User talk:Nathan/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Bye and Best wishes

Looks like it's certified ('I'm certified', cried the lunatic with a grin that spoke of the acquired pride of achievements long denied him - I must use that if I ever write a novel!). I'd just like to sneak in a last edit before the ax falls. Thanks indeed, my friend, for that note (which however again made me regret a remark I made beforehand about standing up for oneself), which will leave me with a very pleasant memory. I'm untroubled by this, as it is perfectly coherent with wiki policy not to judge content. Of course room is left to wiggle back, if one edits elsewhere. I could, I suppose, I've long been tempted by the Dogon page and a complete rewrite of Heraclitus. But I promised myself some years ago I'd only write extensively in the few areas I'm qualified in, or have either training in, or long reading experience of, if I could succeed in improving the hardest place, the I/P area. No go.

I take what has befallen me personally wryly for a personal reason, (despite feeling some deep sympathy for a few people who have fallen by the way in a generic judgement that is completely logical in terms of the tribal rule system, but not consequential on the logic of the modern world. MM was a real acquisition to Wiki, none of my verbal hijinks or flashy flourishes, a really precise reader of rule and evidence, with a patience and forbearance most of us lack).

My personal reason is that some decades ago, I was approached by a personal representative of a Prime Minister of a foreign country with the offer of a ridiculously lucrative sinecure, a beautiful apartment in an old city, expense account, even guided access to its better quality brothels, if I'd just stop writing about its elites, and turn my talents quietly to the study of antiquity. Well of course that's the kind of one in a lifetime offer a person like myself jumps at, to knock down with a polite 'no thanks', if only to enjoy the look of sour indigestion on my famous interlocutor's face. The present instance affords something of a parallel. I am sanctioned for working on a subject, but offered an eventual reprieve if I may prove my dedication to the project by writing on other topics. In other words, in both cases I have been asked to change topics. If I don't work on what interests me, but interests them (the innocuous world of culture) then all will go well. As before, I'll just move on. I don't think the arbitrators, given the rules, had much choice. I do, however, in just stepping out of this tribal sojourn for somewhere different, without rancour. It's been an intense three years, with many fine minds, and sensibilities encountered, to cover the costs of that frustration one bears in editing over I/P articles. I hear voice tone when I read, and I have, in our rare interactions, taken an instinctive liking to yours, an intuition underlined by observing your work in this monumental undertaking of public intelligence. Avi's on a wikibreak, and burdening too many pages with a note of adieu would look prissy. I've chosen yours. Best wishes then, to you, your colleagues and the many editors who've been companionate in this stretch of my wiki life. Cheers Nathan Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes to you too, Nishidani. We'll miss your presence and work on the wiki, and be poorer for its absence. I hope you reconsider. I think there is something to be said for interleaving your editing habits with uncontroversial topics - if everyone did, it would certainly reduce the temperature in many disputes. Of course being forced to do it does smack of exile and diminution, and I can see why you wouldn't want to accept such a requirement (and, of course, the hurdles as proposed are so high that hardly anyone could ever meet them). Return or not, good luck. If you write a book at some point, or have already, you should send the name to me in an e-mail. I'd like to read it. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tile join checkuser case

Hi Nathan, I see that you closed the Tile join case here [1] with 'tagged'. Is there any chance we could get the IP info and a range block underway to somewhat limit the future disruption? If the range is too broad I understand. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Luk blocked the underlying IPs. Most likely he checked to see if a rangeblock was possible/necessary. Can't hurt to ping him on his talkpage if you'd like him to check again, but he's generally pretty thorough about that sort of thing (NB User:Luk is the new username of CU User:Lucasbfr). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and pinged [2] . . . R. Baley (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rigoberto Torres

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rigoberto Torres, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles

Hi Nathan, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about this. I've started a proposal, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:RFA

Duh. Yep - went right over my head. oops. Grab me a trophy the next time you're past a fresh fish market .. lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

