kurykh 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't require other users to enforce any policy anywhere; only abide when the changes are made. --Eyrian 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::What I'm hearing here is: "The criteria given by WP:NUM" (Eyr.) made by concensus "months ago by project members who didn't just think about reader expectations for the topic at hand but also considered general policy" (Mrav.) "are bad." (Eyr.) The opinion of one admin trumps that of several users. PrimeFan 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::"The opinion of one admin trumps that of several users." - I don't think so. Adminship is no big deal and provides no extra clout in content disputes, only in dealing with policy violations such as WP:3RR.

:::That said, I think the WP:NUM gang needs to provide a diff to prove to Eyrian that there really was a consensus decision "months ago". Eyrian is then free to challenge that consensus by making proposals to change the guidelines currently in effect and thus forming a new consensus around his position if he can. Any admin worth his salt will defer to a consensus that is not in violation of policy. The standard dispute resolution procedures are available and should be used if necessary.

:::And, please. Discuss this on the Talk Page, not here. This page is not for resolving content disputes.

:::--Richard 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure what "diff" is, but if it is what I think it is, then the following constitute a small sampling. PrimeFan 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_1#Astronomical_numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#Saros_numbers:_what_to_do.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#The_Lost_Numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#RFC:_Numbers_in_Currency
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#NASCAR_numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#NASCAR_Numbers_Part_II

I'll explain what a "diff" is on your Talk Page. On reflection, they're not that relevant to this dispute. What you have provided is a good first step. I'm not going to read all the links. It's not an admin's job to resolve content disputes. Here's the key thing, though. What the WP:NUM people need to do is provide evidence to Eyrian that the pertinent issues have been discussed and decided by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS for a definition). Eyrian has the right to re-open the question and challenge the consensus but, until he succeeds in changing the consensus by convincing other editors that he is right, he should not edit against consensus. If you prove that there is a consensus, he should abide by it. Have you guys proven the existence of a consensus? If not, do so quickly.

Be nice to Eyrian. Don't obstruct him if he tries to re-open the discussion on the Talk Page. He may be right, if only partially. However, if he edits against a documented consensus, come back here. Show us the proof of a consensus and show us the evidence of repeated edits against consensus and we'll consider corrective measures.

But, please, don't try to win the content dispute here. This is not the appropriate forum for it.

--Richard 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you deletionists thought of putting this on the WP:MFD block? It's nearly dead and most news discussion takes place at the Signpost tipline. Just testing the waters. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Went ahead and did it myself. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I'm not sure that this is an appropriate username, because it is very similar to that of the serial killer/child molester Westley Dodd. I think that an admin should request that this user change his name, unless it is his real name.--24.153.177.210 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't know why, but I have reservations about having people who take their names from fictional characters, like Sandman (Wesley Dodds), told to change their names. I personally never heard of the serial killer in question, and Wesley Dodds is one of the more historical notable DC comics characters. John Carter 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::It's funny, most people don't get where the name comes from, even though you can do a quick search for it through Wikipedia (although this makes me wonder how many other people believe it's my real name). In short, my username is emphatically not a reference to any serial killers. Quite the opposite, as John Carter pointed out. WesleyDodds 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Good to know. Sorry for the inconvenience.--24.153.177.210 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::So, John, are you from Mars or from an emergency room? ;-) --Thespian 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the future, we have Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Daniel Brandt talk page had been deleted as a courtesy. It was recreated by Bryan Derksen. An IP claiming to be Brandt blanked it, saying "Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt". Anittas reverted, saying "rv, so what if they're defamatory?". Another IP blanked it again, with "remove trolling", and Anittas reverted with "trolling restored".

The last thing we want is an edit war over this. I've deleted the page again. I bring this here for review. I personally think it should remain deleted, simply because it's the decent thing to do. However, I'm not prepared to fight over it. If admins agree that it should be deleted, I suggest that someone who knows how to should add it to the list of protected deleted titles. If admins decide it should be kept (and I really don't think that's a good idea), I suggest it should still be protected. But I'll wait and see what the general feeling is.

This is the history, prior to my deletion, but subsequent to the previous deletion:

10:20, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (trolling restored.)

09:38, 3 August 2007 . . 86.151.127.32 (remove troling)

06:32, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?)

02:15, 3 August 2007 . . 68.91.89.209 (Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt)

16:24, 1 August 2007 . . Bryan Derksen (article deletion discussion history)

ElinorD (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I believe it was deleted, as a courtesy, per Jimbo. If it needs salting perhaps a note on his talkpage would be polite? LessHeard vanU 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I would keep it deleted, and protect it. The article is not coming back, so the talk page has no purpose. If Mr Brandt ever becomes obviously noteworthy enough that an article really ought to be created (ie, something to the level of murdering a congressman, hosting his own talk show, or winning the 100m Olympic gold), then and only then would we need Talk:Daniel Brandt to be anything other than a redlink. Neil ╦ 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::In fact, I have gone ahead and salted it, because I feel frightfully rouge. If consensus subsequently heads the other way, no problems with that being undone. Neil ╦ 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: I endorse this action. I also find the edit summary "Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?)" to be more than a little disturbing, as it shows a complete disregard for, or ignorance of, WP:BLP. - Crockspot 13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Oh, absolutely. Keep this page deleted, and salted. It's gone, and it's not coming back. I'm also very concerned with Anittas' total dismissal of Mr. Brandt's concerns. (So what if they're defamatory? I think we know the answer.) Sean William @ 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Support deletion and salting... have we had this discussion before? I just got the strongest sense of déjà vu that I've felt in a long time while I was responding to this.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Endorse salting. I previously created the page with the same deletion history and then deleted it when I thought better of it. If we're going to have these kinds of problems, salting is the best solution.--Chaser - T 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Salt can be good. Until(1 == 2) 13:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Endorse salting, and I too am concerned with Anittas' "so what if it's defamatory" comment. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:Anittas He's no stranger to controversy]... Will ^(talk) 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::I've warned him about his actions. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: I agree with the salting, fair play to Neil for doing this. {{tl|deletedtalkpage}} could have been used also, but it's locked, so that's good. Anittas' ignorance of WP:BLP (a core policy) should result in a block, but considering the length of his block log, I wouldn't be surprised if someone did block him. That said, over on Wikibooks, b:User:Daniel Brandt appeared today. Not sure if it's the same one from here or an impersonator, but best to assume good faith on this one.

:::: Remember the delete/undeletion wars over Encyclopædia Dramatica and userboxes - we don't want to get into another war over this - we've already had Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. But as it stands, Neil was bold enough to do this, and that's a good thing. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: I endorse Neil's salting action as it was the right thing to do. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yes, keep it deleted. Let it rest. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fracture (video game) has edits that are an exact copy of [http://www.lucasarts.com/games/fracture/gameinfo/news/summary.html this] which has a copyright by Lucasfilm, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fracture_%28video_game%29&diff=next&oldid=130125024], I think this needs to be removed from the edit history (that's possible, right?), I don't really know who to ask so I'm posting it here, also, I don't know what took me so long to do this. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:They don`t really need to be deleted per Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Sasquatch t|c 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, just wanted to drop a little note about the flower/animal genus talk pages popping up in CAT:CSD. They are at the moment being rapidly tagged by Polbot. If anyone strolls by CSD, see if you can help in deleting the massive influx of them. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Seems they are mostly deleted now and the last I saw was Talk:Zygogeomys...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested for account name Milk-maid to be made ages ago in may at Wikipedia:Request_an_account but i cant remember what email I used to register (that the password was sent to - it was an anonymous one if i remember right) - and so the forgotten password thing is also useless

is there anything i can do or is the name lost forever now :(

:If you can't access the email you registered with the account, we cannot help you get back to it. That does not mean the name is completely useless though - if the account has never edited, you can usurp it by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Natalie 01:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::It hasn't edited, so it can be usurped. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:A new user cannot usurp a username. Usurption is for established editors. I suggest you use an email address you remember next time. Secretlondon 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:I am experiencing a similar password issue. The number of people handling this type of issue is, low. I was advised to e-mail brion-at-wikimedia.org about it. Anynobody 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::It's a little trivial to be dealt with by Brion.. Secretlondon 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, as the request was made through WP:ACC, the email is in that page's deleted history, and admins can access it (admins, search for "milk" in the preview view of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia%3ARequest_an_account%2FDeleted1×tamp=20070506214157], then hover over the create link on that section to access the email in question). However, it's not clear how we could establish that you truly are the account holder of that account, so for security and privacy purposes unless this could be established somehow we couldn't give you the email. I have to go now, but maybe some other admin could think of some way to proceed from here? --ais523 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Emeraldweapon is editing The City Drive, despite admitting to be a member of the band [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrianga&diff=149236274&oldid=149121601 here]. Warning was previously issued. Brianga 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:What are you asking administrators to do? Natalie 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Besides the copy and paste move (and a couple edits leading up to it), which I fixed, it does not appear he is doing anything wrong. WP:COI just means be careful and don't violate WP:NPOV orWP:V. His edits seem to be helpful. He added a discography and a source. The fact that he admitted it is actually preferred. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question on a discussion page which did not equate anyone on here with an external identity.

"N" posted a warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.7.66.56&oldid=149258406 for "trolling". I responded http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N&oldid=149263355 primarily asking him to remember WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL before threatening me some some kind of 'punishment' for something I and at least one other editor clearly felt was not trolling.

