User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 7

Archives
Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004
Archive2–Jan 5, 2005
Archive3–Dec 1, 2006
Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007
Archive 5–Sep 19, 2007
Archive 6–Jan 27, 2008
Archive 7–May 22, 2008
Archive 8–Dec 15, 2008
Archive 9–Mar 30, 2009
Archive 10–Oct 7, 2009
Archive 11–Oct 4, 2010
Archive 12–Sep 18, 2014

TSM

I would suggest at least a semi protect on Thomas S. Monson for the next few days at least. There will likely be a lot of goofy edits stating he is the new president of the church until the deal is actually sealed. I've already reverted a few weird ones. Snocrates 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference given to the article by Top and Flake is a good one. Read the paragraph under point #3 At the Presidents death....

President Monson is now the President of the Church. He may not be the head of the first Presidency. Read also the CES Institute Manual Religion 333 Chapter 7. It is pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppsna (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cisse

You expressed an interest in the subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student) I accidentally came across a new additional source: [1] I'm not sure it's free, so I will email you the contents. It however links to this Chicago Tribune story, which is. There's an earlier article in the same source [2] which I will also send you. that is has 2 articles in Chronicle of Higher Education shows general interest. DGG (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Please, if you decide that an edit by an Amorrow sock is a good one, put words to the effect that you're personally standing behind the edit as good on merits in your edit summary, rather than even inadvertantly giving the appearance that you're rollbacking the admin that undid his edits in accordance with policy. Amorrow is banned and his edits are revert on sight, by policy. this revert does not make that clear enough, in my view. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Luke was not aware it was an Amorrow sock. However, he was aware that comments to his Talk page a few days ago were by a confirmed sock of bannned user WordBomb[3], and he declined to role back those edits even after I pointed it out to him.[4]. I don't believe that his remedy of archiving the entire discussion was the correct one, particularly since there were BLP issues in the WordBomb sock's comments.--Samiharris (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think a rollback of the rant of a sock evading a ban, particularly when engaged in BLP violations, is pretty standard practice and as you know was done by Alison for even otherwise inoffensive edits. I don't think supplying diffs is objectionable.--Samiharris (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Smilla c&p move

Thanks! Aille (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Utah template admin help

Could you please unlock Template:WikiProject Utah? I'd like to update it so it's more like Template:WikiProject Oregon. Thanks. — Zaui (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guppy

This has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, but since you are an admin mind if I lean on you for a favor? Could you please semiprotect Guppy? It is under fairly consistent attack from IPs. I just had to revert three edits from separate IPs that are juvenile, such as changing inseminate to "insperminate." This has happened quite a bit in the past, but a request to RPP a few weeks ago was unavailing. Thanks.--Samiharris (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the semi. I think some kids out there see the article and think it is funny to screw it up.--Samiharris (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Usher's fifth studio album

An article that you have been involved in editing, Usher's fifth studio album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usher's fifth studio album. Thank you.

Joe Cell

Hi, could you please provide me e.g. in my userspace with all 3 deleted versions of the article Joe Cell? Thanks, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiutwel (talk • contribs)

Read the references.

They quote a Wikipedia spokesman. That's the Wikipedia organisation. That's Wikipedia. John Nevard (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SPAs/Oxford Round Table

FYI, see WP:ANI#Is it just me... where JzG documented the issue. I don't see why he didn't request a checkuser, then block the ones that actually are socks. But for the ones that are not socks, even if they came to Wikipedia after seeing an off-site discussion, sure, ignore their !vote in the AFD, but don't chase them off - they might become a good contributor. --B (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another trait to look at

Have you looked at the phrase "as per" in your investigation? Seems to be another fairly unique phrase used by the two accounts. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card

"Controversial" is a classic weasel word, and not an acceptable substitute for us clearly stating what the "controversy" is. The controversy is that some published sources believe he holds homophobic views. Card is even quoted as acknowledging the fact that some people see him that way. We can say that there is a controversy over what some critics believe is his homophobia, if that is what you would like. FCYTravis (talk)

Sir Foz's sandbox

Hi CHL, I just realized that some of the comments I put in (here) were in a section labeled "Edit Summaries by Cool Hand Luke" (at the top of the section). I'll move it if you would like, and sorry about that. If it's Ok there, I'll leave it -either way, your call. R. Baley (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the name. I'm TRYING to keep this as focused as possible on WP, and not RL identities. SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi CHL, have you given any thought to quantifying the "interleaving" or "dovetailing" aspect to this case? I understand if you just rather be done with the statistics thing. . .I was just wondering. R. Baley (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and that data convinces me. I was trying to think of something similar to the correlation coefficient. . .I've tried to picture the combined set of contribs as a Heads/Tails problem (sorry I seem to have misplaced my statistics book), only in this case the coin has a "memory" and the last result (who made the last edit) is a pretty good predictor of the next outcome (who made the subsequent edit).

