User talk:Nathan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

User:Avruch/Hedgewars

A tag has been placed on User:Avruch/Hedgewars, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ipatrol (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Av,

would you offer an opinion over here on the RFC? Thanks.__Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Ted Haggard story

Av,

I can see your taking out to the contrary, bgut what tis your basis for removing legitimate Dallas Voice quote. How does this apply to Wikipedia rules. You are censoring, aren't you. Do you live outside the US where there is no free speech?

I will take this point to higher editors if the Dallas Voice quote is not permitted

In addition, you permit Haggard to say he is "heterosexual with issues" in a Washington Post quote, but you do not offer an opposing position. Why not? Haggard brought up his sexuality, not Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia not present both sides of a story, or, does it believe and foster one-sided information? Tell me if you can.

Mykjoseph (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

I'm not sure what you mean by higher editors, but there is no such thing. Anyway - there is no "opposing position" on a persons sexuality. How is the Dallas Voice supposed to be a reliable source for whether Haggard is gay or not? Do they have a reporter stationed inside his head? Not everything that is said about someone, even if it can be sourced, is appropriate for a BLP. In this case, presenting Haggard's own view of his sexuality does not need to be balanced by a counterpoint. Avruch ^T 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Cheers for your note. Me and the lady Rambler are having a great time as it happens, this whole travel thing is good news... Broadens the mind and all that. Take it easy. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:JW vs. ArbCom

Hi, I reverted your removal of Bishonen's post. While I can see that the post is a bit pointed, I believe that was Bishonen's intent, and it is not nonsense, trolling or spamming. She is expressing a deep concern for an action which Jimbo took. I feel your removal of her post is unnecessarily aggressive, given that it is not your talk page. I have made my one revert and will not edit war over this. I am open to, and even soliciting, your comments or feedback on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I stripped Mike R's addition of explicitly Arbcom formatting back out, and restored Bish's original. Its plenty pointy and plenty of people will see it as trolling/drama mongering, but removing it outright will invite further drama.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly (regarding upping the drama-meter). I was unaware Mike R had added the Arbcom formatting; apologies and good catch, Tzn. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the heading level.--Tznkai (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize Bish didn't add the ArbCom formatting. Removing it makes it better, we don't need a poll on Jimbo's talkpage on whether he should be "admonished." Even so, it's far more grandstanding than making a principled objection or protest or anything else constructive. Grand but pointless "protests" seem to have become par for the course lately. Anyway, I figured I'd be reverted and don't plan to edit war over it. Thanks for letting me know. Avruch ^T 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

Well, once more, no use trying to touch that page, since I dislike these futile arguments. Just thought I'd say that there is quite a lot that I disagree with in Shahak and Mezvinsky's works, even if I think his general adaptation of Karl Popper's critique of closed societies (actually it was Henri Bergson's critique, in a beautiful little book, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion 1932) to the rift between fundamentalist Judaism and Israel as a secular state was trenchant. As with Popper, Bergson, so with with Shahak and Mezvinsky, Ian Lustick, Norman Finkelstein, Eric Hobsbawm and others. It is simply a strong tension between the assimilationist haskalah tradition, and that rabbinical tradition to whose tenacity of ethnic self-defence the Jewish people are otherwise deeply indebted for their survival against anti-Semitism in the West. This, and some serious lacunae which make for incoherence in their work, is beautifully bought out by Massad in his review of one of Shahak's books, the one written with Mezvinsky. This is what I mean, and why I am so deeply disappointed, when protesting the use of silly witless cracks by Bogdanor, Werner Cohn, Rachel Neuwirth and co, to smear Shahak. It is intellectual history and sociology, in which Jewish men and women have excelled which is trounced by fringe panjandrums of the activist commentariat inciting to fear and hysteria. I fear not only that this militates against the idea of an encyclopedia, but plays into the hands of both antisemites, and blind partisans on the other side. Cripes, I'm a bloody windbag. Best as always, no need to reply Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ignored this! Honestly, my background in this area and with these folks is pretty thin (as it is in many areas, and most scholars!). I have a couple of Popper books on my desk waiting to be read, but otherwise... I share your frustration with the lazy "criticism" slung against Shahak, Finkelstein and many others. On Wikipedia there is a tendency to accord far too much weight to work and review that simply isn't serious; it obscures honest criticism of serious scholars, and presents an inaccurate picture to readers who are likely to be too naive to look past the dross. Sadly, I am about as naive as that "typical reader" in most fields -- but some questions have easy answers, and that was definitely the case with Cohn's comments on Shahak. Avruch ^T 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein

I agree that the Tamil issue has too much weight. I doubt however that outright removal will solve the problem. Please share your ideas on the subject here. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course...