He promptly removed this request from his talk page and now has placed a "final warning" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.7.66.56&oldid=149263921 on my user talk page, insinuating

I restored the original edit in question as the basis for his "final warning" (it repeats a variation on his original accusation against me).

Could somebody please make some sense about how warnings over an edit that has remained reverted can escalate simply for making a reasonable request that "N" remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? I cannot follow this logic.

Thanks. 68.7.66.56 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing {{userlinks|N}} as an admin in the user rights log. Additionally, you were adding a name to a user talk. Also, you cannot compel an editor to participate in a discussion, can't make him/her answer. I don't really see any overzealous use here. Navou ^banter 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I am conveying this: Original edit of mine notwithstanding, I was given a "warning"; I asked N (aka user:Nardman1) to remain civil & agf, and then "N" gave me a "final warning" for the same original edit which stayed reverted the entire time. Thanks and sorry not trying to get a big discussion going, just want to make sure I am understood. 68.7.66.56 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Not only were the comments you were warned for uncivil, rude, and totally unrelated to maintaining an encyclopedia but your response to the basic template warning N gave you was borderline uncivil: "Otherwise you risk being perceived as ignorant of Wikipedia rules and eager to engage in inapproriate behavior." - coming from a user who seems to have made no constructive encyclopedic contributions. Users are only supposed to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:*.*.*.56, Is there a specific administrative resolution you'd like? If he ain't an admin, it 'tain no thing. Also, consider creating an account. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What I find troubling is not so much as what he is doing, as his apparent attempts to hide things - as well as his avoidance of coming forth to state his side of things. Sadly, I have seen such numerous times.

N, I officially call upon you - come forth and state your case.

Psycho Samurai 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Sigh... This whole thread makes me tired. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::I have blocked this IP, as its first ever Wikipedia edit was to harass and attempt to out another editor, and all subsequent posts are attacking other editors who are attempting to point out this behavior is unacceptable. Crum375 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for a proposal about unblocking users and giving them parole. Feel free to comment/add. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps you should you also put this on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for wider community input? LessHeard vanU 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Call It Arson
• Kill Normal Records
• The Flaming Tsunamis

Hoponpop69 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be happening somewhere. How is slamming new user's talk pages with endless bot notices about image uploads not a violation of WP:BITE? Just welcomed a new user, the umpteeth time I've done that under a dozen image notices. Would it not be easier to simply prevent new users from uploading images the way we prevent them from moving pages? I know this isn't the place for this, but if there is a discussion somewhere about this, please direct me to it, cause, dammit, I find myself with an opinion! ;) Dina 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, an editor who doesn't read / can't be bothered with / doesn't understand / doesn't care about / the instructions on the upload wizard probably isn't going to change their ways X days later. On the other hand, it would stop a lot of one-shot editors / attack images etc. ELIMINATORJR 02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Well, it appears to me anecdotally that some folks upload images that might be fair use -- screen shots, etc.-- because they see them on a lot of other articles, but they don't understand how to provide a fair use criteria so they get slammed for it. I can't abuse them for not understanding the criteria -- I understand it exactly enough to know that I simply won't upload an image using the fair use criteria because it's a frickin' minefield from what I can see. But I do see a lot of attack images, blatant vandalous copy vios (porn, etc.), pics of friends, plain old stupid pictures etc. that could simply be avoided if you couldn't upload images without waiting a period of time. I mean, has an image ever been uploaded by a user on their very first day that didn't end up deleted? I suspect very few. And the good faith folks would probably benefit from the x number of days and at least then they would be more likely to get a welcome before 12 warnings on their talk. Dina 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::A welcome message is... not a priority. Also, the messages from the bot are informative, they're telling the user how to fix something. It's not leaving notes like "You motherfucking idiot, you just screwed up BIG TIME", it's saying "Hello! An image you uploaded is missing a licensing blah blah blah, we need blah blah etc." It's not a bite. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not the content of the messages from the bot that I object to, they are fine. It's the profusion of them. New editors who ignore the instructions on the upload page seem, in my anecdotal experience, to upload more than one image. Perhaps that's the solution? You can upload one image as a new account. Or one a day? The restriction might motivate some folks to read and figure out why that's the case. They can learn how to do it, and the learn how not to do it, all in one step. Because it seems that they will inevitably do it wrong the first time anyway. And more interested editors might click a link that says "Why you are only allowed to upload one image right now" than a list of rules and regs that they are clearly not reading Dina 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::And while welcome messages are not a priority, as someone who was welcomed myself once, they do let a new user know that there are basic guidelines, places to go for help, and other people out there, not just bots. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dina&oldid=4267643 Mine] mattered to me frankly. If I had just gotten 12 bot warnings first, I probably would have said fuck it, you know? Dina 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:(Undent) Nah, I'm with Dina on this one. Welcome messages are kind of cool - they let a newbie know that this place is run by humans, and not by bots, and they provide really, really helpful newbie links. I mean, what newbie on their own is going to find the five pillars? Or etiquette conventions? Or any of those other things? Welcome templates are useful, and important. On the other hand, most people are going to look at bot messages about their images and go, "Wtf is this? Why is this thing yelling at me fifty times? Christ on a stick, this place is hell!" Then they (very likely) either get mad and become trolls, or get mad and leave. This is not good. On the other hand, if we at least make them wait a few days the way they already have to wait to make new articles, they're not going to get slammed with bot messages before coming into contact with humans, and they may just find our image policies first. Consider this: if we make them wait, we could add something about the wait period to the welcome message, linking to image policy, so that newbies could see policy and read it before they just leapt madly into image uploads. I suspect a wait period would at least trim the number of crap images we get. ♠PMC♠ 07:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::But they do see policy, when they go to upload an image - and obviously choose to ignore it. Then they do it again, and/or get a warm orange banner across the top of their page telling them they have a new message, which they ignore too... Maybe its the upload page that needs to change? Or the software, not accepting an upload unless something has been filled in for licensing/fair use? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::The upload page certainly does need to change. I was nearing 1000 edits when I made my first image uploads, and for the life of me I couldn't figure out what to do. I was baffled, and after 2 years on the site and a half a year of intense editing, started messing up again. I found it difficult. The other issue is the assumption that, as in other sections of Wikipedia, people will correct your mistakes. Unfortunately too much of the image rules, even if its clear to more experienced editors where the issue lies, even if it would be of benefit to Wikipedia for someone else to just straighten out the tangles, we're *not supposed to*. Image issues tend to be a seriously toss 'em in, see if they sink or swim issue. --Thespian 08:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: IMHO, the simplest solution would be to disable file uploads for new users the same way page moves & page creations are. It may not be a complete solution, but it would be an easy first step. And it would give the Wikipedia Welcoming Group a chance to educate the newbies. -- llywrch 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the request of several users, and over a dozen implementation plans that were scraped I now have a beta version of WikiProject support if your wikiproject wants notified about images that are under its scope please leave a note on my talk page with the template names that your wikiproject uses and the page that you want BCbot to leave messages on. β^_command 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Good Job Betacommand. Hopefully this will reduce the number of images that get deleted and could actually be justified. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:Remember this is a opt in feature, projects will need to come to me. β^_command 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's great! Is there any place to explain how this works? By "templates" do you mean the bot will look for the project's template on an article discussion page when it's tagging an image from that article, or are you saying we should give you the name of a template for the bot to alert us on the project page that an image was tagged? Please forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, just a little unclear. Wikidemo 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:what ever template name(s) the project uses to tag articles. IE {{wikiproectfoo}} and the page where you want BCBot to report to. Please remember that this function is just being tested and that it may not work right yet but as comments come in Ill modify the code. β^_command 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion that should never have started encased in archiving templates at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Jossi's revert. {{user|Jossi}} mistakely made an unnecessary revert (something was added to the page after discussion that had nothing to do with the ongoing policy dispute), and {{user|mikkalai}} started stirring up trouble. I warned Mikka and added archiving templates because this was uncalled and absolutely inappropriate to put there, but the discussion keeps on and is just worsening what already looks like a sour situation. The more I look at it, the more I just want to either nuke the entire thread or give mikkalai a block for disruptive/inflamatory editing. Any thoughts? Circeus 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:It looks like a valid attempt to deal with real issues to me. Until(1 == 2) 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:This discussion is closed with the archive templates now. I'm not sure what you think needs doing. Blocking Mikkalai for a punitive reason is not the answer though. He's not persisting the issue right now, so just let it the conversation die out without going and removing it, causing more unneeded drama. — Moe ε 17:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::I closed it right after my comment. It continued for 14 hours within them. Circeus 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::It appears to have ceased now, right? Mikkalai is off editing other things, nothing should be done unless he actually goes back and stirs it up again. — Moe ε 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so all the admins know, a straw poll has been started for Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal at Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll. Please come and voice your opinion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• ... which is pretty pointless since this is a feature request. Just go and talk to the Devs. >Radiant< 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what to do with this. I found User:Wartime1 a long time ago as a http://bugmenot.com account, logged in and changed the password. I guess it could be blocked, but no one can use it, and I forgot the password long ago. I just came across it since I was cleaning out my watchlist and realized I totally forgot about it. More than likely this message is unnecessary, as the account will just sit there, but incase I'm not thinking of something, there ya go. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:And just thought to check bugmenot again, http://www.bugmenot.com/view/en.wikipedia.com . Two of the four are blocked already, one is wartime that I mentioned, but not sure about User:danglinger. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I guess this one is active as well. -- Danglinger 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, it is. This account needs to be blocked. --Danglinger 15:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (Confirming that it was I who made the edit. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