For instance, with a random table of coin flips (contribs?) what would be the average size of any run of heads (one editor contributing) or tails (the other editor being compared)? I'm going to give this a little further thought, before it becomes too involved. . . :-) R. Baley (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking that for 2 independent editors who edit at the same time of day, their contribs should look more like coin flips (runs of heads and tails, but basically a 50% chance of one outcome vs. another) but for 1 editor using 2 accounts, there would be runs of each. . .what about an average size of run? (AAAABBBBAAAABBBB, mean = 4) vs (ABABABAB, mean = 1, though for the H/T example, the mean would be 1+). Hope this is making sense. R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cottonwood Heights

"If we were to add another, we might choose Provo, or West Valley, or maybe St. George" - on what basis? Sounds like you're using the basis of city population. But city population doesn't matter - you say "there's simply not enough" - OK, then when is enough enough, because CH actually has more company HQs than Provo or West Valley. Cottonwood Heights has existed as a municipality for 3 years, and it existed as a place for decades before that. Whether or not companies use CH in their mailing address for their fillings [sp!] does not change the fact that they are located in the city. Thanks. Schiptuin (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: editing patterns

I don't mind. Good luck in the investigation. Andre (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't either. We should keep this an honest site and sock puppets don't make it honest. Hopefully the data can help you guys determine better whether it's true or not.

I am fascinated as to your methodology though. How did you determine correllation? Frequency of posts? Topics? Arnabdas (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problema. Very interesting ... I want to add how bizarre the stats are, for me. It seems that I correlate to nobody, and yet I am the most "average" user out there from NY state, said stats which are evidence that I am, in fact, from the Empire State. It is also proof that I am usually hitting WP during my afternoon office hours. ;-) Also, I used to use the phrase "as per", which is techncially correct, but I've gotten lazy and now use "per" by itself. In any case, it's further proof per WP:DUCK of WP:SOCK violations. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Article

The editor of the Salt Lake City Weekly is doing a local story on the Wikipedia. It is the local part of a larger story, but she asked if I knew anyone who worked, dealt with it. I thought perhaps you would be interested in contributing. Somehow I think posting her e-mail address on a public page such as this might be detrimental, but if you are interested, you can contact me through the blog and I can send it along, or I'm sure you can find it on their site (somewhere). AtroposTheRandom (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Involved_parties

Please be notified of this. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question

CHL, based on this edit, is it therefore your view that what people do or say on off-Wikipedia sites is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a private bulletin board run by an ArbCom member; it has no official status that I'm aware of. Anyway, I was more interested in your position on postings on off-Wikipedia websites; do you think that what people post there is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, CHL has been too busy perhaps to reply, yet, or has replied on User:Jayjg's talk page. I will answer Your question though, User:Jayjg, at this point in time, i have reviewed none of these sites and blogs (at issue at Rfa/Mantanmoreland), for instance. For now, I could not care less what gets said at any off-wiki site, or blog. Whatever they get up to, cannot be supervised by en.WPBOARD, and cannot be regarded as a verifiable/ reliable source.

As well, say for instance a blog entry said that UserNEWBY's mother wore army boots or some other terrible "outing'. Woopdie-doo, big deal, it has nothing to do with the wiki, what some prawn says on a private channel, or Blog. Nothing, even if they threaten to expose me as someone who heartlessly neglected to take my son to the circus! (Oh the shame of it, except, i do not have any children.) Blogs are rubbish, and IM is rubbish and IRC is peurile rubbish in many cases, like kiddies playing video-games and then taking it all far too seriously. That's like calling a cellphone ring-tone "music".

However, as regards IRC channels, en.adminchat or whatever it is called, I believe the recent Arbcom. case (IRC) should result in some policies being laid down as regards CIVILITY, and USEFULNESS, and SUPERVISION of such channels.