Just what I should have done. Sometimes the obvious is only obvious when it's pointed out. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I don't really know anything about the subject, but the tone of the article can use a lot of cleaning up and I hope to get to some of it over the next day or two. Avruch ^T 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the humor

Which reminds me; you and I disagreed once on WP:VPP, but other than that, I've been really struck that you seem to always have great insight at WT:RFA; well done. Most of my 200 comments at WT:RFA were probably tweaks; my brain never manages to get something right the first time. Have I said anything off-base? On another subject: the newest RFA is probably going to generate a lot of verbiage over CSD issues. I'm thinking maybe we should jump on this; maybe invite some CSD experts to WT:RFA for a "panel discussion"? What do you think? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA is like a slot machine; the first time you see the dial spin the images are all new and full of possibility, and you wonder where it will stop. But after awhile it's obvious that the dial runs the same few figures over and over again, and hardly ever in a combination you find useful. A cynical point of view, but I've been reading WT:RFA for some time.

The best way to counter an RfA oppose is to find an error of evidence or understanding; the differences that are philosophical (i.e. over content writing, project space participation, a few faulty CSD tags, age, etc.) are usually firm and not vulnerable to objection from the talk page regulars. Panel discussions, RfA reviews, surveys, and the general scrutiny applied on the RfA talkpage seem to have almost no impact outside the group of people who regularly post there - and that group of people is a fairly small part of the number of votes on any given candidate. I think that can partly be attributed to the type of people drawn to WT:RFA - almost all non-admin posters are admin hopefuls looking towards their own nomination, trying to have some say and sway in the process ahead of time. Anyway... No, I don't think I've read anything you've written that was way off base - mostly I note that you write a lot at once, so you get skipped along with other people when I see walls of text I don't have time to read ;-) Avruch ^T 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I think you're right on the money. About writing a lot: I did ask for permission at WT:RFA to step it up a notch in February, although I don't think now I'm going to get finished with what I'm doing until sometime in March. Writing a lot gives the impression that it's "all about me"; that will draw some fire, and strong opinions will also draw some fire, and I think that's okay, as long as I'm not the one who thinks that it's all about me or that the goal is to "win". I think I can get some good things done if I keep pushing, as long as people tell me when to quit and as long as I don't take it personally. I guess we'll see. On the subject in the latest RFA: CSD comes up a lot at RFA, and there are some pretty strong differences of opinion, with say User:I'm Sparticus! on one side and, as you say, people who don't normally talk at WT:RFA having different opinions. What I see on the admin channel suggests that the high-volume CSD'ers think that RFA is out of touch. Is RFA out of touch, and how do we get in touch? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you were not talking about me

at the arbcon thing when you said in regard to the siege mentality: "....it's no excuse for the utter lack of collegial discussion and reasonable argumentation shown on some of the pages noted above by editors who are ostensibly pro-Israel." Because I have tried my very best to be civil but have not always been met with civility. If you have specific edits or comments that I have made I would appreciate them, because I am trying to monitor my behavior. And while I know Jewish and pro-Israeli editors are held to a higher standard, but there have been some pretty nasty attacks from the other side, see this comment on my talk page: [1]. I am not justifying returning such, just don't really think the attack from you regarding 2008-2009 Gaza conflict is fair. I think the pro-Israeli side has, if anything, been more civil than the other side. But again, would appreciate diffs to monitor my own behavior! Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there have been a number of people whose behavior has left much to be desired. While some of your past actions have been concerning, they were addressed at WP:AE and I didn't have you in mind specifically when I wrote my comment at RfAr. I'm not sure I agree that any group of editors have been held to a higher standard. I think we hold long term and regular editors to a higher standard in some cases, and maybe that has a disproportionate impact on Jewish / pro-Israel editors... But I don't have any basis, even anecdotal, to claim that myself. There are some exemplary editors on both sides; in your shoes I would find the ones who have the most success in editing and emulate them as much as I can. Even the very best editors sometimes feel like they are banging their head against a wall - what makes them great editors, though, is that they can continue to discuss issues and avail themselves of dispute resolution processes without becoming too impassioned or allowing their frustration to impair judgment. Avruch ^T 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

