Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samir (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 11 October 2009 (→Possible sockpuppet?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

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

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


    Banning specific editors from pages

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

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

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

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

    Appeal: As per Hiding's advice here: [1], I wish to formally appeal this decision here (now if this is in fact the wrong place, please cut and paste this to the appropriate area ande drop me a line).

    With all due to respect to Hiding, who has offered good advice in recent times, I believe he has erred here and misread the situation. Yes, I have been editing both Abomination and the Rhino. I have, however, been as the Edit Summaries shows not reverting but rather making constant improvements: [2] & [3].

    DrBat, however, has been making constant reverts, and adding nothing to the articles, despite being initially invited, then counselled and finally cautioned: [4] This user was also uncivil towards myself: [5] and formally warned about being abusive: [6]. Please also note that this user warned was last month about constant reverts [7].

    My edits were also supported by other users [8] & [9] at Abomination and it is frustrating that despite this "hint" DrBat continued to revert at Rhino to an inferior version. I pointed out that this version lacked a correct lead and other material: [10], and that we could retain the peripherals and cotinue to work on the bulk of the article. Despite this advice, he continued to revert.

    I have contributed to dozens of articles and make every effort to improve them. It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished. A check of the Edit Summary [11] and this line - The Rhino proves to be a perennial favourite in Marvel publications, appearing in over a dozen titles in solo capacity or teamed with dother villains - shows that I was just about to take the advice offered here [12] and create a summary of the signifiant issues, as opposed to a laundry list. Please also note that I wrote both versions, hence improving on my own work is hardly outrageous. The summary would number no more than six points, as opposed to the dozens of listings currently present in the 1990s-2000s section.

    In conclusion, I do not appreciate the completely unhelpful attitude displayed by DrBat, and the fact that Hiding automatically places me in the same category as this user. Despite the claim on my Talk Page [13], I did not edit war. As the evidence shows, I did try and discuss the issue, on several occasions. I feel I do not deserve this punishment.

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

    Asgardian has already admitted to intentionally making the article unreadable before to prove his point, so I have a hard time assuming good faith here.
    Furthermore, Asgardian's reference to my being "warned last month about constant reverts" was only over whether or not a category should be included in the article. Asgardian has his own history of edit wars, and it looks like he's getting involved in one right now over at the Dormammu article with two other users who don't like what he's doing to it. --DrBat (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been advised by one administrator that this was really nothing more than a bold edit, and demonstrated one style [14]. It should also be noted once again that I wrote both versions, and improved upon the original. This took hours. By your own admission: [15] you claimed that it would take more work to improve those versions, and yet when I continue to improve on what you felt was messy and overdone, continued to blindly revert. It is you who have not shown good faith, by being an obstructist and reverting every step of the way, and even resorting to namecalling, as shown above. You persisted until others supported my changes to Abomination.

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

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

    Apologies

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

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

    Redirects

    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 9 has over 30 identical deletion requests for redirects to {{Citation needed}}. I don't think this is likely to result in a proper discussion of the issue and would appreciate some thoughts on how it might be better handled, perhaps through some sort of RfC process. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm working on merging some of the related ones together; I hope to cleanup my mess. Apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something similar going on at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_9, multiple identical nominations by Debresser. Those don't seem likely to garner the proper discussion either. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:JohnMSJ

    This user is engaged in outright vandalism on topics relating to the former Yugoslavia (see [16]). He has been caught twice and reverted, and warned (see [[17]]). Why not simply ban him? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama page Templates Problems

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

    A couple didn't exsist (hence they were red) but all others are working and showing up properly as of this writing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They do exist. They are linked correctly in the editing stage, but when you click them, it doesn't work. I moved the FA template, as it was on the bottom, and it miracously worked. I think that we should figure this out soon, as it's rather silly for a FA to have dead template links. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If you know which templates to remove, please feel free. I would mention why you are doing so on the talk page just so no one reverts you, it being a well-watched article and all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a ridiculous amount of templates there, what happened to old fashioned prose? All opened they expand to a third of the article. Garion96 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Russian Page Issue

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

    Removing the {{ru icon}} templates, not especially needed, may be enough though, but it would be tiresome to remove them manually. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to do it, I just can't figure out how to get to the page. I definitely think that we should combine the links though, as there are too many repeats. Unfortunately, this means combining those templates. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    disclosure: bulk Afd newb bite undone.

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

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

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

    Hesperian 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. Ideally we would want to have obtained Nezzadar's concurrence before the deletion of the AFDs, but since the user is not around I think this was a good application of IAR to avoid driving away a new contributor. Abecedare (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was one article left nominated (fair enough I suppose) - Adele (1906). A little searching has turned it into a decent enough article which I've now nominated at DYK as it still within 5 days of creation. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate closure at WQA

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

    Bridgeman v Corel UK Petition

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

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

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

    SPI confusion

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

    As for a): It is appropriately filed. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for b): I replied on my talk page somewhat. If you are still confused, I will be happy to explain further there. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Tango (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at 3RR

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

    Many have stated category:rapists should be renamed convicted rapists

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

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

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

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

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

    Involved users:

    Applicable places of interest

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

    Unable to cerate a re-direct

    I am trying to make a re-direct from:

    Milesian Monarch of Ireland

    to

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

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

    Please help,

    Sake Wish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sake Wish (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

    In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

    1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
    2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
    3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
    4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

    Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! (talk)

    Requesting undelete of my user space page User:Sidonuke

    Resolved

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

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

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

    Decided on 11 October 2009 :

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

    Motions: Law & The undertow

    The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[18] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block.

    • General motion: The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law, and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow. He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[19]
    • The undertow is banned 6 months: The undertow is banned from Wikipedia for six months.
    • The undertow restricted:The undertow is indefinitely restricted from applying for or gaining additional user rights without the permission of the Arbitration Committee. He may apply for such permission or appeal of this restriction at any time.

    Motions: Disclosure of known alternate accounts

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

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

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

    Possible sockpuppet?

    Hello all --

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

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

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

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=319293141"