And, as regards any other IRC, or STALKERSLIST, or other privately owned and operated sites, blogs, channels etc. (ONe owned by the SlimVirgin comes to mind, is that not so) - any ON-WIKI relevant conversations should DEFINITELY NOT OCCUR ON SUCH UNSUPERVISED CHANNELS. This is so that no-one can use such a channel (unsupervised) to "dog-whistle" up some meat-puppets to attend to some business ON_WIKI. Such would be a breach of current policy as I understand it, and it would clearly have the effect of creating a false consensus on a WP talk-page, eg. WP:AN/I. Know what i mean? perhaps, UserJayjg, you and/or your collegue User:Crum375 would care to comment at the Arbcom. case? Oh, of course, user:Crum375 already has has a go there! And SlimVirgin, will that user be commenting at the Arbcom. Well, it is early days, my views may change. I do not expect the Arbcom to be finalized before about August (2008?) anyway. user

Cool Hand Luke, I know you are probably busy, please forgive me butting in here. Well, on second thoughts, it is a centralized discussion after all, unlike the whispers and rumours that get around on blogs and secretive IRC channels, is it not? Newbyguesses - Talk 20

50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

CHL, I haven't read a lot of the verbiage on this Mantanmoreland ArbCom case (only a few hours worth -- barely scratched the surface), and I haven't come to any ultimate conclusions about it, but I'm impressed by your coolness in the trenches and your careful aim. Some of your comments about being ready to fold your hand bother me, though. To switch to your metaphor: Not all the cards have been dealt out. Stay and play. You and others have already shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a case here that ArbCom needed to consider. What's more impressive is that you (and others) have demonstrated that you're trying to be fair and get at the truth. Don't underestimate the power of that. Noroton (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they keep throwing high and tight on you, and you keep knocking them out of the park, anyway! As Noroton said, KUTGW. SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When I suggested Mantanmoreland's edits be looked at when W was in India, even I didn't realise the resulting graph would look so (apparently) clear-cut. Great work. Whitstable 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... On first impression, that is a really striking bit of evidence re Varkala, yes. There could be other explanations, but it's pretty strong implication, and not really reasonably any sort of statistical fluke. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another convincing piece of the puzzle CHL, good stuff! R. Baley (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hat edit

fair enough, NBG. Though I did have a sensible point, that we care more about what has happened on the 'Pedia than we are able to care about or influence what might take place elsewhere. However, I have only examined 4 DIFFS pertaining to Samiharriss, and would prefer, if I have no evidence to present, to observe rather than participate in the process at Arbcom. Thanks for your edit, you are correct, philosophical implications and quandraries do arise in my mind from time to time. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

Although checkuser has confirmed that the following users are sockpuppets of banned User:NisarKand:

• User:Ghulam Farook
• User:Pollinghigh

Both accounts are still not banned. These accounts were created in July 2007, 4 months after NisarKand was banned, and have been used to not only evade the ban, but also to edit articles that are semi-protected against IP/New user-vandalism. Here is a list of confirmed sockpuppets of NisarKand, some of them having racist names for the sole purpose to insult certain ethnic and religious groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.191 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The above statement was posted by the controversial banned editor User:Tajik. His actions indicate that of a teen, his IP should be blocked and his message ignored because these sockpuppets are not used in distruptive activities. Besides, NisarKand is an honest person at least who doesn't hide like Tajik does. NisarKand is in his 30s and revealed himself to admin Alison for help in unblocking his primary account name due to excessive punishment and unlawful block. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand and leave a comment if you want on weather or not NisarKand should be unblocked. Thanks!--Ghulam Farook (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland evidence page

Re this thread: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Sauce for goose, sauce for gander: where's Weiss's wife on WP?

• The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. It seems you were the one who closed this thread, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey CHL, to respond to your response to my posts on SBH's talk, which fit best under this existing thread:

I checked back and I said "should be using"..."rather than" so I didn't actually put any specific words in your mouth. Whew :) Also I said "anecdotal", not "incidental" but anyway:

What I was getting at was the argument that some others raised, which is that while your findings were indicative, they were not necessarily statistically valid. I agree with that seemingly amazing coincidence and I think it's quite persuasive, I just would have to oppose on principle any attempt to extend that to "there is no other reasonable conclusion" (ie. a finding of guilty on that evidence alone) in the absence of very thorough study based on a null hypothesis, as someone else said elsewhere.

I was a little concerned, for instance, where you brought up the chances of any two editors editing in the same minute, and a graph caption showing "random editors" when in fact it was "selected from Axxx and on alphabetically...". These are small technicalities where you need to show a sound basis for your statements.