:::Danglinger is now blocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I just checked my talk page and saw that this account had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kinu&curid=11940943&diff=149297731&oldid=149293541 posted their password there]... once the major "huh?!" moment passed, I was about to block as a possible shared/compromised account, but I see the real story and that it's been done already, so thank you. I don't particularly care to speculate as to why I was the first person this editor decided to contact after creating the account... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::::After looking at the bugmenot site, the user is apparently just a new sockpuppet of the banned User:Resaurusb (who seems to have a vendetta against me, so the attempts to contact me were probably just trolling) anyway. I have no idea how posting the accounts' passwords on the web is of any value, but eh. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:user:Danglinger needs blocked as well. See [http://www.bugmenot.com/view/en.wikipedia.com bugmenot]. ~ Wikihermit 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (blocked already)

Of course, if someone at Wikimedia would spend an hour with [http://www.bugmenot.com/report.php the bugmenot exemption page], this could be permanently fixed. Wikipedia is clearly in their possible exemptions. It just needs administration from the server side and an hour or two to just remove all wikipages and save admins some time on this. --Thespian 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

: Even more doable since en.wikipedia.org is already blocked by Bugmenot, it seems, so that demonstrates that bugmenot maintainers probably see what's the problem. =) Though it would probably make more sense to just ask them to block all Wikimedia domains in one fell swoop... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

West 47th Street (film) and Bill Lichtenstein appear to have been created by Bill Lichtenstein himself, at least partially from material for which he holds and retains the copyright.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_47th_Street_%28film%29&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Lichtenstein&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Lichtenstein&oldid=17549468] 24.4.253.249 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:If you believe this material to be copied, use the {{tl|copyvio}} template, stating the suspected source. It says what the authpr should do if he/she is the owner of the material.

:Once that's dealt with, feal free to place a {{tl|coi}} tag on it. Od Mishehu 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Screw it - I've provided all the information I have. I have no idea what the source is, merely that an anon IP has claimed to be Lichtenstein and claims to have created one of the pages using material for which he holds the copyright. If I thought the COPYVIO template was applicable in this case, I would have used it; it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to get through to process-bound minds. But if the hoops are more important to you than the use of copyrighted material, fine. 24.4.253.249 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::What action were you requesting be taken? It would appear that more research would be needed, no matter who acts on it. How does that equate to "the hoops" being more important? Leebo ^T/C 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Apparently the "hoops" that required admin attention by posting here included looking in the article history for a copyvio tag that showed the source material. I've stubbed Bill Lichtenstein to get rid of the copyvio because a random IP "releasing" this for use doesn't cut it in my book. This didn't require a post here though...pretty much anyone who can edit a page could have taken care of this.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thank you, Isotope23; I wasn't comfortable making changes to the articles because of 1) my unfamiliarity with copyright law and the Foundation's interpretations of it, and 2) ignorance of the process when a source for alleged copyrighted material is unknown. Despite that, it seemed obvious that further attention was needed outside of the template resources available. 24.4.253.249 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RDNS is "web-proxy.beale.af.mil". My guess is this is a gateway between a secure DoD network and the Internet. It has a history of some vandalism but mostly good edits. Is there a tag to apply to the talk header to alert people dealing with it? Also (I'm assuming) it's not considered an "open proxy" (although it may in fact be open to a great many people)? -Nard 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:I tagged it with {{tl|SharedIP}}, noting the squadron and Air Force base. I do this whenever I come across IPs registered to military bases and many turnout to be shared computers in base libraries. Probably just bored/unsupervised kids. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently created a redirect from relief sculpture to relief, but while doing so I noticed that a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Relief_sculpture previous version] of relief sculpture had been deleted as "nonsense". This struck me as strange, as this is a fairly common architectural term. I was wondering if a vandal had turned the previously existing page into nonsense, which might then have been deleted without anyone checking the page history. I also noticed that the deletion took place on 29 November 2005, but when I checked [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Relief_sculpture "what links here" for relief sculpture], I found three links (all of which were red-links before I recreated the page): (1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mother%2CChild%2CReliefSculpture%2CSoldierField%2CChicago.jpg&oldid=18981508 This version] of an image page on 16 July 2005; (2) an edit to Talk:Dürer's Rhinoceros on 20 August 2006; and (3) the addition of the link to the page List of basic sculpture topics with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_basic_sculpture_topics&diff=283771&oldid=283770 this edit] back in October 2001! That last example is back at the dawn of Wikipedia!! The second link was probably always red. I don't know when the first and second links turned blue, as I don't know when the deleted version of relief sculpture was created, but this all leads me to suspect that there may be salvageable content that was obscured by vandalism and then deleted without checking. Of course, it could also be that the current article of relief is quite adequate (see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relief&action=history page history]), but technically any salvageable content should be merged and previous non-vandalised versions made visible. After all this, I will be most disappointed if there are no non-vandalised versions hidden away there. So, my questions are: (a) could someone please check this? ; (b) if there was a previous non-vandalised version, is there a way of checking whether redlinks were later removed after the deletion of 29 November 2005? ; and (c) is there a location to ask for admins to check page histories in this way? I thought of asking for a history restore at deletion review, but I thought here would get the same result. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:There were only two edits to relief sculpture: The first was a string of gibberish, the second was a speedy tag. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly right. Cat on your keyboard type keyboarding. --FloNight 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Often, users see a link, click it, and find it doesnt exist and it asks them to create it. These users often insert random nonsense, then it gets deleted. That's likely what happened in this case. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks, guys. I'm guessing the first version of the page got deleted very soon after it was created? If that's the case, don't bother replying to confirm, I'll assume that was the case. Carcharoth 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As my request at WP:ANI has not helped, would someone please step in and put a stop to this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmfangio&curid=12249821&diff=149724418&oldid=149724379 Here] is yet another example of this user attacking me. Continued warnings have done nothing as he was warned several times. In fact, one warning was issued at WP:ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=149444685&oldid=149443655 here]. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:Note the two users were in discussion at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson due to a disagreement over just how to link to Pro Bowls. Nevertheless, Chris is goading Juan, and I've asked him to stop that. The whole thing could probably use somebody knowledgable about the NFL (ie, not me) to step in and help out - both are gaming 3RR and the mediation was called off due to both being 100% certain they were correct and swearing to never let the other get their way. Neil ╦ 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::* Just to clarify, I have not asserted that "I am correct". What I have said is that Chris' point of view, and the "alternative" point of view are both 100% legitimate. Because of that, I have proposed a neutral solution. This is starting to spread like a virus and I'm close to taking this to the ArbCom. If someone wants to advise me otherwise, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*If Chris' point of view is acceptable, and he really really really wants it, why not just let him get his way? This would surely be better than going to ArbCom over something so minor. Neil ╦ 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::::* I don't actually think it's minor at this point. Chris has expressed WP:OWN numerous times and has attacked me even more. This is actually overflow from Template talk:Infobox NFL player, where he was driven off. A number of other people have agreed that Chris' perspective is no more correct than the other. I'm happy to find a neutral solution, but it doesn't seem that he is willing to. If Chris gets his way, then this aspect of the template will be constantly edited (as others have said). I'm just trying to find some middle ground. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::*I'm going to take this to your talk page, there's nothing that particularly needs admin attention. Neil ╦ 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Hmm, it seems SeraphimBlade has decided to take it to Arbitration anyway. Then I shall not bother. Neil ╦ 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See the unblock request on User talk:Zivko85. Grandmasterka 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:There is a substantial corpus to work with; we should be able to determine if this is the same individual. Different people write differently even if they post from the same computer.Proabivouac 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::plus the claim is that 2 computers are used. in that case there is a chance of overlapping edits from 2 different ip's at the same time which would show innocence. pschemp | talk 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I've been following this, and frankly I believe what he's saying. I've wondered from time to time what a mess could occur if a checkuser was run on me, when my fiance has an account and edits (infrequently) from our home, I use my sister's wireless when I'm babysitting and she has edited, I edit from work and I'm not sure how IP's get assigned there... gah. At the wrong moment, a checkuser could easily imply that a lot of us are sockpuppetmasters. Without clear signs of abuse, I say we really need to WP:AGF and check the edits carefully. Dina 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::True, but there is some onus on us to disclose where other editors have very close connections to us. User:X can reveal that User:Y is their flatmate without sacrificing much privacy. And someone that closely connected to us shouldn't really be joining in the same discussions without declaring the connection - which brings up problems of canvassing and conflict of interest. WjBscribe 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::True, but that's a matter entirely aside from sockpuppetry. I'm inclined to believe the explanation.--cj | talk 04:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::The explanation does seem plausible, I was merely noting that there would still be conduct issues to be addressed. Ultimately we need another checkuser to verify whether this explanation matches the facts. WjBscribe 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::(ec) I completely endorse Pschemp's call to caution. Until a more extensive checkuser is performed on all three accounts, AGF is totally in order. Phaedriel - 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Checkuser request filed.--Chaser - T 04:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also check things like User_talk:DanielT5#Re_email and User_talk:DanielT5/Wheatbelt_Scope. He's got elaborate ways of communicating with himself if these are sockpuppets. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:DanielT5 was adopted by Orderinchaos [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DanielT5&diff=next&oldid=119224808], which would be odd thing to do if admin Orderinchaos were trying to hide a connection to a DanielT5 sock. This action would seem to weigh in favor of Orderinchaos not using DanielT5 as a sock. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Those edits pretty much nail it for me. Occam's razor = they are all friends. Can we do the checkuser thing and unblock these folks quickly without scaring quality editors away? Dina 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'm afraid that it isn't simple. "Being friends" doesn't explain the edits of Orderinchaos and Zivko85 - the CheckUser results are a bit too damning for that conclusion. Rebecca 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::They're also elaborate ways of communicating for people supposedly friendly enough to meet all the time, use the phone, etc. Andre (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Per User talk:DanielT5#Country areas (noticed by Picaroon9288) -- did they -meet- via Wikipedia? If not, why does this look like a first introduction? Andre (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely gobsmacked about this, and at first, I didn't believe it. I've gone over the CheckUser results for all three editors in detail, and I don't see any other possible conclusion but that Zivko85 is a sockpuppet of Orderinchaos. I've read his attempt to explain his behaviour on Zivko85's talk page, and I don't buy it after seeing the CheckUser evidence. I'm not sure how he could explain things, either - it's about as incriminating as CheckUser gets.

