User talk:Thatcher/Archive18

When you block an established contributor...

...such as Giano, you're supposed to put the block up for review on ANI. Come on, Thatcher, you know this. Bishonen | talk 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't think an ANI review would be helpful. Giano also seems to be taking the block quite calmly. I have made some points about the handling of this, and those points, which include some direct questions to Thatcher, can be read here. I accept that as the clerk trying to keep control on those page, Thatcher has more latitude in his actions, but I do wish he had acknowledged that others were also trying to handle this. What I am going to do now is continue in the same vein of calming the situation, and post to Giano's talk page again. Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posting from the arbcom proposed decision talk page) Sorry, Thatcher, I've just seen what the timeline was here - I had it all wrong. Giano edited again, and crucially it was after I'd asked him to calm down, and Thatcher blocked him for that. I can't defend Giano's actions there, but my offer on Giano's talk page still stands, and most probably will stand regardless of what happens in future. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a fourth edit, after he db'd the page and then said he was done. Thatcher 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, with the exception of reports at WP:AE of violations of existing Arbitration sanctions, I would normally not block an established editor without an ANI review before the block. Here I think the situation is a bit different; Giano intended his actions to be disruptive, and several editors had explained the American context of the term "wimpy" as referring to the remedy, not the editor. If I had been on line when he db'd the page I would have blocked him then, however by the time I was around the {db} edit was stale and he had said on his talk page that he was done for the day. Thatcher 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's being disruptive, it is Bauder. No matter what context of "wimpy" he is using, it is hardly the tone/language you would expect from an arbitrator. Also calling Giano a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple" are borderline personal attack. ArbCom is free to penalize the editors but such language in proposed decision is never appropriate no matter who the target is. If other arbitrators don't take the initiave to remove such blatant personal attack, then the arbCom's credibility will be tarnished.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Opp2 and the IP vandal

At this point, Fut. Perf. might not impose anything to Opp2 unless the IP vandal is really proven as Opp2.[1] Opp2, Fut.Perf. and I need a clarification on the matter. Can you confirm whether the vandal with plara ISP is Opp2 or not? And here is the relevant thread at his talk page.User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

And would you please look at the new table box which I added into KoreanShoriSenyou thread? The two violet boxes are closest time ranges from their contribution history. one has 4 minutes gap and the other is 30 minutes. I feel sorry I've been asking your help many times. --Appletrees (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees rewrites the comment on Jjok. Please return it. [2]　--Orchis29 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher for the detailed comments. I hadn't actually expected this much. I'll keep my eyes open and the banhammer ready, with this info in mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict sanctions

Greetings. As you may know, I've been putting info on sanction actions in the new WikiProject on the I-P conflict. Besides letting people know, I'm hopeful that knowledge of the enforcement will help promote better conduct. I'd also use it as a yardstick to measure the progress with the level of conflict within the topic area. Here's my question: I see that some requests for enforcement will get turned down (example). I'd like to track these requests, which also measure the level of conflict; however, I'm reminded of your concerns (re:COI) about disseminating accusations. Do you think it would be inappropriate for us to track enforcement requests? If inappropriate for us, would you be willing to keep a log (list of diffs) of how many requests for discretionary sanctions have been turned down? Thanks for you time and consideration. Regards, HG | Talk 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Thatcher, hi, could you please set a watch on Bohemond VI of Antioch? I am asking this not because I want to get someone in trouble, but because I'd like to ensure that everything's aboveboard. Eupator and I are disagreeing on the text of the article, so I am encouraging him to participate in a Wikipedia:Consensus cycle, where I make a tweak, he makes a tweak, and so forth. He is concerned that if he engages in too many edits, he is going to get in trouble with his ArbCom sanctions. A reasonable concern, since I have already cautioned him about behavior at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. However, at the Bohemond article, I'm honestly not trying to lay a trap for him, I'd just like to see if we can put our heads together, in good faith, and see if we can come up with consensus wording that we're both happy with. So, could you please watch how things are going, and let us know if you think there are any brewing problems? If so, we can both back off, but I was thinking that this infrequently-visited article might give us an opportunity to figure out how to move forward in other locations. Thanks, Elonka 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to suspend his 1RR limit with respect to that article, if the two of you want to try a different editing strategy. Thatcher 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Shall I just diff your comment to him, or would you like to post a note at talk? --Elonka 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC chanop system

You write "I've exchanged emails with Bishonen, and it is apparent that the dispute resolution process for IRC that exists in theory did not function in her case" [3]