All that said, I'm not contesting your basic findings on editing patterns. Like several other posters here and elsewhere, I admire your methods and I'm keenly interested in the analysis tools you are using. Any further information as to how you derive these results would be greatly appreciated! Franamax (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incredible graph

User:Cool Hand Luke how did you create this graph? : Image:User_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris_by_time_of_day.png

i.e. how did you determine the time of day of this user? Was it done all by hand? Please let me know, thank you very much. Trav (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for the explanation. Have a great week :) Trav (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Number One in the Charts...

... creation. I realise that we are at ArbCom in the matter of Mantanmoreland (and Samiharris) but I have obtained Guys approval in principle in allowing the use of the times and dates of emails sent by the above to him for similar analysis as was done with their edits. Are you willing to put it through your setup? If you are done with this aspect of this matter I understand, and will contact Guy accordingly. Otherwise, do you want to talk to Guy, or should I remain as go between (although it would be best if content was ultimately sent direct to you.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... no, I have only got Guys agreement to hand them over. I shall request that he sends them to me pronto. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Data files

I have the following files:

• All revisions ever (no article text), full XML. 6.5GB compressed.
• All 2007 revisions (no article text), full XML. 2GB compressed.
• All 2007 revisions (editor, timestamp, and edit summary), pipe-delimited. 1GB compressed.
• All 2007 revisions (editor and timestamp, no edit summary). 490MB compressed.
• All revisions (editor and timestamp) for the 1K-2K edit count editors, with seconds truncated from timestamps. 16MB compressed.

Compression is done with bzip2, except for the first file, which is compressed by gzip.

I might be able to set up SFTP access to these files for you within the next 36 hours. Send me email if interested. These files are obviously huge so it can take substantial time to process them. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll set up HTTP access. But I'll keep the link private, so I'll send you email when it's available. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

re Hat edit

For the record, I was fine with silliness under the circumstances. CHL, I was wondering if you could help point me to a link or list of users blocked or banned for being a Wordbomb sock? I have seen a couple of userpages, but there is not much indication there how they came to attention for Admin action. The second! question on this page-FYI, ThanksNewbyguesses - Talk 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have it now, the public record of known sockks i was looking for is at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb. FYINewbyguesses - Talk 04:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:JzG

Out of respect for Guy's personal situation, I have moved your comments and left a link from where you originally posted them. I hope you understand. - Revolving Bugbear 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin help

I see you are an admin that is involved in religion articles. Can I request some advice/help from you concerning a "dispute" with User:Fullstop? I feel that s/he has been uncivil in comments to me and s/he has been blanking and manually emptying some categories I recently created. See a discussion on my talk page here. The catgories are Category:Zoroastrians by nationality and its subcategories if you'd like to look at them. Without getting into the technicalities of the issue of nationality/status as a Zoroastrian, my position is simply that the editor should nominate the categories for WP:CFD if s/he has a problem with the existence of the categories or the way they are being applied. Is this not correct? I don't understand why the editor can't use the provided-for procedure. S/he sounds quite frustrated and it may be that most of that frustration results from past similar disputes the editor has been in, but I don't really appreciate him/her taking it out on me either. Do you have any advice for what I should do? Thank you very much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Damned liar" inappropriate

You commented in the Mantanmoreland RFAR case here that MM is a "damned liar".

Please refactor that in a way that doesn't breach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can make the point without being rude or insulting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since your version of "refactering" personal attacks is to repeat them, would you please not post on my talk page anymore?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

note to User:GWH, ( Georgewilliamherbert) how come you are so assiduous in protecting Mantanmoreland's interests, yet so open in attacking and denigrating Bagley, antisOcietynet.Crom, and Bailey, or whomever in ON-WIKI discussions, such as your evidence at Arbcom? Don't you think this is a double standard on your part? Do you realize that not only are you in breach of BLP guidelines, as you would interpret them, but also failing to observe WP:NPA, I think. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alanysts' code

Thanks for that note, I added an addendum to my evidence statement, and contacted him directly (I probably should have before I posted my concern, to give him the chance to address it before I made an issue about it, on reflection). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Per WP:BLP, removal of unsourced defamatory material about living persons is not subject to 3RR. Crum375 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the edits, not the editor. WP:BLP makes it very clear that unsourced derogatory BLP material should be removed immediately, by anyone, from anywhere on WP. Crum375 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. ;^) The linked BLP material that I removed, included unsourced allegations of criminal activity and an outing attempt of a WP editor. If you see similar material elsewhere on WP, I would support removing it. Crum375 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Crum375 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FOIA and Schwarz

