Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

These articles may be deleted without further notice since this message has remained in place for five days.

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

Hoponpop69 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to a discussion

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. 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)

Alleged sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos

In this discussion, Mackensen has announced that Orderinchaos (talk · contribs), an administrator since March of this year, is also Zivko85 (talk · contribs) and DanielT5 (talk · contribs), and has stacked deletion discussions and RfAs, including his own. Grandmasterka has indef blocked both socks and blocked Orderinchaos for a week. I bring this matter here for community discussion. If this is the case, it should go without saying that Orderinchaos must be desysoped forthwith.Proabivouac 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please lets give him a chance to explain himself. The checkuser evidence is certainly damning, but its possible that there is an explanation for the connection discovered between the accounts. He was until recently a contributor and admin in good standing - I think he's earned enough trust that we should be willing at least to hear him out before making any decisions. WjBscribe 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Naturally.Proabivouac 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note this user has not yet had a chance to defend himself. I cannot conceive of such a scenario, but there might be a reason for the IP overlap. Until we hear from Orderinchaos, calls for desysopping are out of order. Andre (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an unblock request posted at User talk:Zivko85. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been asked to explain on his talk page. I don't see any reason to rush to lynching until facts are known. The wiki will not fall apart if we wait a bit. pschemp | talk 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, per "If this is the case…" I've seen no evidence at all except for Mackensen's statement to this effect. Can anyone point us to where this allegation has been previously discussed?Proabivouac 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen is a checkuser. If he indicated it unequivocally on the RFA's talk page, the checkuser evidence is pretty strong.--Chaser - T 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen did a checkuser on the Elonka RfA page and that was it. No previous discussion. Andre (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that every wikipedian who lives in Perth WA is a sockpuppet? What is the basis for this accusation please provide difs Gnangarra 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Checkuser. Andre (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it gets interesting

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 [1], 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)

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 this, quickly followed by this, turned up. —Kurykh 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The timing of this and 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 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 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.[2] [3] --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 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)

Resolution

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)

Precedent of this

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:[4][5][6]Proabivouac 06:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Hypocrisy of doing nothing here

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. [7] I advised him that his disruptive actions were leaning in the direction of an indefinite block [8], 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)

Lessons learned

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)

Pattern of meatpuppetry / sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos / Zivko85

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 (diff) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (delete)
• 01:06, 30 June 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn (created a section for my view.)
• 00:50, 30 June 2007 (diff) Wikipedia talk:Cruftcruft (listed)
• 00:47, 30 June 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (→Active discussions - created)
• 00:47, 30 June 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (fix)
• 00:46, 30 June 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (→PageName - fixed)
• 00:46, 30 June 2007 (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 (diff) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruftcruft (→Wikipedia:Cruftcruft - delete)
• 01:17, 30 June 2007 (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 (diff) User talk:Orderinchaos (→Re "Warning" - reply)
• 01:26, 1 July 2007 (diff) m Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn]] (fixed link)
• 00:54, 1 July 2007 (diff) User talk:Alansohn (→Warning - reply)
• 00:36, 1 July 2007 (diff) User talk:81.104.175.145 (→BTW... - clarifying)
• 00:36, 1 July 2007 (diff) User talk:81.104.175.145 (BTW...)
• 00:33, 1 July 2007 (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 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (Comment)
• 02:10, 1 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School (Voted Delete)
• 02:08, 1 July 2007 (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 (diff) m Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melburnian (update count)
• 23:33, 13 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melburnian (→Discussion - support)
• 23:27, 13 July 2007 (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 (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 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - comment)
• 11:22, 16 July 2007 (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 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (AGF)
• 11:52, 16 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - Replies to comments)
• 11:41, 16 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre (→Karrinyup Shopping Centre - Added a bit of meat to my comment.)
• 11:36, 16 July 2007 (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 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (→Noonien Soong - comment)
• 12:53, 17 July 2007 (diff) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→July 2007 - reply)
• 12:47, 17 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (→Noonien Soong - idle comment)
• 12:42, 17 July 2007 (diff) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→July 2007 - comment)
• 12:38, 17 July 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination) (comment)
• 12:36, 17 July 2007 (diff) User talk:Orderinchaos (→View comments - copied my own comment back)
• 12:33, 17 July 2007 (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 (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 (diff) User talk:NobutoraTakeda (→Assuming good faith - Reply to post on my talk page.)
• 13:21, 17 July 2007 (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 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. 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)