I'm not so sure about the edits of DanielT5. Zivko85 suggests on his talk page that DanielT5 is his partner. The edits could be consistent with a partner of whoever is behind the other two accounts, or they could be consistent with a sock - there is some evidence pointing to either conclusion. Considering that I'm convinced Zivko85 and Orderinchaos are the same person, I find the explanation more than a bit strange if it is indeed legitimate.

More than anything, though, I'm bemused. Why would an editor in such good standing engage in sockpuppetry - especially when it didn't seem to make a difference to the final result in any of the incidents? It pretty clearly happened, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. Rebecca 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I understand that checkuser evidence can't be posted, as in the actual IP's, but can you explain more what you mean? For those of us without access, this kind of talk is a little Guantanamo Bay detention camp if you know what I mean. "We can't tell you, but trust us, you'd believe us if we did" (Godwin's Law not directed at you, but the Checkuser process in general) Dina 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I would, but I'm not keen to give any hints for anyone who decides to pull this sort of thing in future. I realise that this case is likely to stir some controversy, as Orderinchaos has previously been a highly respected admin, so if anyone wants to email me, I'm happy to explain in a bit more detail, as long as I know who you are and reasonable trust you. Rebecca 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I concur with your thoughts Rebecca, specially since the user has a declared legitimate sock puppet used solely for the purpose of performing bulk edits regarding Australian suburb cleanup and other intensive AWB tasks. I for the life of me can't see why a user in good standing with a declared sock puppet would want to engage in such a practice. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zivko85&diff=prev&oldid=132939791 This post] seems to show that Orderinchaos knew Zivko85 before Zivko85 signed up with Wikipedia, as though Orderinchaos kept promting Zivko85 to sign up and was happy when Zivko85 finally did. This seems to support what Zivko85 posted in Zivko85's request to be unblock. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I just don't buy it, I'm afraid. In light of the CheckUser results, the linked diff looks more like an attempted cover story for a new sockpuppet. I'll just reaffirm what I said above: Zivko85's attempt to explain this does not correlate with the CheckUser evidence. I hoped I'd find some other explanation for this, but there just isn't one. Rebecca 04:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking for overlapping edits; now checking those in February. —Kurykh 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm into the middle of January (still find no overlapping edits), but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DanielT5&diff=prev&oldid=100651659 this], quickly followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DanielT5&diff=prev&oldid=100651839 this], turned up. —Kurykh 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::The timing of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=DanielT5 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beach_Road%2C_Perth&diff=prev&oldid=100630597 this] may warrant mention. —Kurykh 05:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::The history of the Ennis Avenue, Rockingham article and Ennis Avenue redirect also warrants mention. —Kurykh 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_Force_Pararescue&diff=prev&oldid=99034850 this edit], the first edit on on DanielT5 account. (combined entries) I have checked the history of all three users, and found no overlap of edits. —Kurykh 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&curid=4473512&diff=148871322&oldid=148861223 responds].--cj | talk 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've compared times for specific edits for Zivko and OIC. Though they come within a few minutes of editing at the same time as each other frequently, they never actually do so (consistent with someone signing in and out of two accounts). The closest I found was these two edits one minute apart, although the second is remarkably simple.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hughesdarren&diff=prev&oldid=132434938] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Western_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=132418262]

--Chaser - T 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:The best case scenerio in my opinion is to unblock Orderinchaos to let him explain, keep the possible socks blocked, and take it to WP:ARBCOM like other sockpupperty cases. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::You're a tad late, he's already in discussion with Ambi. Andre (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also reviewed contribs of OrderInChaos and Zivko85, and see no indication that they're the same person. For one thing, their edit summaries are different. For another, they don't edit the same kind of articles. Also, Zivko85 has less than 250 edits, which occur in spurts, several dozen in one day, and then none for some time. This looks to me like OIC is a dedicated Wikipedian, and Zivko85 edits mainly when he hangs out with OrderInChaos. That conceivably makes him a border-line meatpuppet, but it's not much of a concern for my taste. In any case, I don't see what good is blocking either of them at this point - they (or he) know that they (or he) are watched by everybody. Unless somebody believes that OrderInChaos is going to start some sort of rampage if unblocked, I think both accounts should be unblocked for now. Zocky | picture popups 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:The CheckUser results were simply not consistent with Zivko85 just doing some editing from Orderinchaos' house. I double-checked Mackensen's results because I was utterly cynical of the prospect that they could be the same person, having worked and corresponded with Orderinchaos for quite some time, but like Mackensen, I came to the conclusion that there was no possible alternative explanation. There were potentially inconclusive results regarding the DanielT5 account, and I'm prepared to assume good faith on that one, although I find the attempted explanations of Orderinchaos/Zivko85 for the edits concerned a bit strange. Rebecca 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several other incidents where two or more of the three UserIDs were used nearly simultaneously and/or were used in a manner that appears as if three independent parties were advocating a position, when in reality there may have been far great coordination between the parties that might amount to meatpuppetry, if not sockpuppets. This AfD has OIC and Zivko casting the first two votes in the discussion within 13 minutes of each other, in a situation that makes it plausible that there were two persons using the same machine in sequence, though it leaves their independence in question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=135270262 This diff], in a matter relating to a block for a nominal third party, has all three participating in the matter as if they were acting independently, with Zivko insisting that he was participating "As a neutral party to the dispute..." Is it possible that all three acted independently without any input or prodding from any of the others? Possibly. But the whiff of collusion seems rather clear, and there was never any disclosure made that there might be some connection between the three. That this collusion may have influenced other participants to treat the three as independent participants and may have tilted the results of XfD actions is also rather clear. The disclosures, taken at good faith, may address the sockpuppetry charges. But there needs to be a thorough investigation of collusion / meatpuppetry that any experienced editor -- let alone an admin -- should have recognized as a violation of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, especially after he commented in Elonka's RfA about canvassing. Pascal.Tesson 05:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I would not call that canvassing, or meapupetry. It would be if he asked them to comment, but if they did of their own will then that is completely different. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::As I said above, the results for Orderinchaos and Zivko85 aren't, unfortunately, consistent with meatpuppetry, and their attempts at explaining the edits simply don't correlate to the facts we have on record. The results for DanielT5 may be, and I think that's an open question, depending on Orderinchaos/Zivko85's ability to coherently explain what went on. Rebecca 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry to butt in, but isn't the point about studying both accounts' edits moot after two checkusers (one of them at a formal request) have concluded that, sadly (and following their scrutiny of the CU results), they hold no doubt that they're the same person? Phaedriel - 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Unless checkuser has been expanded to include DNA sampling or at least facial-recognition-over-IP since the last time I read about it, it can't distinguish between two accounts being the same person and two persons editing from the same IPs. Zocky | picture popups 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Actually, from discussions I've had with checkusers, there is a similar functionality (not biological, but technological) that shows more than IP correlations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Well, it'll most likely correlate your user agent string, so a checkuser will know which OS rev/browser type and rev/computer/CPU you're using - Alison ☺ 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos has contacted me privately and offered to explain his edits. As I've said above, I don't see how these could be anything but sockpuppetry, but I'm certainly willing to give him the opportunity. Would it be possible for people to go easy here until he's had the chance to respond to my email? Rebecca 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Gladly so, Rebecca. And Zocky, I was merely quoting the statement made at the CU request I linked to above; and I'm not used to question the judgement of checkusers. Best regards, Phaedriel - 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I, on the other hand, am used to questioning anybody's judgment. Healthy skepticism and all that. Zocky | picture popups 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::And that's great, dear Zocky - agreed to disagree, and let's just move on and hope this matter is cleared soon. Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 06:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, we're talking to him on IRC now, if you could log on (or another checkuser) that would be great. Andre (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF. In the absence of any other information, CU is never going to be 100% conclusive. I have met OIC several times personally (but admit not having met DanielT5 and Zivko, although he has spoken of them frequently, particularly Daniel). I trust OIC and am happy to vouch for his character as someone who I believe would not sockpuppet or do anything to hurt Wikipedia. Even if I was wrong about his character (and I reckon I am a good judge) I also believe that he would not be so stupid to do such a thing given that he'd be aware of the risks and consequences. At worst, he has made a bad judgement about who he let use his PC, and as there was no mis-intent he didn't see the harm. I'm really upset that he wasn't invited to offer an explanation before being blocked. Whatever happened to AGF, particularly for an admin in good standing? The Checkusers had to make a call but in this case I think that they got it wrong. There's a meetup in a couple of weeks time and I trust that all will be revealed at that time. —Moondyne 06:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been discussing this situation on IRC with Orderinchaos and several other people, and I'm increasingly convinced that we may be looking at an unwise series of meatpuppet edits rather than sockpuppetry.