I really hope you weren't offended by me during our disagreement, which I'm sure became frustrating at times. I wish I'd of just gotten straight to the point and bypassed the confusion caused by being indirect. Anyway just wanted to say I do respect your opinion and assumed good faith throughout. Anynobody 03:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, did I misunderstand your assessment of my proposed version? Honestly I figured you were operating on this definition of defamation in the sense that mentioning stuff not related to the subject, in this case FOIA, would be defaming Schwarz. Which I'd agree to, there's no reason to bring up unnecessary aspects of her life in an article about FOIA. (Honestly if I just wanted to pile on details of her life not directly related to FOIA into the article I'd of copied the contents of neutral reportage or fought to keep a link between the two in said FOIA article.) Anynobody 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Chart

Stunning! That is careful work, and compelling evidence. Nice one. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Primer

I don’t know how much of this you’re aware of. The skinny on SlimV was published by Overstock, so no need for me to repeat it [5]. Overstock’s Byrne actually met and offended her at Cambridge, so they don’t like each other. As for SlimV and Mantanmoreland, both of whom claim Jewish ancestry in part, they got to know each other really well while editing On the Jews and Their Lies (see this article’s TALK page). Thus, when Mantanmoreland, all 7-feet tall and hairy, shows up to threaten Wordbomb/Bagley with being blocked, as though he was sysop, he of course isn’t-- but he has a sysop behind him, and it’s SlimV. So that block was inevitable. As was the David Gerard take-out of Bagley’s entire ISP Broadweave near Salt Lake City.

Have you spent much time in Salt Lake City and New York City? [Wups-- I see from your mainpage, which I should have read, that you've had exactly this kind of experience, living in SLC and Chicago]. Two more different cultures you cannot imagine. Byrne and Bagley are Republicans and at least Bagley is Mormon (Byrne I think is RC), so they don’t mix too well with the East Coast financial “establishment”. Which looks culturally very much like the Wikipedia establishment. Not Republican or Christian, to say the least. Hope that’s helpful. I myself am a Californian atheist moderate (not the way I was raised), but I spent many years in Utah and enough time back East to appreciate this tension, in a way that perhaps some others do not. People are no more aware of their culture than a fish is aware of water. That’s really true. SBHarris 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in awe

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For presenting painstaking, brilliant and compelling statistical evidence in the Mantanmoreland case. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh....

Define editing data.--Angel David (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

*Scratches Head* 0_o....?--Angel David (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arisedrink and Maddox

He's still really chopping down the article and claiming BLP and V without going on the talk page [6] WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A last bit of graph evidence not discussed in the MM case

I don't think you explicitly pointed out that, after many months of reasonably heavy editing, both MM and Samiharris took Nov. 2007 essentially off, giving them both an odd edit gap then (with an occassion midweek series of edits by SH, but still way down from usual frequency). That whole month's not a common holiday period. Or school break, either (what school starts again on Dec. 1?). What are the chances of two independent editors doing that? I think it would be useful to produce 10 graphs of the edits of the 10 people you have up for other stat reasons, and see if ANYBODY has that same 5 week fall-off from Oct 25 to Dec 1. Bet you dollars to donuts, not. SBHarris 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I spotted that one. It is in my evidence section. The additional comparison to other editors would be interesting GRBerry 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you...

Could you email me the MM/SH time stamp data? I want to analyze days on/off. I really wish we could upload Excel files for this type of work. GRBerry 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for the data behind this chart. GRBerry 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there was an error in the distinct minutes analysis underlying User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox#OK, how about probability then?. Alternatively, there is an error in my more fine grained analysis. I'm emailing you my file; please check which before I post the refined evidence. GRBerry 00:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the proposed decision as drafted, can you prioritize this? Thanks. GRBerry 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ted and Kia

Please explain why you reverted my comment about Ted's marriage. It was certainly well known at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the marriage license. But Ted wrote about Kia, and their acrimonious breakup, many times. The acrimony might not be encyclopedic, but the marriage certainly is. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of socks

I've got to wonder if I'm the only chump who doesn't keep socks for extra leverage in discussions I find important.