I had requested a Checkuser on User:Blackmagic1234. After giving evidence as to why I was suspicious, my request was denied. No offense, but this pisses me off. I have given reasons why I requested a Checkuser(such as the harassment posts that were made to me, and the user User:Higgys, which was an account made on May 3rd, claimed he knew I was from St. John's, Newfoundland, and the reason I was suspicious that this user was Blackmagic1234 was because of the fact that only administrators can get your IP address when you use a user account, and since I know Blackmagic1234 in real life, and he is from St. John's, Newfoundland, and based on other pieces of evidence I already gave in the request for checkuser(such as the fact that he accused me of making a vandalism edit to the Ruby Gloom article back in September, and he accused me of making this edit on May 3rd, 2009, while the vandalism edit was made back in September 2008, and in order to get to the edit you had to go back three or four pages of edit history just to get to that edit, and he also accused me of making a vandalism edit to the Kathleen article, when I have never made an edit to that article, however, I am one of the main editors for the Ruby Gloom article. Anyways, it disappoints me that my request was denied, after the evidence I gave and the fact that I was harassed. I know that the user account Higgys was blocked, but the reason I am upset is because I had an old account with the username Kagome_85. That account was blocked WITHOUT there being a checkuser on it, and I was accused of using multiple accounts to vandalize articles, such as the Sailor Moon articles, because I started editing that article (I was making constructive edits), and around the same time, from what I could gather, someone else was making vandalism edits to the article. The fact that this happened, and that I had to make another account because of that incident angers me, since it seems like the administrators are picking their battles, because I had that account blocked for something I never did, WITHOUT there being a checkuser action performed, and the fact that I gave evidene, and I don't know what else to say besides the evidence I had given, and my request was turned down on the basis that Blackmagic1234 never made any vandalism edits from that account(when I pointed out that someone could make side accounts to vandalize on/harass someone on, I've seen it done before in the past), just goes to show that the people on here seem to pick their battles, and use any excuse they can as to why they won't do something(like perform a checkuser action, when someone has given all the evidence they can, such as a user claiming they know where someone lives based on their IP address when the user that is claiming this is not an administrator and has no way to get the IP address from a user that has a username, since according to Wikipedia, IP addresses are hidden on here when you log into a account), and this disappoints me. Anyways, this may sound immature, but you won't have to deal with me "complaining" anymore. I'm shutting down my account on here, since I've had it. I deal with enough jerks in real life, and I can't handle dealing with them on here too. What I experienced on here just goes to show what I already believe due to my real life experiences: That society has gone down the drain. There is very little kindness or helpfulness in this world now, and that disappoints me, since I have to live in this world for probably another 60 years. Kagome 77 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei

Hi, I'm informally mediating a dispute at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei which I thought you may be interested in joining. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nathan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant subsection is WP:ANI#On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc...--68.248.155.2 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nathan

I noticed that you recently updated the status of the User:AssegaiAli case with the Checkuser process as completed. Does this mean that you've reached a conclusion and will now take action? Sorry, I've never opened one of these sockpuppet cases before. I'm a bit confused by the process.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Nevermind. I just read: "CheckUser does not solve cases. It provides additional evidence of a technical nature that can be considered along with behavioral evidence, and may help clarify whether misuse has taken place."--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually the check was performed by Luk, I'm just a clerk. He posted the result ( Likely), and I updated the status. An admin will review the case and make a decision on what action to take, if any. Nathan ^T 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you've worked it out! Nathan ^T 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

As a courtesy to other contributors...