Folks, when it comes to CheckUser we have no way of telling between an editor and a friend editing from the same computer at the same time. If you repeatedly edit under one account, log out, log straight back in as another account, make a bunch of edits to AfDs in agreement with the first account (that are generally the only edits made by the second account), and then log straight back in to the first account and keep editing, it's going to be taken for granted that you're involved in sockpuppetry, and in practice, you may as well be.

Orderinchaos has assured me that Zivko85's edits were made by a friend who wanted to give his opinion on AfDs after seeing Orderinchaos vote in person. Gmaxwell and Andrevan have also given some circumstantial evidence that suggests they could be well be two different people. In most cases, I'd view this argument as a bit of a stretch, but considering Orderinchaos' long history of excellent contributions and the fact that in no case did the second votes affect the result, I'm inclined to assume good faith. Furthermore, Orderinchaos has assured me that this won't happen again. Accordingly, I'm going to be bold and unblock all three accounts.

Thanks to all the editors who assisted in sorting this situation out, and I'm sorry to the community for the drama caused. Please let this be a warning to everyone out there, however - this sort of meatpuppetry is a really bad idea, even if the intention isn't to vote-stack, and may well land you in hot water, as has happened here. Rebecca 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:This is a very good resolution to this issue, and I think Rebecca ought to be applauded for sticking it out, even in the face of the checkuser evidence. -- Renesis (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Very well handled Bec.--cj | talk 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:What cj said. Zocky | picture popups 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rebecca unblock, as one of the admins who talked to her and Orderinchaos in IRC. Just poor meatpuppet edits, and this won't happen again. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I've just been reading through this, and am pleased with the conclusion. Regarding Moondyne's comment about the meetup, this would be a very useful "Icing on the cake" if all the various characters could make themselves known to the others there. LessHeard vanU 07:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good faith that has been extended to me. I have made a post on my talk page which I hope will help to clear the air a bit, and I have most definitely learned my lesson per Rebecca's words above, as have no doubt others in this situation. Obviously the situation which had prevailed until Tuesday or Wednesday, where my friends edited Wikipedia when they visited my house, or vice versa, is now no longer going to be the case, and I feel like an absolute idiot for not thinking of this (especially given I took precautions to ensure my admin rights were not compromised). Orderinchaos 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm happy to see that the issue appears to be resolved. However, there is a lingering issue with the meatpuppetry and I believe OIC should give up his admin bit. This may sound harsh to some but I think the trust the community placed in OIC has been seriously affected by this bad lack of judgment. The problem is not so much with letting others edit from his computer, which is certainly acceptable, but simultaneous participations in RfAs and AfDs is problematic and at the very least it gives the impression of gaming the system. I believe OIC should return to RfA to gauge whether or not he still has the community's trust: he does not have mine. Pascal.Tesson 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::To what end? I have a roommate and a sexual partner who've edited Wikipedia - now neither has yet participated in any !votes, but I don't think it's reasonable that I should be forced to talk to them about everything I do here (I do have a few edits, you know), nor do I think it's reasonable that they be excluded from discussions just because I've participated - or vice versa. If someone is using a sockpuppet/meatpuppet, the evidence should be in the edits, not just User:A and User:B used the same IP to edit. WilyD 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I would certainly expect you and your partner not to participate in the same AfD 10 minutes apart. I would also expect you not to lecture on canvassing in an RfA where you and two of your friends have used the same computer to participate and have the honesty to disclose this. OIC did write in Elonka's RfA "I've never seen her acknowledge specific wrongdoing, especially on the matter leading to the ArbCom which concluded earlier this year, instead making considerable excuses in various forums for her actions in violation of policy or consensus (often blaming others for these or, as Zivko pointed out, showing incredible bad faith towards entire categories of editors)." I find that dishonest. Maybe that's just me and I'd certainly accept to be the minority view on this but I'd like to see OIC go through RfA again to judge that. Trust in admins is of paramount importance and this was a gross (and repeated) lack in judgment. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::A gross lack in judgement? Hardly. I, for one, have not lost any trust in OIC. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::The frequency of canvassing complaints from these usernames (not just on RfA/Elonka 2) is ironic in light of the scenario which has been painted thusfar.Proabivouac

:::::Heaven forbid these users coming to these conclusions on their own, but sharing the same views. That is not meatpuppeting or canvassing. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Your statement may come across as a reasonable point to someone reading this thread, but does not survive an examination of contribution histories. We are not talking about people sharing the same broad socio-political outlook, which would indeed be unremarkable, but arrival at and agreement on the specifics of AfD after AfD, the details of which no one who is not involved in the article or the deletion discussion could reasonably be thought to nurture a preexisting opinion.Proabivouac 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I accept the resolution Rebecca offers us in the subsection above, I'm a bit concerned about the precedent set by this. Does having an admin bit mean that strong checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry can be waved away by a real sockpuppeter if he claims that he and his friends were sharing a computer? Again, I'm inclined to believe Orderinchaos and move on, but this is the oldest trick in the sockpuppetry book. Are we going to start requiring evidence of similar editing styles, such as the evidence against Oldwindybear? I don't mean to continue drama about this situation, but I think these questions need to be asked. I realize every situation (and even the credibility of every Wikipedian) is different, but fairness usually means that we have at least similar standards for the same people.--Chaser - T 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think anything else need be done with Orderinchaos - he's accepted he made an error in judgement in having friends editing from the same computer, leading to the perception of possible meatpuppetry, and will not allow this to happen again. It might, however, be a good idea for any other admins in the same situation (other people using the same computer) to declare this. Neil ╦ 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I have a very healthy distrust of admins and perceived hypocrisy but even I don't see where in the above discussion the fact that this editor is an admin played much or any role. It seems that his editing history, historical contributions to Wikipedia, and relationship with other editors played the strongest role in assuming good faith and resolving this situation.

:I do agree, though, that other editors, admin or not, should be treated the same in similar circumstances. I would further agree with others who insist that CU not be relied upon as complete and irrefutable proof of sockpuppetry. --ElKevbo 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I second Chaser's concerns. Putting aside the question of whether this alibi is true in this instance, it is indeed the oldest trick in the sockpuppeteer's book of excuses, in which the king under check(user) moves to the very last available square.Proabivouac 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Are we going to start requiring evidence of similar editing styles...'": I would sure as hell hope so. Using the same IP as another editor does not make them your sockpuppet; all it means is you've used the same IP. I frequently use shared connections such as those at airports, on campus, and various free connections around town. If a checkuser were run on my account, I'd expect an insane number of other editors to have shared the various IP addresses I've connected through. That does not make them my sockpuppets, and yes, I'd very much expect there to be evidence of similar editing styles before somebody attempted to block me as a sockmaster. I'm still a little confused as to why this check was done; was there evidence of sockpuppetry, or did we checkuser the entire RfA? - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:The former. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Care to elaborate? Zocky | picture popups 23:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Well, Rebecca indicated that the accounts shared all or almost all IPs (I think this would have been a {{Confirmed}} at RFCU) and Mackensen expressed a similar level of certainty. I think your IP usage scenario would not have resulted in such strong words from checkusers, and would necessarily be treated differently.--Chaser - T 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there's been a few admins who have been sockpuppeting recently (notably User:Runcorn) - this doesn't apply to admins who have alternate accounts - and more recently the allegations regarding User:Oldwindybear. Anyway, he's made his admission of guilt, no more need to post-mortem the situation. As it is, Neil's suggestion regarding declaration of other people who use the same computer - it's a good suggestion. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• If someone is willing to violate Wikipedia's sockpuppetry rules, they would seem to be less inclined to be civil. In other words, the mindset may be that if you are breaking one rule, why follow other rules. This is one factor among many to determine whether someone is violating Wikipedia's rules against certain sockpuppetry. Runcorn seemed to be less than civil at times. Orderinchaos seemed to strive towards being civil. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Civility and honesty are independent personality traits; if we are beginning to confuse them here, the situation is more dire than I thought. Essjay was famously civil; indeed his quote about making the world a better place with each save remains ubiquitous. He socked his own RfB, among other more storied dishonesties.Proabivouac 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Uh, you seem to be confused. Essjay never used socks. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::::No, I'm not confused at all:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robbie31][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=45607167]Proabivouac 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Which shows nothing but your speculation. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Looks like a troll to me. Beit Or 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that OIC has demonstrated the ability to do good work on Wikipedia. The problem is that even if we do accept the the story that these are independent users, OIC has been involved in multiple situations in which he has clearly abused the close relationship with these individuals to push his own biased positions, to create the false perception that consensus exists from independent parties -- through a combination of meatpuppetry, votestacking and canvassing -- and provoking other Wikipedia users through multiple participation through these various personalities of his (choose your definition of the word). Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft has OIC creating and AfD, logging off, and having one of his alter egos logging and voting in strong support a mere 13 minutes later. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School, coincidentally created by another Western Australian for a school some 15,000 miles away has Zivko voting in sync with OIC, without ever mentioning the connection in their voting.