... that is all. :) MastCell ^Talk 07:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

If you feel I've injustly removed and called a comment which called my notes 'flys in bottles' incivil, then you may make a personal note to me that you disagree. Please do not, however, revert my own Arbcom notes section as writing on the section is privilage I've allowed Nishidani (on a section related to his own notes) but not anyone else and certainly it is my own prerogative on what to remove from it.
Thanks and warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou - perhaps you and I had a different understanding of what he wrote, but I didn't see it as uncivil. I also didn't realize it was in your section; on the other hand, I think it still is correct and common practice not to edit the comments of others. You would be within your prerogative, I believe, to remove the comments altogether... But changing the substance of the words of another (including by altering the emphasis) is usually frowned upon. I won't edit war over it, of course, but its something to consider. Thanks for your note, and feel free to ping me for further discussion as always, Avruch ^T 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please do not edit other user's comments at WP:RFAR. If you believe someone placed an inappropriate comment, please flag down a clerk at WT:RFAR or WP:AC/CN. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, irony much? Avruch ^T 03:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/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/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit

Thanks for your note. This is very interesting; the user started by edit-warring on Neve Gordon, and then switched to Runtshit vandalism. Runtshit is characterised by attacks on anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews, as well as by the more frequent vandalism. This is why I am convinced that identified sockpuppeteers Shmuelseiman, Truthprofessor, Zuminous and Borisyy are all controlled by the same person.

I too wrote to the University of Haifa, but received no reply. The use of its IP address, and the attacks on Gordon, reinforce my conclusion as to the identity of this serial vandal; but proving this will be another matter. RolandR (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Following this, a checkuser confirmed that Zuminous and his sockpuppets are indeed sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article

I plan to unprotect it as soon as possible, probably a day or two at the most. I put indefinite because I am not sure exactly when that will be. The communications committee is also aware of the situation and is handling it. KnightLago (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DragonRealms

Thanks for your edits to the above named article. You have established that the game has a claim to notability (by indicating that it is old and popular), so we are half way there. The next step is to substantiate the claim through citation to independant reliable third party sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart

Why are you so focused on the Jon Stewart Interview of Jim Cramer? Do you work for CNBC? The were quotes in the article before I fixed it that were cited, but they were wrong. Just because someone cites something they write does not mean they are correct. Perhaps a little research should be performed before simply taking someone's word. My changes are factual, and they are not unnecessary, and now they are entirely cited. Please leave it alone. If you would like to contact me further before making another hasty reversion, please do so via henry.ned@gmail.com.

Nedhenry (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Ned Henry

Arbcom vote

Thanks! --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lily Allen BLP

I'm staying away from the talk page until early next week at least. As far as a summery although I agreed it need to be done I have had second thoughts about doing it immediately. I would be afraid the profound disagreements over interpreting BLP would spill over into that discussion. Since we are disagreeing over BLP maybe what should happen the matter of "corrections" and the subjects of articles publicly discussing "scandalous" material should be discussed in the BLP talk pages. While those editors who wrestle with BLP issues all the time can not write the article for us they might be help to clarify things for us. I you feel like it you may bring this suggestion to the talk page but at this point do not attribute it to me. If this approach is agreeable to I will go to the BLP talk next week sometime. You could go earlier if you feel like it. Have a good weekend Edkollin (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

bernard madoff

you deleted my reference which you overlooked. i reinserted it. check out the article if you want.