WRT this edit As a courtesy to other contributors, when you want to talk about aspects of an article, could you please engage in that discussion on the article's talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was just a simple explanation as to why I posted the fact tag. I imagine that when the items were sourced the comments were removed, that seems appropriate to me. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There actually is no ongoing discussion on the talk page seemingly, and the sentences I tagged were modified and sourced adequately by another editor with no problems - can I assume then that there is no issue? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do have an ongoing concern. You left your comments as html comments within the article itself. This is not a place good faith contributors go to look for a discussion of the article. And, even if other contributors looked there, it lacks the support for signing comments. I make limited use of html comments. There are a vast number of quality control volunteers who try to shoehorn all articles about individuals into the European style of inherited surnames -- even though there are billions of people who don't use an inherited surname. I put the following comment, in html, above the category section of hundreds of articles, only to find it routinely ignored. The use of html comments are unconventional. For most contributors they are opaque, and are ignored.

The following categories contain articles about individuals who almost all have names that follow the style for Arabic names. Arabic names don't have European style surnames that are inherited, father to son. So, there is no point changing the order in which they are sorted in the categories. Thanks!

Some contributors think that a reference should be placed after every sentence, or even every phrase, that states an assertion that should be verifiable. But I believe those contributors are in small minority, and most contributors only include a single instance of each reference in a paragraph. That means before you place a {{cn}} tag on a sentence you should review each reference in the paragraph. It seemed to me that you placed {{cn}} tags for assertions that already cited valid references. Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the edit you are referring to? Is this Douglas Feith or Bush Six? Nathan ^T 15:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Bush Six. Well, I don't make frequent use of html comments - as you note, they aren't usually that fruitful. But in this case I thought it might work acceptably well, since I noted it in the edit summary and placed them as clarification for a template tag (which someone will have to see to remove, should they respond to the tag). On your second point - both tags I added were to the end of short paragraphs, where no other reference was provided. The second paragraph also wikilinked to a principle that was both unexplained (on the Bush Six article) and a redlink. Typically, as you know, assertions of fact likely to be challenged should come with a reference. It is fairly common practice to cite everything at the end of a paragraph (I often do that myself), but in the absence of any reference a fact tag is appropriate. Nathan ^T 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift endorsement...

...of a checkuser. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess on a related topic, I'd like to volunteer my services as an SPI trainee clerk. TEACH ME! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got a crapload of trainees at the moment (myself included...), but you can contact a full clerk to see if they can take you on. Might ping someone in the IRC channel, if you use it - #wikipedia-en-spi. Nathan ^T 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilco. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

SP case

Nathan, why did you moved the Sciurinæ's evidences without consulting me? I am doing my best for this case. Please let me do my work. AdjustShift (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let me handle this case. Please. I know there will be some off-topic discussion. In this particular case, a Polish editor is accused of sockpuppetry by German editors. As a neutral admin, I know which discussion to read and which discussion to avoid. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've talked with another SPI clerk, Mayalld. My logic was when I'm concluding the case; I had to point to the evidences and the relevant discussions on the talkpage. I've to change my approach now. For the past 20 days, I've talked with various people including an ArbCom and a CU. It was pretty difficult for me for some days. I'm doing my best. Some EE editors have this habit of discussing about nationalist disputes whenever they get an opportunity. I know which discussion to read and which discussion to avoid. I hope you understand. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi AdjustShift, sorry I haven't replied here yet - superseded I think by our comments on the case page. We try to keep a better handle on SPI case pages for some pretty good reasons, its specifically intended not to be as free-form as other noticeboards so that it can efficiently fulfill its function. Nathan ^T 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nathan. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Goldfeder

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Goldfeder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