The hypocrisy doesn't come merely from the fact that we've now given every administrator a "violate any Wikipedia policy, get out of jail free card". It's not just that there are perhaps dozens of tainted AfDs for which an administrator acknowledges shady dealings to push his personal bias. It's not just that we have basically thrown out the entire checkuser process with the "OIC excuse" that it's really me and someone else "sharing' a computer and a predeliction for same way in XfDs. My favorite hypocrisy in this whole matter is that in dealing with User talk:NobutoraTakeda, OIC seems to have had his minion Zivko provoke the user, and then stubbornly refused to consider the possibility that a checkuser might be showing two different people using different IP addresses in a similar range.

If we refuse to hold administrators to a higher standard than mere mortal users, I might understand that. We should at least hold admins to the standards that exist for all Wikipedia users. But you get to real hypocrisy when an administrator seems to be manufacturing provocations, abusing his privileges and arranging shady deals, and refusing to apply the same standards to this admininistrator by accepting an excuse that he himself refused to even consider from a now-banned user. Alansohn 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

: NobutoraTakeda got himself banned for reasons entirely unrelated to me, by an admin entirely unrelated to me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:NobutoraTakeda] I advised him that his disruptive actions were leaning in the direction of an indefinite block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANobutoraTakeda&diff=145446271&oldid=145444248], but anyone - even an ordinary editor with no admin powers whatsoever - could have done that. It should also be noted that Alansohn is the subject of a user conduct RfC which I and a number of other Wikipedians contributed to, and which tendencies to false allegations among others have been endorsed by 10 people and accompanied by a plethora of diffs. It should also be noted that neither of the users named in connection with me have voted on or contributed to that RfC. Orderinchaos 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Alan, while what you say could be true to some extent, it would be very helpful for you to leave this matter to people who have no present conflicts with OIC. OIC, it may be a good idea for you to research all past RFAs, AFDs, RFCs and similar situations where there is any possible chance of improper coordination between yourself and your friends. If you provide a complete accounting and help clean up any lingering problems, that could help restore the community's trust in you. In my opinion it is never too late to do the right thing. Additionally, you may want to stand for reconfirmation to prove if the community still trusts you. That would take courage, but you've already demonstrated courage by accepting responsibility for your actions. After you set things right, I would support you. Having the tools won't be much fun if you're going to be challenged like this whenever somebody disagrees with you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly not going to let my friends (y'know, those people with whom you are likely to share the same political/cultural/moral viewpoint, frequently of the same educational/employment background - often living in close proximity, as well) find out that I edit Wikipedia. Jeez, think of the problems I might face because someone I personally know happens to agree with me and says so and hasn't had the decency to text me to co-ordinate our editing so checkuser can prove we were posting at the same time. Best make sure my wife doesn't want to contribute either at any time in the future... (although the agreeing thing may be less frequent, I admit.)

To paraphrase Jimbo; "..you should all chill!" There are worse things than having your friends want to join in, and you wanting to share the experience. Can we move on now, please? LessHeard vanU 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. Whatever needs to be addressed has now been, and the project is best served by drawing a line under this. Tyrenius 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::I couldn't disagree more. If OIC's explanation is true, we need to know this as surely as we need to know if it is false. In the one scenario, we can dispel any unjustified mistrust which might otherwise follow him; in the other, he must be desysoped.Proabivouac 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::In no way has any of this reflected on his use of admin tools. -- Ned Scott 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::We know it is true; Rebecca has investigated and drawn the conclusions. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Guilty until proven innocent, huh? -- Renesis (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's find a middle ground here. A checkuser result did come in, so it was fair to trust that result while it stood. Then a former member of the arbitration committee checked into matters. I'm not sure what additional evidence she sought and they provided, but I'll trust her conclusion. This does leave a few loose ends now, particularly with regard to the precedent this may set for future investigations, and the site's disruptive editors will likely raise those issues if we fail to. I'm not in a good position to suggest solutions because I was a conominator in the RFA that precipitated this and I'm a named party in an open arbitration case that's weighing an analogous issue. So I'll ask the community to examine the matter in a calm and productive spirit. With respect, Durova^Charge! 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:(Apologies, Durova, but I'm not certain who you are responding to.) My position is that the matter seems to me to have been reviewed, reported upon and resolved by Rebecca; whatever difficulties other editors may be having with the matter with respect to OIC, questioning the conclusion appears to be reflecting upon the judgement of Rebecca. I respectfully suggest that this matter has now been concluded, that we learn from this example, and we move on. LessHeard vanU 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::Ummm... I agree with what Rebecca has finally concluded, and I believe she does a good job with CU, but this is silly. Questioning someone's judgment is good and should be encouraged, especially as it often turns out that judgments, like Rebecca's initial judgment in this case, are in fact wrong. There are plenty of reasons why this should be considered a closed matter, but blind obedience to someone's judgment isn't one of them. Zocky | picture popups 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I also agree with Rebecca's conclusions based on her report of what and how she investigated, and also her history in Arbcom and tenue in WP, leading me to believe that it was comprehensively reviewed. None of the subsequent complaints regarding OIC and friends editing/voting patterns refer to the investigation, which presumably noted these incidents, leading to the inference that Rebecca's conclusions were flawed. Unless someone is going to question Rebecca on her findings, and how they were arrived at, and the subsequent decision, I fail to see the point of them. Questioning judgment is good if you can provide specific reasons for doing so. I do not see it in the subsequent complaints/examples of OIC & friends.

:::I would also note that I didn't comment during the process since I was taking my time reading all of the links, and that the conclusion was arrived at before I had finished. I felt that all matters had been dealt with, with a liberal application of WP:AGF where "evidence" was inconclusive. I therefore noted my support of the findings following my own review, as I am certainly able to make up my own mind. I trust this clarifies my independent support of Rebecca's involvement here. Can we move on now? LessHeard vanU 09:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The lesson here is that checkuser is not magic pixie dust, as anyone with experience in using it will tell you, and thus viewing results with a critical mind is good. Sorry for stating the obvious, but I've had far to many people say "zOMG that a checkuser confirmed SOCK u kant question teh rezultz0r!" -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm glad that we are agreed on this. Tyrenius 09:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, this does make me double-think anything in the past. My boyfriend has an account, and I've edited from his computer, and helped him create his userpage from my username/pc. God knows how IPs are set up in my apartment for next school year, or how it was in the dorms last year. Hopefully, none of my roomates are into Wikipedia... but it will be hard not to talk them into it, as I did to the boyfriend, haha.  hmwith  talk 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note of Full Disclosure: User:Orderinchaos has participated actively in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn, a request for administrative sanctions against me. Some of the examples and cases I provide below include references to me and my actions. I stand behind my nearly 40,000 edits and two years of active participation in building Wikipedia. I encourage anyone considering the following apparent violations on the part of User:Orderinchaos to review this RfC and to participate -- positively or negatively -- as they see fit.'''

While it's still not clear to me what the relationship is between Orderinchaos and Zivko85, a review of the relatively small number of edits made by Zivko, particularly those made in the period of 12 edits made by Zivko in the period between June 30 and July 17, 2007, demonstrates a remarkable synchronization between OIC's edits and Z85's edits to an article just edited by OIC. In almost all cases described below, OIC makes a substantial sequence of edits and then takes a break; Z85 pops in and makes a short burst of 1-4 edits to a single article that OIC had just edited, whereupon OIC resumes editing shortly thereafter. Almost every one of Z85's edits were supporting OIC's partisan side in matters in which attempts were being made to establish consensus on an issue: One WP:MfD, Two WP:AfDs, one Featured Article Review and a user's request at an unblock.

;Preview) In the week between June 22 and 29th, Z85 made NO edits

;1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft

OIC created this MfD, and made several edits related to the MfD:

• 01:11, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141552418 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (delete)
• 01:06, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn&diff=prev&oldid=141551980 diff]) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn (created a section for my view.)
• 00:50, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141550281 diff]) Wikipedia talk:Cruftcruft (listed)
• 00:47, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=141550011 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (→Active discussions - created)
• 00:47, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141549962 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (fix)
• 00:46, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141549873 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (→PageName - fixed)
• 00:46, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141549843 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (created nomination from talk page)

Z85 pops in 13 minutes later with a pair of edits, one related to another OIC topic, and the second in complete and total agreement with OIC's edit a few minutes earlier

• 01:24, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft&diff=prev&oldid=141553720 diff]) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (→Wikipedia:Cruftcruft - delete)
• 01:17, 30 June 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=141553033 diff]) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia (→Geraldton area - Lighthouse?)

OIC then resumes editing at 02:19

;2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School

OIC makes a series of edits related to the AfD:

• 01:50, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&diff=prev&oldid=141755024 diff]) User talk:Orderinchaos (→Re "Warning" - reply)
• 01:26, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn&diff=prev&oldid=141752349 diff]) m Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn]] (fixed link)
• 00:54, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&diff=prev&oldid=141748688 diff]) User talk:Alansohn (→Warning - reply)
• 00:36, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.104.175.145&diff=prev&oldid=141746596 diff]) User talk:81.104.175.145 (→BTW... - clarifying)
• 00:36, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.104.175.145&diff=prev&oldid=141746562 diff]) User talk:81.104.175.145 (BTW...)
• 00:33, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delone_Catholic_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=141746123 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (→Delone Catholic High School - remove clear (and irrelevant-to-point) personal attack.)