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was more aiming at the "Some wasn't returned" which I see you haven't put back. Not sure what exactly happened with that edit... I intended to leave the bit about the Republican party donations, and remove a redundant "He was a donor to the Democrat party" line in the personal life section. Looking at it now, that isn't how it worked out - perhaps there was an intermediate revision deleted or hidden. Avruch ^T 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revs essay

For the one or two people who have my talkpage watchlisted, I've written this and am interested in any comments (particularly criticism): User:Avruch/FlaggedRevs vs. NPP. Started out as a discussion of the differences between NPP and FlaggedRevs and why comparing the backlog of NPP to FR doesn't work. Ended up including my opinion on FlaggedRevs in general and the current poll. Avruch ^T 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani block review

I'm not sure if it's important, but the discussion can also be found at User talk:Nishidani/Archive 8#One week off and subsequent. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

You are so admirably well-balanced that seeing you write a testimonial on my behalf, when I am a partisan, made me feel I'd somehow, by inattention, spoiled your close to perfect record for neutrality. To defend anyone like you did can lead the frivolous to take it you are not as impartial as you indeed have always proven to be. I was deeply moved, and somewhat pissed off with myself by the fact my behaviour put you in a difficult position. You're more than a real friend, you are light in here, to the nations of squabblers, among which I count myself. I hope, if I do return, to bear in mind never to, inadvertently, find myself in situations that may spur your ethical sense to intervene on one side's behalf. In gratitude p.s. 'close to perfect'. In high antiquity, when I was schooled, there was a teacher, 'Mumbles' was his nickname, who, when one of us gave in an exam paper in math with no visible error in it, to all extents and purposes flawless, would mark it 98%, and when anyone asked where the 2% error lay, would rasp back gruffly: 'Only God's perfect. Shuddup!' I'd appreciate your not replying.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

popping in

G'day Av - just saw your name in the two or three places I'm rushing through with a coffee before being forcibly restrained back into profit-making ventures, so I thought I'd pop in.

First up your 'flagged revisions' stuff - I've supported the teeny-tiny-toe-dipping approach so far, because I have a feeling that it's the best shot at getting the extension enabled on the table, and that fundamentally the scope / reach of such things cannot help but extend greatly, and very quickly (I think this is a good thing, and for very recent evidence, take a look at the 'abuse filter' and how that's going.....) - it's important however to have voices (like yours) pointing out how ineffective at making a material difference to the fundamental problems this will be though - and I'll certainly be waving that flag too.......

Also I saw this at AN/I - "If there is a legal threat on the table, and his comments (as reproduced above by Ironholds) indicate that the threat is unlikely to be withdrawn...[blah de blah.. etc. == ban!]" - unless you're an article subject of course, or claim to be, or a few editors reckon it's a good idea for wiki to be a spleen venting medium ;-) - is there any news on the GdS front, by the way? - I see no-one has bothered to fix up the GFDL thing yet - I told Carch and Brad that I'd be back on that bandwagon with a vengeance on Jan 1, 2010, and I reckon there's pretty good odds that it'll be in pretty much the same state... doesn't really speak well to the other couple of hundred thousand bio.s I reckon ;-)

Anywhoo - this has officially been a 'two thirds of a coffee' post which is longer than I intended (you're worth about a half, I reckon ;-) so take care and ta ta for now :-) Privatemusings (talk)

Sorry for the delayed response, although as a half-a-cup editor such things should be expected :-P Nothing new on the GdS front as far as I know. I still have not received notice of any lawsuit, for instance. I think the GFDL thing will probably stay low priority for long enough that you'll be back editing the article before its fixed. Whether that is Jan 1 2010 or longer, I don't know! I think GdS' legal threats as an IP are tolerated because there really is no good fix for them - ban Italy and London, or revert legal threats when they come in? Option 2 seems to be the way to go.

As for the FlaggedRevs thing... Well, the poll is over and it is what it is. I'll keep working on cleaning up BLPs, and hopefully this implementation (if its switched on) will work better than I thought. Avruch ^T 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

I guess I could have replied more graciously. I've no wish to be your enemy if you aren't mine. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

I would be happy to not be enemies with you (although I think enemies is a stronger word than I would've used!). I've always considered it a personal failure when disagreements on principle become personalized, and I would be glad to let the past be the past as far as our disputes (which were never between us directly anyway) are concerned. Avruch ^T 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Case

Hey Avruch. Please have a look at this post and let me know what you think. Soupforone (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Mayalld's talkpage. Avruch ^T 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

I left the following comment after seeing your radical edit of the Douglas J. Feith article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left another comment. You may not have seen the talkpage comment in the section above the one you added. I'm not sure the edit is that radical - the content removed has been pasted in a collapse box to the talkpage to be discussed. I'm hopeful that the normal page editors will see that it shouldn't be returned in its current form, because much improvement is necessary before any of it ought to go back.Avruch ^T 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WilyD