You changed this from B class to GA and added the GA banner, but it's not listed at the list of GA articles, and there is no evidence that it went through a review. Why did you do this? FWIW, while it has been significantly improved recently, it is nowhere near GA class; the citation hell alone doesn't pass muster. The formatting is quite inconsistent (I gave up following the editor who added all of the links, converting them to the proper format), and there are way too many citations for certain statements in the article. 14(!) citations for the last sentence in the section on Outrage and 13(!) citations for a statement about insurance coverage each border on the obsessive. Horologium (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not against the huge number of citations - I think the more coverage we can add, the better off we are. I think we could do with trimming some of the redundant citations, though. I updated the banners to GA-class, but updating the GA link itself was done by someone else. It may not have been a terribly thorough review, but I have no way of telling in the absence of detailed comments. I'm not sure that ref formatting alone should torpedo a GA nom, but I'm also not at all familiar with the current mood of that project on the technical aspects of article quality. Either way, my ultimate plan is to spend some time cleaning it up and expanding it so that I can post it for FA sometime this summer. I doubt it will pass, but they generally have some pretty useful criticism (and often the reviewers will clean things up as they go). Nathan ^T 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Someone simply updated to GA and someone else listed the article. OTOH the article is still listed on the nominee page and, most importantly, has no review! This means, someone listed the article because he/she had no idea how this works. Look at the article history and the talk page of the person who rated the article GA. Apart from the fact that the article is not GA, the person simply didn't do a review. I revert back so you can receive a review in the future. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Looks like the GA project has become a bit more formal in how things need to be done since the last time I interacted with it. In the past, a written review wasn't strictly necessary and if an editor said they reviewed an article and passed it, it passed. Nathan ^T 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghida Fakhry

Regarding Talk:Ghida Fakhry#Source options, could you provide the text from the WSJ article? Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd e-mail it to you but you've got e-mail disabled. I can't really post it on-wiki, as its not GFDL. Nathan ^T 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

email enabled Nableezy (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Nathan ^T 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove!

DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Chickens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot chicken, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of chickens by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Thanks, no offence taken, I hope I didn't offend you. All the best Verbal chat 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Non CU SPI?

Hi, this is pushkraj here, what does Non CU SPI mean? Vertical.limit (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, its just a sockpuppet case where checkuser assistance isn't requested. Nathan ^T 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

is there enough evidence?

Hello, regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026, is there already enough evidence and diffs? What extra information do you need to assess if the CU should be done? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented on the case page. Nathan ^T 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI addition

I noticed that you added my id in the SPI page and commented, including my id, on my SPI report regarding another user. What are the reasons for this? Kbrose (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I listed a case against you filed by someone else. After I listed it I read it over, discussed it with an administrator, and requested its deletion. It has since been deleted. Nathan ^T 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I see, I suspect this was in retaliation for my filing a report. I would appreciate my id being removed entirely from the list still present, I believe. Thanks much. Kbrose (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been, you may need to bypass your cache while reloading to see the most recent version of the page. Nathan ^T 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Squares

Hello Nathan, my User:Green Squares account is blocked would you please post the following message on my behalf to the correct forum. Thank you.

"Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. 76.68.64.147 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Block first, ask questions later

You raise a very interesting procedural issue I argued two years ago. In general terms, whenever feasible it is preferable to leave an editor unblocked during a sanctions discussion so that editor may participate on an equal footing. That's not written into policy: was overruled by consensus. When the current discussion is over, please ping me if you'd like to reopen that matter as a proposed amendment to policy. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure if I agree with a blanket policy of unblocking folks to participate in blocking discussions, though. There are a lot of ways that can come back to bite, so it may not be the best solution to what I see as the problem. This problem, in my view, is two pronged: admins make obviously controversial and borderline blocks without discussion (and, usually, immediately leave on vacation) and we consistently grant inertia to facts on the ground, giving the upper hand to whoever acts first. This tactical view of administrator interaction leaves a bad taste, but it is what it is. Nathan ^T 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Subpaging at SPI

Hey, this revert seems to have messed up a few things, probably because both Icestorm and I had edited it to move cases around in the time between your edits. In particular, there are now no cases showing up as needing clerk approval for CheckUser, while before there were three, and those three are not showing up on the subpage you created. Could you fix this, please? Thanks,Aervanath (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, we're trying to fix everything back to normal. Nathan ^T 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We're testing the bot, so things might get a little, strange... :) Icestorm815 • Talk 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be mostly back to normal at this point (that is, bot normal, you are most likely used to no bot normal...). Nathan ^T 03:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Should be easier to get used to, though; less work to be done. :) --Aervanath (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just logged on to see the status of a CU report I did on a returning MascotGuy vandal in the hope of obtaining a range block(s). I left word on the SPI note page and I thought it might be wise to inform you as well. Hoping for yet another range block based on the note I left. Thanks!  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerkship

I know it's a big responsibility. Try not to go too wild. [3] Dominic·t 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article review

Hello - I have reviewed Charlie Crist, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I was more interested in a substantial review and constructive criticism than in earning the little plus sign, so I'm glad it got a good review. (Someone earlier had passed it as GA without posting a review - while I accepted that and figured I could get a review a different way, someone else reverted it and here it has worked out for the best). Nathan ^T 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said

This post was very well said. I think you covered the essential issues. Chillum 02:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nathan ^T 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI Question

Hi. I had a question about filing an SPI report and sorta picked your name at random from the clerks I saw on the page. I just deleted Paul Parmar as a recreation of deleted material. If you look at the deleted edits, you'll see several single purpose accounts adding material. My question: is this worth filing a checkuser request? SPI is one of the areas with which I've never really been involved, so any advice is appreciated. Thanks! TNXMan 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally, if the accounts are obvious socks then its simpler to just block them. A case is useful for (a) maintaining archives (which allow us to connect the accounts by bot and run some scripts against contribs, and also makes it easy to look up past history) (b) requesting a CU (c) getting a second opinion from an admin experienced in socking cases and (d) compiling evidence on complex cases. I can't see the deleted edits (I'll ask PeterSymonds to comment here in a minute), but if the SPAs are blocked and the page is deleted, you can probably skip the SPI case this time around and file one next time if new accounts get involved. Nathan ^T 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that is a strange sort of sockfarm. Peter pinged a CU to take a look. Nathan ^T 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! TNXMan 14:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A sincere request to you

Dear Nathan,

Grotesque! This is Svr014. I am an American and a new user on WP. My user account and IP are completely different from that of another blocked user. I do not understand why User: Ravichandar84 is blindly accusing me. He is also using words like racist which show rudeness and personal attack. I request you to help me preserve my account on WP and protect my interests on WP. This is my sincere request to you. Please remove this sock allegation from my account. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI ?

Nathan, Here is your statement, just so you have a reference point: [4] Please don't make this edit again. Nathan T 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? I read what the clerk said and it appears that the decision has been made by two clerks. I clicked over to the page that was suggested in the original statement [[5]] and in the section, "After the decision," it says the case can be closed. So why can't I take this action? Alex West (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that any clerks have commented, actually. SteveCrossin is not a clerk. Cases are usually only closed following review by an administrator, and that hasn't happened yet for your case. Nathan ^T 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Nathan. This is a new situation to me. The reason I assumed SteveCrossin was a clerk is that he made a few straight ahead statements about the SPI case and wrote, among other things, "I've asked for the opinion of another clerk." I assumed that meant he was a clerk. I also read in your undo statement "Only a CU or an SPI clerk" can do that." In the section on closing that is not very clearly stated. If you're an administrator perhaps you should clarify that section as it appears as if anyone can place the {{SPIclose}}, once a clerk has decided the outcome, and then the clerk places the {{SPIclose}}. I will also write SteveCrossin a note to see if he is or is not a clerk. Alex West (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the "After the decision" section of the SPI guidance does seem to allow any user to add the {{SPIclose}} header to a case. That isn't current practice, so perhaps the page needs to be updated. Nathan ^T 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy

This was what Nefer Tweety stated in their RfC discussion from the start. They're entitled to do so. Is there any link between the Wolof Joe job and Arab Cowboy??? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so, from the checkuser results, but you would know, right? Since you are Arab Cowboy... Nathan ^T 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

of course, I know, but I want you to publish a clear conclusion. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any information other than what you see on the case page. Checkuser results can establish a connection, suggest a connection, or present no obvious connection between accounts. The lack of technical evidence linking two accounts does not prove anything, unfortunately, so checkusers are not in the business of declaring innocence. Nathan ^T 04:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ephebophilia

