User talk:Upsala

AfD nomination of Renato M. E. Sabbatini

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination). - Eastmain (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I think notifying all the participants can't reasonably construed as canvassing, and I don't know the reason why that editor claims you're a sockpuppet. If there is evidence of the claim it should probably be reported, but I would guess that the editor doesn't have such evidence or you'd have a notice on your talk page about that very subject. I think a civil comment at the discussion is appropriate so long as it's topical - in fact, I think there's a template to be placed in a deletion debate about that - let me see . . . nope, can't find it darn it!--otherl left 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate if the admin didn't think there was a clear consensus and thought more participation would be helpful. I would guess that the additional info you provided towards the end of the debate likely was something the admin wanted other editors to consider. Sit back, let the discussion unfold. I think you've made your points well, and adding more at this point probably won't advance the debate unless you're refuting new points, like you did with the award he won.--otherl left 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Despite whatshisname's accusation that I'm a sockpuppet, I've never participated in any of this delete stuff before -- I just edit articles -- so I really don't know how the process works. Upsala (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please back off, it looks like you're driving an editor off Wikipedia. You're being overzealous in your desire to see this biography deleted. I think it would be best if you did not comment further at the AfD. Fences&Windows 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account

Is this an alternate account? If so, it appears to be in violation of WP:SOCK, using an account to evade accountability. "Bad hand" accounts are not allowed. Please clarify. Will Beback talk 06:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an alternate account, and I've been open about that and the reason for it. See [1]. Upsala (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has your other account had any dealings with user:Rsabbatini? If you use your regular account for all other editing, then I don't understand why you needed an alternate account just to edit this one article. You can email me if you prefer not to discuss this publicly. Will Beback talk 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the diff I linked just above, articles I edit under Upsala are far away from anything I deal with under my long-established other username. I know nothing about Sabbatini except what's here and on the web, plus through my review of his writings and attempts to find him in journal indices, citations from other papers, and so on. Nor is anyone I know connected to Sabbatini to my knowledge, but in fact such a person probably exists because I have research contacts in Campinas, and I don't want to create an uncomfortable situation for any such person(s). (Sabbatini refers to "enemies" but that's not me for sure, nor to my knowledge anyone I know -- and I'm definitely not acting on behalf of anyone else.) Since the real-world identity behind my other username is known to people around me, I created "Upsala" to "avoid the real-world consequences" of my editing in this area, as provided under "privacy" in Legit uses of alternate accounts policy. There's nothing "bad hand" (which WP:ILLEGIT calls "engaging in disruption") about what I have done, as far as I can tell, but if I am wrong and you will kindly point that out, I'll do my best to make amends. Most of the furor seems to be about my editing to the article, but strangely no one's bothered to e.g. put back any of the material I deleted, even though Sabbatini has known for a month that his self-written claims were in danger if citations weren't supplied [2]. One is left to conclude there are no independent, verifying sources (other than the single one now present, which I found and added!) leaving attacks on me the only remaining strategy. If it came to it I suppose I could point you to my regular username, but to preserve the very purpose of "Upsala" I'd prefer not to do that, obviously. (You probably have ways of figuring that out anyway.) Upsala (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article "highly controversial within [your] family, social or professional circle"? Will Beback talk 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly some professional associates would be upset with me if they knew. Look at the reaction of User:The Philosopher of Sao Paolo [3] (And gracious, talk about a sockpuppet!? [4].) Upsala (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done what you set out to do. I suggest you bring this campaign to an end and retire this account. Will Beback talk 06:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your are not assuming good faith. Again I ask you to specify anything I should have done differently, referring not to your suspicions about my motives but rather to my actions. Upsala (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime there's a need for a major overhaul of some kind it's almost always best to ask for community input first. This has the appearance of a one- of two- person campaign against an established editor. Will Beback talk 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask [5]. Unless and until you make a formal complaint regarding your sockpuppet suspicions, please let's hear no more about it. This discussion is long-since overdue to turn its focus to the article, so the next time we hear from you should be on the article's Talk, where perhaps you will show me where any of my edits was mistaken. Without this, all your talk of a "campaign" falls to the ground. Upsala (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]