Shit, I missed that. Way to read a form, eh? So then what happens? I'm just indefinitely a "suspected sockpuppetter"? Shouldn't an admin suspected of sockpuppetting be seriously investigated, not just forced to walk around while we all wager on whether the mud sticks? WilyD 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The steps in the process are pretty straightforward I think, although I'm brand new to it myself. A patrolling admin or clerk will review it before long, and most likely request more evidence. If nothing more convincing comes out, one of them will close it out and it will be archived by the bot. Since you're an admin the drama quotient goes up and the chances the process will vary increase; perhaps a CU will stop by and comment, but with the little evidence presented so far that still seems unlikely. Avruch ^T 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how dull. I'm not sure there's much risk of drama since I'm agitating to be seriously investigated - oh well (in all honesty, because I know my "main" IP address would show conclusively I'm not whatever other account is being questioned). It's kind of irritating to have such an allegation just floating there, however. Ah well, thankee. WilyD 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New message for you regarding SI

Hello, Nathan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Synchronism (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So what are you sayin' .... ?

I need to stop vandalizing my own page? :) ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whoops... Side effect of putting the rollback link on the watchlist, I guess! Avruch ^T 19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Christian, and so don't celebrate Easter, but I appreciate the sentiment. Avruch ^T 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom statement

Hi, thanks for your Arbcom comment. I just think I need to correct something: If my memory isn't totally failing me, I didn't at the time rename the Liancourt Rocks article. It had been at Liancourt Rocks for quite a while (subject to move wars, against which I may have used move protection at one time or other.) The rouge intervention consisted in somebody deleting the page out of the blue, and then me recreating it as a stub and then fully protecting it. Or something of that sort. You're right it's comparable to some extent, but it didn't involve a page move. Also, I think I was in a slightly safer position at the time because I was "uninvolved"/neutral up to that rewrite, which ChrisO isn't really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right I think, I looked at the history a few minutes ago and it squares with your memory. I'll rewrite my statement to clarify. The involvement issue is an additional problem, but I think at the basic level its "rouge" intervention to settle a very long term dispute. It's been effective in some instances, the question I think is whether it is stylistically palatable for Wikipedians. Nathan ^T (formerly Avruch) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons confirmation

Requesting a rename on Commons, this diff confirms. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Huntdowntheconspiracists

See my point of clarification here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged the newest appropriately and I see the others have been fixed. Thanks and sorry for causing some extra work! This is why I'm still a trainee ;-P Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations

I strongly object to your bad faith accusations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect/Archive that "this case is being used as a weapon in a content dispute". Not only are these comment incivil but demonstrate a failure to properly research the investigation as i explained the reasons and necessity for the investigation was posted clearly in the evidence. --neon white talk 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did read your rationale for filing the case, and as I noted on the case page it was insufficient to justify checkuser action. If you find further, more convincing evidence of violations of WP:SOCK please refile the case. Filing an SPI case against an opposing party in a dispute where you contemplate mediation gives the appearance (the word I used) of using it as a weapon in that dispute. That was my impression -- if you argue that wasn't your intent, then fine. The case is still declined on its own merits. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had reasearched properly you would have known that i am not in anyway involved with these editors or in a dispute. I am a volunteer at WQA dealing with the alert and believe that the nominator may have edited under a different name and is potentially involved in a much longer term dispute with the accused and is using a sock to avoid scrutiny of his/her behaviour. I provided a clear link to the WQA in the explaination so responding editors could properly understand. Your accusations of bad faith that could have very easily been dispelled demonstrate a lack of good faith. --neon white talk 10:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede the point that you, yourself, aren't a party to the dispute. Nevertheless, the accusations of sockpuppetry to which you reacted did in fact come from opposing members of the dispute with Collect, Scramblecase and Transity. In this case it's an echo of a prior CU request on the same basis and in a similar situation, so I hope you can understand my impression. In any case, if you feel it was declined in error or if you have further evidence, you're entitled to refile. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar and sockpuppets

Although you are correct that user:gibraltarian used a number of accounts, it was one user, not me and some time ago. Indeed the incident was more an exercise in bullfighting by others who wound the guy up in order to get rid of him and attempt to get the whole IP space of Gibraltar blocked in order to promote their POV. But that was the past.