In a recent RfA you said something about an editor defended on the grounds that ephebophilia was not the same as pedophilia. Do you have the links please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[6] Not all the context is there to make it clear what he was referring to (read the oppose by AnotherSolipsist, and the block log of VigilancePrime), but I don't think his opinion has changed so you could probably ask him about it. Nathan ^T 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Escuse Me

Hey, what is a duck case? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually wikilink it - see WP:DUCK. Generally if the connection between two accounts is obvious, we don't run a CU. Nathan ^T 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok I was wondering if it might have been a regional expression from your area or not. Thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy SPI

Hey. Apparently Arab Cowboy was blocked for three days for edit warring and whatnot. There was a recommendation on the ANI page to have the checkuser case reopened since their edits were so close together. There's also a few other things that seem to indicate they may be puppeting. But I'm unaware of the protocol for reopening an SPI. Do I start a new section, or do I post a new subheader under evidence? Do tags need to change? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The case is still technically open. If you have more evidence, I'd recommend collapsing the current evidence section and posting a new one that combines (succinctly) all available evidence. At that point you can also post a new RFCU template, and a clerk will review the evidence again for a CU. Nathan ^T 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, okay. I added another header on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy. Did I screw that up? And do I need to add a code letter or some such, or do I wait for the clerk to ask for it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) keeps poking me about this SPI. I saw your edits on there, but is there anything else I have to do to reopen the SPI, like move it back into the Open section? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Investigation Conclusions

•  Unrelated
  • Arab Cowboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Nefer Tweety (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• I understand NT has been declared unrelated to me, Arab Cowboy. Who is this Wolof person? Please declare him/her "unrelated" unequivocally as well. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your cogent analysis at WP:WQA... you did such a good job I'm not sure that I could have usefully added anything, or more importantly, that I needed to. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

thx for jump in dot

I appreciate your assistance. Any other suggestions on what to do (other than figure out how to better have posted the request)? SpikeJones (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz put in a rangeblock, so hopefully that will limit the problem for awhile; keep an eye out, and let him know (or, if necessary, file a new request) if more action is needed. Nathan ^T 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory council and half-year report

John Vandenberg has already answered your query at the discussion page of the half-year report, but I wanted to follow up with a longer explanation. I started preparing that report in the last few weeks of June, and spent a fair amount of time completing it while things were happening in July (including the advisory council announcement and RfC). The half-year report was only ever meant to go up to the end of June. I know many people want to discuss the ACPD. I myself have commented in some of the discussions about it, though fairly late on, as I was occupied with preparing that report. But it would be great if people did have questions about what we've done in the first six months of this year, not just the last month! I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you or others have about the report or what we did in those six months. I'm also happy to talk about arbitration activities in the last month, but that is better discussed elsewhere. I'll post this back at the other thread as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I posted a comment and some questions on the page. Nathan ^T 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

Heyo, thanks for the comment, I posted a reply. Mostly I'm just wondering if something more permanent can be done, I ran into TZX rolling back vandalism recently and wound up finding his puppetmaster. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A Very Potter Musical Keep Vote?

Hi, this is lunamorgan, I'm not sure why my Keep vote was removed. I didn't vote more than one time, as one implied, I just edited my grammar for a few errors because I'm OCD like that. I'm not a sock puppet and I have not voted multiple times, I just followed the suggestions that I explain my reasoning by quoting other Wikipedia pages regarding notability. Apparently, according to some users, 2-3 people on the internet with the same opinion is sock puppeting. The two edits to the page that agree, mine and the one above me, were made hours apart. If I wanted to sock puppet, wouldn't I want to make it look like some internet phenomenon with tons of people strongly on the side of keep, rather than... 2? I'm incredibly confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamorgan (talk • contribs) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Drawing your attention

You have multiple replies at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Excuseme99.—Kww(talk) 11:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)