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, 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 <scarcasm> call him witch, dress him up as a witch, stick a false nose on him then burn him with a clear consense. </scarcasm> 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 DanielT5 (talk · contribs), 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)

New Straw Poll on Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal

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)

how do i get back into my made account

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 [9], 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)

The City Drive

Emeraldweapon is editing The City Drive, despite admitting to be a member of the band 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)

BetacommandBot

Issues by topic area (View all)
Article topics (View all)
Biographies	(watch)	{{rfc|bio}}
Economy, trade, and companies	(watch)	{{rfc|econ}}
History and geography	(watch)	{{rfc|hist}}
Language and linguistics	(watch)	{{rfc|lang}}
Maths, science, and technology	(watch)	{{rfc|sci}}
Media, the arts, and architecture	(watch)	{{rfc|media}}
Politics, government, and law	(watch)	{{rfc|pol}}
Religion and philosophy	(watch)	{{rfc|reli}}
Society, sports, and culture	(watch)	{{rfc|soc}}
Project-wide topics (View all)
Wikipedia style and naming	(watch)	{{rfc|style}}
Wikipedia policies and guidelines	(watch)	{{rfc|policy}}
WikiProjects and collaborations	(watch)	{{rfc|proj}}
Wikipedia technical issues and templates	(watch)	{{rfc|tech}}
Wikipedia proposals	(watch)	{{rfc|prop}}
Unsorted
Unsorted RfCs	(watch)	{{rfc}}

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)

Possible Overzealous Use of Adminstrative Priveleges

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

"N" posted a warning [[10]] for "trolling". I responded [[11]] 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" [[12]] 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 N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)

Vandalism Parole Proposal

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)

User:Wartime1

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 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 bugmenot. ~ Wikihermit 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (blocked already)

Of course, if someone at Wikimedia would spend an hour with 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)

Some humour

Thought people might appreciate that. Viridae^Talk 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And this (Mind you this is just in the latest 50). Viridae^Talk 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's probably a better use of the AN, but xkcd has a good one too: clicky!. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Viridae^Talk 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Harmful thred?

There's an ongoing discussion that should never have started encased in archiving templates at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Jossi's revert. Jossi (talk · contribs) mistakely made an unnecessary revert (something was added to the page after discussion that had nothing to do with the ongoing policy dispute), and mikkalai (talk · contribs) 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)

COI and copyright problems

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.[13][14][15] 24.4.253.249 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this material to be copied, use the {{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 {{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)

Cleaning out the cobwebs

I've recently noticed that some users thought RFC was a formal and bureaucratic process, to the point where these people created a new process (ironically almost exactly identical to RFC) that was supposedly less formal. Since content RFCs were never intended as formal, I've taken a flame thrower to the warnings and caveats and other instruction creepy stuff on that page accumulated over the years, and making it simple again. Please copyed. >Radiant< 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK backlog

There's a six-day backlog on DYK. Lots of valid nominations are discarded daily, because very few DYK regulars are still active these summer days. If there are some idle sysops, they are welcome to make their DYK update debut. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up

A particularly controversial AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is coming up for closure shortly. It's one of the most contentious AfDs I've seen in a long time, with over 100 !votes so far (currently with a slight majority for deletion). Given that members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine are heavily involved in the dispute, it's probably best for an admin with no involvement in those WikiProjects or subject areas to close the AfD, so that any claims of bias on the part of the closer can be avoided. The closer will need to have a fair amount of tact and diplomacy (which rules me right out :) as well as a strong grasp of policy, particularly regarding the nature of notability and original research, and ideally a willingness to think through the issues as elegantly as A Man In Black did in his closure of Daniel Brandt. Any volunteers? -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)