What is clear is whatever has gone on recently its nothing to do with either me or Gibraltar and simply a bad faith accusation. --Gibnews (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say it was simply a bad faith accusation. Indeed, the account you were accused of using to sock turned out to be a sockpuppet in fact, with a number of other socks. You weren't yourself linked to them, but the perception of socking turned out to be correct. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive

Is the tool linked in this investigation that shows shared edits between accounts available to the general masses. I think it was but I can't find the page where you input the account names... - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are similar tools available, like Betacommand's usercompare tool, but this particular report was generated by a bot through a command in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi (which is open to the public). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GustavusPrimus

Okay, I'm still learning a lot of the terms and codes. Code F. Is there some thing more I need to do at this point? Do I need to link to specific edits between the two? Do I need to put in a request for a checkuser? Or is this something left to admins to research and deliberate over? Ideally I would prefer to come from the admins, since I could be perceived or accused of having vested interest in the potential outcome in this.

I had not brought up accusations and counter accusations of puppetry and promotion, since I was not sure if they were relevant. But if they are, how should I include them? And I sat on bringing up the question of puppetry up because even though I might have an emotional reaction to what has been going on, I so want to assume good faith.

Thank you for any assistance and clarification on this. I know that being an admin can be taxing work, particularly when you have drama like this going on.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be a little confusing. You can, when you file, request a checkuser - but in this case, I've done that. The more direct evidence you can provide linking the two accounts the better, this shows the editing overlap between the two accounts. I brought up the counter accusations only because it may inform the decision of the CU who reviews the case - whether to perform the CU, or whether to expand the check to include other accounts. In any case, there should be enough there to merit a CU check and we'll get the results hopefully in the next day or two. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nodReally what I posted is about it, though looking over the link you gave, it also looks like they have very similar times of day they are active. Would that count for anything? I can pour through the histories of the two pages and get exact changes that have been done if that will help. Though it will have to wait until later this weekend. For the time being, I sort of want to stay off the page itself, since the user seems intent on leveling false accusations of being banned of puppetry at me, without actually filing a report. Yes, I got a ban for promotion. Yes, I could potentially be called a fan girl (but I suspect you have a lot of fans working on bio pages). And thus since them I have altered my direction focusing on discussion of topics I am partial to, doing research on third party sources, and referring to wiki guidelines. I feel that as long as I properly cite material and guidlines, than that ban should be put behind me, even working on related topics.

Anyway, thanks again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Trainee Clerk

Hi there Nathan, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking me on as a trainee clerk with SPI. I've used Wikipedia for a long time, and I've joined to try and give back a little. I've noticed that there is a lot more behind the scenes work than I anticipated, and as I have a fair amount of time on my hands, I figured I should ask about helping out. You can reply to me here. CanadianNine 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! I looked at the list and saw trainee beside your name, and for some reason I thought that meant you were willing to take one on! Sorry about that CanadianNine 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You changed my page. Tell me where to get help from a top administrator in that case. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Was this the Yvves Carbonne article? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

YesTruthBeTold (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to make a version of the article in your userspage (perhaps User:TLCbass/Yves Carbonne), source it to multiple reliable sources, expand it and write it to as high a standard as you are able, and then ask a regular editor for help in moving it back to being an article. Administrators have no real authority when it comes to matters of content, which this is. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, my question is as follows: I want to know the reason for deletion. I know you were there during this mess, and I have seen it said that the article was deleted because of notability issues. To my knowledge, that was not the reason for deletion. I don't want that reflecting poorly on a great artist, because in fact he is the most notable ERB player in the world at present, and I have substantiated that with numerous reliable references. I don't want to get into a war on here again... it's pointless when one is ganged up on... I am hoping another one of his fans will re-write the entry on him. I just want to know how to find out and/or correct the reason for deletion. I am the last person who demanded it was deleted, due to many edits back to incorrect information. I am a stickler for the truth, and what was going on was just wrong. Thanks. TruthBeTold (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've posted on the admin noticeboard, hopefully that will get you the resolution you need. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I just responded on my talk page - I would be happy to copy that to the SPI investigation, if you think thats appropriate. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