I'm personally convinced that AfD, RfA, and all the rest are muddied by sock puppets of long-term users. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lord Acton's dictum. Because of this, one user one account should be enforced. Editorial validation is another solution. There should also be a cutoff for participating in all voting, not just arbcom elections; new accounts should not be allowed to participate in any voting until they have something on the order of 500 edits. There's plenty of easy to implement solutions. Ask yourself, why would anyone be against them? Keep up the good work; you should run for arbcom. —Viriditas | Talk 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sachin.di.oxide

Hi. I've just been cleaning up links added by this user whom you blocked and then unblocked recently. Given this talk page post I thought you might want to review the recent edits. Both links added are registered using an indiaresults.com email address. The user mentions working for indiaresults.com on their user page. -- SiobhanHansa 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shoot on sight context

From the arbcom talk page, but in case you aren't reading there anymore:

The context is WB sockpuppets and ongoing abuse. Assume potential for overreaction or mistaken targeting in the immediate vicintity of any WB sightings. As further context - the offsite harrassment campaigns which were going on and being discussed offsite contemporaneously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [7]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [8] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [9]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exonerated?

Hi, you have said "It's suggested that ArbCom "exonerated" these users" [10]. Could you explain who you think suggested this? Perhaps you misread somebody's comment. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Computers have a function called "find." Go to the ArbCom page and press "ctrl-f," then type the first few letters of the word "exonerated." Let me know your results.

Regards, Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did that. I didn't want to waste your time. Here is what I found:

Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered? [11]

David doesn't seem to have said, or suggested, that they were exonerated. He said "would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered?" That was a hypothetical question, which I think you didn't pick up on. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So, when he says on AN that the community is acting like a lynch mob that didn't get the result it wanted in ArbCom, he really means, "hypothetically, the community is acting like a lynch mob that didn't get the result it wanted in ArbCom." Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. He means that the consequence of a lynch mentality is that even exoneration would not save an editor from the mob. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, let's not mob anyone! Samiharris seems to be a legitimate community block. That sounds right: he was the primary POV pusher over the last year. Topical ban might be enough for Mantanmoreland. I have an open mind—at least I'm not vowing to block or unblock anyone no matter what. Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Study!

Stay the heck away from this place until after your test on Friday. It's too late for us. We're already doomed. Save yourself! Run from this site as fast as possible!! At least until after the test! It's not as if anything you or anyone else says is going to make a dime's worth of difference in the next 24 hours. Noroton (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I Help?

I see that you are planing on developing some non-CU sock detection methods. Despite not being of much help to you earlier, I hope that I could be of assistance if only to critique the methods based on my (scanty) knowledge of statistics. It seemed to me that some of the statistics that were thrown up during the Arb case really were not valid because some basic statistical assumptions were not meet. I don't mean to imply that was the problem with your statistics, just that if one isn't careful some fairly simple mistakes can be made. *tries to look innocent* In any case, it is a chance to brush up on my now rather rusty statistical skills.

I am still planning starting to write (and revise) some articles, but I need to spend some evenings at the local library. I suppose that I am somewhat old-fashioned. --Maegara (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I had replied to you on my own talk page :) --Maegara (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day Luke

We've 'met' on wikback, but I don't think I've ever dropped you a line 'on-wiki' before - so hello hello!

I've followed the mantanmoreland thing from the sidelines, and having just returned from a 90 day arbcom ban, I've tried not to get overly drawn in to the controversial stuff - but some recent comments did give me a bit of an idea.... One of the reasons I was sanctioned by arbcom was for using alternate accounts - you can grab the usernames from my userpage - and I wondered if having a 'control' of an editor who will happily confirm that they did operate these accounts as alternates would be of any help in considering the validity of the methods you've developed?

I think you've done outstanding work, and have no ability to judge whether or not it's statistically sound or not - but share the impression of many that it certainly seems to be worth investigating further - p'raps crunching some numbers on my accounts might be useful? I'm not sure! - Do feel free to contact me, or suggest this to Analyst or anyone you think might be interested - I'll be interested to see if you think this could be any help at all...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ps. another long term, and openly acknowledged pair of accounts worth perhaps using as a control might be User:JzG and User:Cruftbane ? - Privatemusings (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

because I'm never sure of talk page etiquette - I'm dropping you a note here, to let you know that I've replied at my page! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusation that I've edited abusively and other remarks.