With a gap of 18 minutes, Z85 pops on to edit, largely parroting OIC's take on the issue at hand:

• 02:17, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delone_Catholic_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=141757766 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (Comment)
• 02:10, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delone_Catholic_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=141757124 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (Voted Delete)
• 02:08, 1 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delone_Catholic_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=141756942 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (Wholesale removal of editor's comments from an AfD is not on.)

At 02:37, just 20 minutes after Z85's last edit on this AfD, OIC is back editing on this same topic.

;3) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive1

Z85 had taken a 13-day break from editing. OIC participates in this WP:FAR in support of teh article as is:

• 23:34, 13 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Melburnian&diff=prev&oldid=144543557 diff]) m Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melburnian (update count)
• 23:33, 13 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Melburnian&diff=prev&oldid=144543411 diff]) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melburnian (→Discussion - support)
• 23:27, 13 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hamersley%2C_Western_Australia/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=144542800 diff]) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive1 (add comments)

35 minutes after OIC finishes this editing session, Z85 appears to echo OIC's comments:

• 00:11, 14 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hamersley%2C_Western_Australia/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=144549545 diff]) Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive1 (→page break - my comments)

54 minutes later, OIC returns for a pair of edits.

;4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre

As part of an editing session that started at 10:55, OIC made six edits to this AfD, concluding with the following two edits:

• 11:23, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145024414 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - comment)
• 11:22, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145024180 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - comment)

Z85 then starts editing 13 minutes after OIC's last editing, adding his Strong Keep to duplicate OIC's in a total of four separate edits to the same AfD:

• 11:54, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145030212 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (AGF)
• 11:52, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145029704 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - Replies to comments)
• 11:41, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145027605 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - Added a bit of meat to my comment.)
• 11:36, 16 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145026758 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - Strong keep)

At 12:11, 17 minutes after Z85's last edit on the subject, OIC resumes editing.

;5) User talk:NobutoraTakeda

At the culmination of a tag team argument with this user by OIC and User:Thewinchester

• 13:10, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noonien_Soong_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145266731 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (→Noonien Soong - comment)
• 12:53, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NobutoraTakeda&diff=prev&oldid=145263697 diff]) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→July 2007 - reply)
• 12:47, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noonien_Soong_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145262801 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (→Noonien Soong - idle comment)
• 12:42, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NobutoraTakeda&diff=prev&oldid=145261856 diff]) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→July 2007 - comment)
• 12:38, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noonien_Soong_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145261127 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (comment)
• 12:36, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&diff=prev&oldid=145260850 diff]) User talk:Orderinchaos (→View comments - copied my own comment back)
• 12:33, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noonien_Soong_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145260323 diff]) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (→Noonien Soong - keep (and remove odd stacking votes from previous AfD?!))
• 12:29, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NobutoraTakeda&diff=prev&oldid=145259548 diff]) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→July 2007 - diffs)

11 minutes after OIC's final edit on the subject, Z85 appears on the scene to echo OIC's earlier comments:

• 13:57, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NobutoraTakeda&diff=prev&oldid=145275491 diff]) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→Assuming good faith - Reply to post on my talk page.)
• 13:21, 17 July 2007 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NobutoraTakeda&diff=prev&oldid=145268864 diff]) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (Assuming good faith)

;6) Conclusions

These are far from the overlapping contributions by OIC and Z85, with many other examples that could have been provided not listed above. This sequence of 12 edits by Z85 in a three-week period, seems to almost directly echo OIC's edits to the exact same articles made by OIC within a gap of just a few minutes. While it is certainly possible that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&diff=prev&oldid=148871322 OIC's August 2 mea culpa] contains elements of truth, the pattern of edits listed here goes far beyond mere coincidence of two people being on the same computer at about the same time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&diff=prev&oldid=148872670 OIC's followup response] on the WP:MEAT / WP:CANVASS issue that "It does not look good, I agree with you on that, although it would be difficult for me to stop people voting merely because of a perception." makes the claim that there was no direct connection between OIC's votes and Z85's near-immediate followup votes, a claim that seems hard to reconcile with the pattern laid out above.

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, official Wikipedia policy on the subject, makes clear that Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion (vote fraud). Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages. In regard to Meatpuppets, the policy continues that It is considered highly inappropriate [emphasis in original] to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. It seems hard to explain this pattern of votes by Z85 as not falling squarely into an explicit violation of one or both aspects of this policy.

OIC has frequently made the charge that edits made by other editors (including me) violate WP:POINT. I have often made the distinction between making a point and violating WP:POINT, which specifies that "causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked."

If Wikipedia:Consensus is to have any meaning, efforts to create a false impression as to what consensus is by using sockpuppets or meatpuppets (as is the case here) totally subverts the consensus-building process. While I cannot possibly object to recruiting a house guest to edit articles about shopping malls or suburbs, the actions created here to abuse the process of building consensus clearly seems to violate the textbook definition of a WP:POINT violation.

Based on his actions, it seems hard to justify keeping User:Orderinchaos as a Wikipedia editor, let alone to entrust him with administrative responsibilities. If administrative action is not to be taken against User:Orderinchaos it would seem that we need far more detailed information about the persistent and repeated violations of Sockpuppetry / Meatpuppetry and other consensus-building violations before any informed judgment can be made on this issue. At a minimum, I invite User:Orderinchaos to submit his responses and then resubmit his adminship for reconsideration by the Wikipedia community as a whole to see if a consensus exists for the retention of his admin privileges. Alansohn 08:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:This issue has been closed, so stop going on about it. And it's rather high and mighty of yourself to claim that OIC is breaching WP:POINT, when you have failed to respond to a request for comment involving yourself. Thewinchester ^(talk) 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Alansohn's own RfC aside, I am conducting my own investigation, and do not consider the matter closed. What Alansohn has just presented is only a fraction of the relentless meatpuppetry (minimally) involved here. However, though I am made aware of a multi-user scenario, I am not at this time convinced that it is sufficient to explain all the observed patterns in the contributory dataset.Proabivouac 09:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Right or wrong, this issue is going to keep on going for a while, as this is a rather unusual set of circumstances any way you slice it. Trying to dismiss it with snide comments, as some people have done in the previous section, isn't constructive in my view, and doesn't change that this is something that will come up again and again. Grandmasterka 09:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::From what I'm reading the users should bring the matter before WP:ARBCOM, both because its causing further unnecessary disruption and WP:AN isnt the place get any resolution to this matter. Arbcom can decide if OIC has abused his admin tools in way. Gnangarra 09:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DanielT5&diff=prev&oldid=100651839 This] doesn't look quite right, especially as we already know that usernames were editing at least some of the time from the same computer. As if one person were insisting, "Quick, sign out, so I can log in and adopt you!"

::::Talk of ArbCom is premature. The AN thread can be reopened after a more thorough investigation has been conducted.Proabivouac 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how dragging this out is helping anybody. I have done what I can to make amends with the community for an oversight which, by the scale of some things which go down at Wikipedia, is extremely minor. Yes, two people edited reasonably often from my computer, and I edited reasonably often from theirs. There was no impropriety taking place. I know what the checkuser findings say. The two people who looked directly at those checkuser findings have seen fit to extend me good faith in the days since, as have a very large number of admins and general users. On Friday and Saturday just gone, I had to disclose an amount of personal information which I personally was uncomfortable with doing to a variety of people I don't even know to get this matter resolved. It seems, however, that some want their pound of flesh. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and I simply don't see the point of driving dedicated volunteers away. I'd much rather work on category sorting, fixing articles with WP:RS problems and creating GAs and FAs than dealing with the continuation of this drama. And yes, as I said in my post to my own talk page, I wasn't doing enough of that prior to Friday.

:::::Also, any WP policies and guidelines applying to actions taken on a user relate to two things - the level of damage or disruption caused, and the concept of a preventative rather than punitive measure. The former, as a few people have already highlighted, affected a small number of AfDs whose results were already certain, and I understand that bureaucrats were instructed to ignore the two named users' oppose votes on the RfA, a decision I don't think those users would contest in the circumstances. Proabivouac in his investigation is not going to find anything I haven't already owned up to, or that isn't already clear to the community due to checkuser comments from Rebecca - and yes, it looks damning. But in effect I have imposed my own judgement on my future actions by abstaining from AfDs and other community votes for a period of time and have decided to deny anyone further access to my computer/internet connection if it's to be used for Wikipedia purposes. Sadly, one of the two users concerned has opted to leave the project and the other may yet do so. Maybe it's my business and teaching background which generally emphasises pragmatic, common-sense actions intended to achieve particular outcomes, but punishment for punishment's sake, especially on a volunteer enterprise where nobody is *obliged* to contribute, seems pointless and perhaps even counter-intuitive. I have always followed a similar line in my own admin decisions when considering the behaviour of others (i.e. preventative, not punitive).