I commented at the SPI [2]. This is probably a sock by another user. What would you recommend? Sorry for that.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no further comments about both cases submitted by me yesterday. The "Jacob Peters" is obviously not him, but rather a case of edit waring of three users, each of whom uses sock puppets. The "Petri Krohn" case I think should be checked to resolve the matter, one way or another. Petri is a serious contributor (even though he was sanctioned by ArbCom), and I would like to apologize if I was wrong, which is still not quite clear. If I was wrong, one possible explanation might be that a lot of people with strong and similar POV (including the IPs) come here from the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee at the South of Finland. If they invite eah other or not, I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Petri case, I think the issue is just that its a lot to wade through so it will take a clerk with a good chunk of free time to go through it to make sure the rationale for a CU is there. (I haven't checked yet to see if it has had any attention, if not I'll try to look at it later tonight or find someone to take a look.) Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope by endorsing this case that you realise you are legitimising harrassment by Biophys which has now been brought up by myself at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biophys_continuing_harrassment. As noted on the case page, this editor has a long history of accusations against other users, that editors that he is in conflict with are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, sharing accounts, members of the web brigades, in the KGB/FSB, etc. There has to be a point where we say that enough is enough. As User:Offliner mentions there is even a case where both users have edited at the same time [3] [4]. That both users are in Finland is not reason enough to do a check-user based upon what many think are delusions of an editor who accuses almost every editor he comes into conflict with of being any or all of the above. Given that users accusations in the past, and particularly in the last week (which seemed much a setup between the same 3 users now going after Offliner (Biophys' "content opponent") and Petri Krohn (Digwuren's "content opponent" WP:DIGWUREN), we should not be legitimising harrassment via such avenues. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly complex case, involving two regular editors in generally good standing. I understand that there are going to be strong feelings. Endorsing the request for checkuser attention isn't the same as endorsing the alleged link as likely or true; its simply whether the link, if true, would violate WP:SOCK and if there is sufficient evidence to be suspicious. Reviewing Biophys' submission, what led me to conclude that sufficient evidence to proceed exists is the unusual and coincident edit summary style and the near absence of overlap in actual editing periods despite seemingly overlapping schedules in general.

Perhaps there is a history of unfounded accusations here, but I'm not sure that SPI is the right venue for addressing that problem if it exists. The right forum is probably an administrators noticeboard, RfC, or other step in dispute resolution (of which SPI is not a part). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some advice

I want to add to the advice I offered here.

There are good faith reasons why people change their user names. Unfortunately, some other contributors make contributions under multiple userids for bad reasons -- like sockpuppetry. I am going to offer you the same advice I offer to people who start a new wiki-id, who clearly have had a previous posting history. I suggest that they acknowledge their previous history and state why they adopted a new ID. I suggest they either state their old IDs, or if the reason they adopted a new ID is that they have a real history of harassment, under their old IDoffer the ID of a trusted administrator who can verify the new ID was adopted for a legitimate reason.

You changed your name, without obfuscating your contribution history. My specific advice to you is:

1. Place a brief notice on the top of User:Nathan and User talk:Nathan, acknowledging that you used to use a different name. If the reason you switched names is something simple, like: "When I joined the wikipedia someone else was using 'Nathan', my preferred name. They have subsequently retired, and I went through the formal steps of claiming the no longer used name." If the explanation is longer, have your brief acknowledgment point to a more detailed explanation.
2. Don't worry about confusing other good faith contributors, when you are contributing to articles you never contributed to when you were known as "Avruch". But, if you contribute, as "Nathan" to articles you recently contributed to as "Avruch" I urge you to have every edit summary contain an acknowledgment that you have used multiple wiki-ids to contribute to the article.

It is important that we all try our best to assume good faith. A corollary of that policy is that we should all do our best to prevent putting an unnecessary strain on our good faith correspondent's limited reserve of good faith. By preventing unnecessary confusion over your use of multiple user-names you would be allowing your correspondents to make better use of their limited reserve of good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I hate to repeat myself... But it is important, on Wikipedia as anywhere, that you actually *read* what people write before responding to them. You will note, I hope, that in my signature I include the phrase "Formerly Avruch" - and have done so since the name change. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)