Two comments and two comments only: Murphy's harassment extended well beyond simply making "mean comments" - since you seem to enjoy WR gossip, I suggest you find out why H actually left. As to your comment that I've edited abusively and should tread carefully, I can assure that you no such thing happened but was rather the target of a very well done campaign by someone likely at WR. The ArbCom is still looking at the relevant data. Since you are a trusted user I would be more than happy to email you a synopsis of what is going on there and what has gone on. However, your comment about treading carefully is in the context irrelevant and borders on a personal attack. I suggest you remove it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my fault if you insist on taking an analogy to an overliteral extent. If you prefer the [[If You Give a Mouse a Cookie] analogy it works just as well but not as many people are familiar with that story. In any event, if you're going to want to repeat accusations by banned users and not even amenable to me explaining in any detail what actually appears to have happened, I can't help you. But even if someone had sockpuppeted, heck even if I were a genocidal maniac and had actually been Willy on Wheels all along it wouldn't alter the validity of an argument one iota. My offer to send you an email is still open. Now grow up. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the statement per your helpful suggestion of the phrasing (incidentally, it isn't just the Israelies and the US who have taken that sort of attitude, the Brits and the French have taken it as well, and post the Madrid bombings it was an issue discussed in Spain (although a reasonable interpretation of the election right after that would be that the majority of Spaniards did not agree with it). In any event, expect email from me later today concerning the other issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1) You've got mail. 2) I understand your concern especially in regard to the prior use of the word "lynch mob" (I think that the MM Arbitration was in many ways a complete shitshow and I'm happy to have only participated tangentially). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I am baffled by your threats at Talk:David Snoke. In the event that you aren't joking, I would ask that you try to be more civil, and keep on topic. Guettarda (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you we're joking. So, please be civil and try to stay on topic. If an editor who claims to be a respected scientist refuses to adhere to our policies, then this isn't the place for them. More than enough effort had been made to explain policy to the editor, he had no interest in abiding by it. How is it incivil to say "if you can't abide by our policies, try another site"?

On the other hand, your behaviour is unacceptable. Your incivility is unacceptable. I figured that you were joking. Since you were not, then all I can say is please try to follow our policies and refrain from incivility like that. You know better. Just don't do it. Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So threatening to block someone for telling an editor who refuses to abide by our policies is your idea of acceptable behaviour? If you believe that our policy shoudn't apply to people like Snoke and Frank, why not change our COI policy first. Once you've gotten that change made, I'll be happy to stop calling these people on their COI violations. Until such time, don't threaten people for doing so. Once you have changed policy to your liking, then we can finish this conversation. Until such time, I have nothing to discuss with someone taking such a hard line as a COI enabler.

And, by the way, claiming I'm proud to say that I've never abused the tools is a joke when you threaten to abuse your tools. Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I said. At present, we discourage COI edits. If that policy changes, I will stop calling people on their COI edits. Until such time, your practice of issuing threats for calling people on COI violations is an abuse of your admin tools. But until such time as policy is changed, I see no reason why I should tolerate COI editing. Since you seem unable to grasp that, I don't think we have anything to discuss. Guettarda (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have changed our policy (guideline really) on COI yet. I said after you get policy changed we can talk about your strange ideas. Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses removed by Guettarda:

I was telling you to be civil. I don't think you ever understood how out of line your comments were, and I only remembered when reading yet another snark telling a user to leave for Conservapedia. Your topicality point is well taken though. I've moved the warning here, where it belongs. Cool Hand Luke 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And Guettarda: shame on you for asking people to go to Conservapedia. This is not the first time you've done this, and you should seriously stop. Also, no one else ever warned you, but if make repeated personal attacks like this again, you'll be blocked. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you we're joking. So, please be civil and try to stay on topic. If an editor who claims to be a respected scientist refuses to adhere to our policies, then this isn't the place for them. More than enough effort had been made to explain policy to the editor, he had no interest in abiding by it. How is it incivil to say "if you can't abide by our policies, try another site"?