:::::A final note - It's easy to come to the conclusion from the checkuser evidence that I somehow had influence over how other people voted, and/or they voted (a particular way) because I did. In several cases, however, we were directed to particular discussions by unrelated individuals and came to similar conclusions, and in other cases, their ideas actually informed mine. As far as I know, it is not against WP policy to discuss a debate offline, as long as no coordination takes place. Ironically, one log I saw somewhere suggested far more coincidence of votes between myself and another user not considered here, than with either of the two people using my internet connection. Orderinchaos 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::"As far as I know, it is not against WP policy to discuss a debate offline, as long as no coordination takes place." Exactly. These people are FRIENDS. We talk to our friends and we frequently hold similar opinions. These friends edit wikipedia in each others company - its harldy suprising that they might want to log in to express an opinion on an afd they have seen while the other person is logged in. Stop this ridiculous nonsense. Meatpuppets my ass. Viridae^Talk 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Orderinchaos, I agree that dragging this out isn't desirable, and have proposed regrouping at a point when the contributory evidence has been sufficiently analyzed. It is to your credit that you have so many defenders: I think we can all agree that your contributions to Wikipedia are valued and respected.Proabivouac 10:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::If that's the case, then it should be possible for you to take not only OIC at his word, but also Rebecca and, particularly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrderinchaos&diff=149110592&oldid=149102035 Sarah]. --cj | talk 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::No, that is premature. Based only on the contributions that I've analyzed, I am inclined to conclude that at least some of them are the product of a single writer.Proabivouac 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:I can't help but say that this section appears to me to be little more than sour grapes, with a unhealthy dose of bad faith. In any event, this is not the forum for it. Take it to WP:RFC, if you wish, but such action would be frivolous – it's apparent the community accepts the resolution as it stands, even if you cannot.--cj | talk 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::(edit conflict, agree with cj)So we can all agree that your contributions to Wikipedia are valued and respected. Then what is the point of continuation of the saga, or are we moving into domain of Monty Python call him witch, dress him up as a witch, stick a false nose on him then burn him with a clear consense. Gnangarra 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What was it that led Mackensen to do the checkuser in the first place? If this has already been answered, please point me to it. I've tried to read through this and the RfA but may have missed it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:Big close call RfAs like that are often checkusered (ie everyone). Viridae^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So was everyone checkusered who took part in that RfA? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:I was wondering when I'd get asked this. I have no idea where this claim that I checkusered everybody came from. Besides being abusive, it would be logistically impossible. Anyone who claims that doesn't know the situation and doesn't know a damn thing about checkuser. I investigated this batch and this batch only based on behavior. Per WP:BEANS, I'm hesistant to go into great detail, but the real kicker was {{user|DanielT5}}, whose contributions screamed sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::Of course I know less than you about checkuser, but that is not a claim I intended to make. Sorry if it sounded like that. But it does seem to me the behavior you saw that required checkuser should be taken into account in the discussion about Orderinchaos. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, that wasn't really aimed at you. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I think we should not put any more pressure on OIC. His reaction was sincere and appropriate, and I am convinced that there will be no further problems from him or his friends. If anyone wants to investigate, there are many other situations around Wikipedia that need attention. See WP:COIN and WP:SSP for ideas. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Mackensen, no problem. Still, some behavior must have been problematic, otherwise you would have seen no need for a checkuser. Jehochman, I'm not good at evaluating sincerity online. Having read through some of the contributions, I am not sure how many unique individuals are involved. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I encourage anyone considering the following apparent violations on the part of User:Orderinchaos to review this RfC and to participate -- positively or negatively -- as they see fit.

:No. If you want to RfC Orderinchaos, and you're qualified, then write an RfC and find someone qualified to certify it but you cannot turn an RfC on you into a defacto RfC on someone else on a totally unrelated issue. And please be aware that "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted...RfC is not a venue for personal attack."

Based on his actions, it seems hard to justify keeping User:Orderinchaos as a Wikipedia editor, let alone to entrust him with administrative responsibilities.

:You must be joking. Hard to justify keeping him as an editor? I cannot believe that such a vindictive comment could be made by a person allegedly writing in good faith. OIC endorsed the RfC brought against you and later commented that, "I feel that it is necessary for Alansohn to receive a clear call from the community that such extreme behaviour will no longer be tolerated." This comment was roundly endorsed by other participants in the RfC. It looks to me that your behaviour towards OIC and that your proposal to not only desysop OIC but banish him from the community is nothing but abhorrent spite.

At a minimum, I invite User:Orderinchaos to submit his responses and then resubmit his adminship for reconsideration by the Wikipedia community as a whole to see if a consensus exists for the retention of his admin privileges.

:He has already submitted his responses. More than once. He has admitted mistakes and explained what steps he has implemented to ensure this problem doesn't happen again. As for submitting himself for recall, OIC is not and has never listed himself as an admin open to recall, nor did he pledge to be open for recall during his RfA. If you wish to try to see him desysoped (or banished from the community like a leper, as you seem to really want) then you are going to have to do that work yourself.

OIC has frequently made the charge that edits made by other editors (including me) violate WP:POINT.

:Yes, well, I'm afraid that is a charge that I would be inclined to endorse.Sarah 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse at this time no further action against Orderinchaos and kindly suggest that all concerned let the matter drop. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this text here, as Orderinchaos has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orderinchaos&diff=prev&oldid=149803876 refused to respond and address this issue on his talk page], and insists it doesn't belong here; It belongs here, where administrators and other editors can discuss the refusal to address the sockpuppetry issue with a simple yes or no. Sockpuppetry is a serious issue and a serious charge. Using a second (or third) account to add votes to and AfD or RfA is a major subversion of the process of building consensus in Wikipedia. Even Orderinchaos would seem to agree that Sockpuppetry is a major violation of Wikipedia policy. At Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DavidYork71, Orderinchaos was in firm agreement that checkuser evidence was sufficient to prove sockpuppetry. At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Potters_house&diff=prev&oldid=149296084 this diff] (dating as far back as two days ago), Orderichaos affirmed that sockpuppetry is a major issue that can subject an individual to banning or blocking based on use of the "same editing styles" by two different users. Orderinchaos, and his supporters, has very carefully denied that neither Zivko85 nor DanielT5 were ever allowed to use his admin tools. That's great, but no one has ever made the claim that this was the case. Nor is the issue that OIC didn't log out on a shared computer or that other users simply happened to use the same IP address. The issue here is a prolonged pattern of participation by Z85 and DT5 in AfDs and RfAs, where votes were cast by Zivko85 or DanielT5 in exact agreement with OIC within minutes of OIC logging out, using wording that is remarkably similar to OIC's wording, and then making no other edits, often for days, until OIC was involved in the next contentious XfD, where the added support might be needed. It would seem that if this scenario were true, that even Orderinchaos would agree that the charges would merit a block or a ban. I sincerely hope that they are false. Getting a straight answer to the simple question -- "was there any time at which you'd posted under their usernames, or any time when one of them might have posted under yours" -- would help define the nature and severity of the issue at hand. It's time Orderinchaos answered this question, himself, without any help from his apologists, with a simple yes or no. Alansohn 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

: Gnangarra, I don't think you should have removed Alan's comments and wish that you'd put them back so we don't have to listen to accusations of "cover up". Alansohn isn't blocked at present. Such action is unnecessarily inflammatory. We're trying to calm things down here. Ultimately we need to convince him to stop, make a finding that he's violating WP:POINT and issue a block, or let him have his say. Those who disagree can comment or ignore it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, I'm not really sure what the purpose of Alansohn's above post is or what possible outcome is being sought here. If {{user|Orderinchaos}} doesn't want to answer the question then he doesn't want to answer the question. There is nothing about that requiring any sort of admin attention. There is extensive evidence and discussion above that can be considered with or without Orderinchaos's input. He is obviously aware of the question. If he chooses not to answer that is his perogative... so I don't see any real point to the request that he do so. That said, edit warring over whether or not the request should be here is disruptive.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::In the process of building an WP:ARBCOM or WP:RFC in this matter, we are required to attempt to resolve the issue with the individual involved. Orderinchaos has been approached and asked directly on several occasions by multiple Wikipedia editors if his actions constitute sockpuppetry, a question he could answer with a simple yes or no without the "need" to disclose any personal information. While he has denied all sorts of things that he was never accused of -- such as allowing his admin ID or tools to be used by other users -- he has refused to answer this simple question, as is his right and as Isotope23 has pointed out. I agree that this page was unlikely to be the means to seek appropriate action with Orderinchaos. Given the nature of the apparent and persistent sockpuppetry used in an effort to falsify consensus and disrupt Wikipedia -- even if these actions were unsuccessful -- the WP:ARBCOM route should be taken as soon as possible given the seeming nature of Orderinchaos' actions. Alansohn 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I am sorry, but your actions and lack of civility and good faith shown to date (especially today) have not convinced me that I need to answer your questions - especially as you seem to have seen no patent urgency to respond to the questions on your own conduct as raised at your RfC, other than to threaten another user at an unrelated MfD. I am requesting that you refrain from harassing and bullying me and those who have supported me on my talk page and in this forum. The matter is, unfortunately, closed as far as everyone else (including the only two people who've seen the evidence) and myself is concerned - see above for evidence. I would also suggest that you show courtesy to the admins wishing to use this forum for admin business by not continuing your campaign against me in here. This is a virtual workplace, not a speaker's corner or the lower house of the commons. Orderinchaos 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.