On the other hand, your behaviour is unacceptable. Your incivility is unacceptable. I figured that you were joking. Since you were not, then all I can say is please try to follow our policies and refrain from incivility like that. You know better. Just don't do it. Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you could explain this purported incivility of mine, but I'll grant it, and I apologize. All I can say is: likewise. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [12]

These editors may have been violating the COI policy, but that doesn't give you a license to personally attack them; if you think it it should, then I suggest that you change WP:NPA. I'm not a POV pusher, nor COI enabler. Did you see the substance of my comment? The editor was simply wrong. It's possible to say so without hurling the kinds of insults you did here. Don't do that again, or you will be blocked (and no, I won't block, nor did I threaten to—I'm not uninvolved). Just consider this an extremely late warning, and don't behave like that again. Cool Hand Luke 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [13]

I'm not trying to be uncivil. I'm really not. But you do realize that exchange last year was not acceptable per WP:NPA, right? Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should call them on it. Call them on it, but don't call them stupid. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [14]

I'm not a friend of COI editing. I think I've not made myself clear. I just don't want to see personal attacks; COI should be identified, but talking about another's purported learning disabilities (after being gently warned) is against our policies. Cool Hand Luke 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [15]

[edit] 1957 Cebu Douglas C-47 crash

I accidentally put that template on the wrong article. Sorry. You can delete it if you want.--RyRy5 talk 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I had wondered about the tag. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Plyler v. Doe

Hi, Frank — I think we could still use your help on the Plyler v. Doe article. We've got an anonymous (IP) editor who is insisting on mentioning a comment about Plyler v. Doe found in another case (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez), but who at the same time is refusing to accept the inclusion of any sort of context information regarding the Verdugo-Urquidez quote which he insists belongs on the Plyler page, claiming that any attempt to analyse (or even read) the court's opinion in order to see how the comment in question was used in the judgment of the case constitutes original research — and, in my view, doggedly holding to an philosophy of legal interpretation that would be laughed out of any law school or courtroom. See the second-to-last section on the Plyler talk page (the section entitled "Entire section on US-born children of illegal immigrants should be removed"). I think this person and I have both reached a point where each of us is convinced we are obviously right and that the other is either wilfully blind, has a hidden agenda, or is just plain stupid. I'd love to see some sort of resolution of this impasse without resorting to an edit war, but I really don't see how to do it. Any ideas? Richwales (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

judo article moves

Yes I was asking that the old redirects be deleted and the articles moved. Thank you for carrying this out. Shawnc (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing diffs

Could you check something for me? According to these comments at the bottom of the New antisemitism article talk page, some edits were made to the article's lead on 13 March and then the articles was protected [16] the same day. However, when I look at the histories for both the main page and talk page, I don't see any edits being made between 12 and 16 March. Something doesn't seem right there. Was anything admin deleted from that article or talk page during that time period? Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the page may have been renamed from New anti-semitism to New antisemitism. Would that account for the missing edits? Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits seem to be there.[17] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. On the talk page and elsewhere it was mentioned that Crum375 semi-protected the article, possibly after SlimVirgin edited it, but I don't see anything in the article's history that confirms this. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. It's only been recently that protections make an edit summary. They used to be silent. But you can see them on the logs. Crum did protect it.[18] Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that recently though. This is also in the history.[19] Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The 13 March protection of the article doesn't show in his log. Anyway, thanks again for the assistance. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I got it now. Wrong year. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalism

Hi; the articles Mormon fundamentalism and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been receiving a fair number of hits/edits recently what with the current events going on in Texas, and I've noticed some particularly bad/POV ones coming from IP addresses. Some of them I consider vandalism now because I've attempted discussion with the editors on talk pages and the same edits keep being made without any response from them. Perhaps these pages should be considered for semi-protection at least until the current affairs die down? Just a thought, but I thought I'd run it by you before rather than making a formal request immediately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

LDS project bot

I noticed on the LDS project page that you have created some content using scripts. I was thinking of creating a bot to help clean up all of the LDS related articles - standardizing navigation templates, adding categories, etc. I guess I wanted to see if you had already done this to make sure our efforts aren't overlapping. I started a discussion on this point, and would love to hear your thoughts. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

JA

Um, you do realize that he's said he does not want the page blanked or the account re-named, because he considers it a "badge of pride" to have been banned, do you not? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme

On 10/16/2007, you undeleted List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme. Please undelete Talk:List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your entry on WP:FACE

Hi Luke. I'm sending this message to every user who has an entry on Wikipedia's Facebook but whose picture is currently not visible for some reason. If you are interested in keeping your place on that page, then please restore the image or insert a new one into it. If you do not respond to this message within a week however, I will remove the entry. See Wikipedia talk:Facebook#Removal of empty spaces for more info. Cheers, Face 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS: My name is a coincidence.

Vote for picture placement on prince albert piercing Numpty454 (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

a

Paul Wolfowitz

Cool,

Could you look at the Wolfy article? Any feedback welcome.

Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for promptly fixing the Media Lens copy/paste move. NSH001 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)