While that might well be her opinion, in fact the chanop did relay her concerns to me after kickbanning me from the channel to get my attention. She may not think that was adequate, but that's another matter. To be absolutely and straightforwardly candid, at the time I regarded the incident as nothing more than an attack on me by Bishonen, raking up an ancient grievance, and until the chanop told me of her complaint and I went and looked at my angry response I did not appreciate that my words could be taken as compounding the original offence. To clarify, I was apprised in no uncertain terms of a problem with my on-channel conduct. --Tony Sidaway 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this and similar situations is ultimately why a public noticeboard would be a good idea. Bishonen expressed a certain dissatisfaction with Mark's handling of the situation, and for whatever reason, he did restore your access 30 minutes later, which was definitely perceived as insufficient. If there had been a public discussion and an attempt to gain consensus on an appropriate remedy, there would be fewer conflicts between the parties' private recollections and opinions. Thatcher 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the incident (of which I'm ashamed) has become somewhat magnified in public perception over the course of the case, which is sad because I think both Bishonen and I would probably like to put it behind us and make sure we never have a repetition. A public noticeboard would not be much use in view of the private nature of the channel. --Tony Sidaway 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the private nature of the channel that brings about much of the perceived problems, and the comments that have led to the most criticism are things that probably shouldn't have been said at all and don't require privacy (certainly not in the same way that discussion of BLP issues requires privacy). If there was a noticeboard, Bishonen could post her complaint, the incident could be discussed (including whether provocation could be considered a mitigating factor) a ban length decided and the incident closed. There are drawbacks I'm sure, which is yet another reason to be grateful I didn't run for Arbcom. Thatcher 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The admins channel has served for a long while, as a place for informal discussion of Wikipedia matters, and has been most useful for that purpose. In retrospect perhaps it's surprising that it has survived so long, almost unique in Wikipedia institutions, with its privacy largely intact. I strongly agree with Jimmy's comment that the channel is "a good channel that some people have been saying bad things about."[4] But perhaps that useful channel can no longer survive. There were several distinct private channels prior to the present one (the arbitration committee knows about them, I'm sure, as serving arbitrators were often members) and perhaps IRC will splinter again. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just evolution. --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here again [5] I think you've received a distorted account of the incident. Mark removed me from the channel, discussed the matter with me, and then restored me to the channel on receiving assurances, to which I kept. There is no question of people restoring their friends to the channel--that's complete nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen feels that Mark folded under pressure and that he stated as much to her. You feel the process succeeded because you promised to be good; Bishonen feels the process failed because you were allowed in too early or at all. Other than handling disputes on-wiki in a more transparent fashion, or decertifying the channel entirely and going underground, I don't see how these kinds of differences can be reconciled or prevented in the future. On-wiki does not have to mean publishing logs, of course; the outline of the incident could be publicly reported with logs being available by email to the chanops doing the investigation. Thatcher 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I applied no pressure. If Bishonen thinks I did, she's wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, she said that others applied pressure on your behalf. I think Geogre said the same thing on the talk page. Thatcher 12:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely plain, I asked nobody to intercede on my behalf. Nor did I discuss the matter while I was kickbanned. For most of the time I was away from the keyboard and unaware of what had happened. When I noticed Mark's message I replied, we discussed it and my access was restored. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bishonen didn't suggest that, either. Thatcher 21:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it appears that her complaint reduces to a belief that others on the channel may have asked for my access to be restored. How could this be avoided in future, except by requiring that all on channel refrain from using it for communication? --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggested one way, by a public noticeboard for complaints. Suppose Bishonen complained publicly; Mark or some other chanop bans you; some other channel denizens protest; other chanops weigh in; Bishonen comments; consensus develops on what to do. Or, Mark bans you, then unbans you in response to on-channel pressure. Bishonen can then complain, other chanops can review, and either support Mark or tell him he was wrong. There's no guarantee Bishonen or anyone else would have been satisifed, but it would have been transparent, and depending on the circumstances could have attracted attention from the "senior" chanops like Mackensen. Thatcher 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What does anyone have to fear from examination? I mean honestly, this is insane! If it's all light and roses and pleasantries, then no one is harmed by a public, Wikipedia-based place for addressing concerns. If it's not, then all of this back pedalling and diminishment and insult is really, really damning. For the love of all that's right, think. Generally low key editors are very upset. That's evidence. If we're all just flying off the handle, then a public noticeboard would show that! This would be the perfect venue for vindication, if calling someone an asshole is just good, clean fun. It would be a place for a pat on the back, if Tony's the victim of ancient grudges (and... grudges over what? I still haven't figured out what the Hell is supposed to be the basis of this presumed grudge Bishonen has). All of this, "Nothing happened, don't shine a light, all is well, and you can't do anything anyway because James Forester owns it" talk is repugnant and the best damn argument for a noticeboard I've ever seen. Geogre (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, Bishonen's decision to raise an ancient accusation (which turns out to relate to a statement made by me over a year previously) is prima facie evidence of a very longstanding grudge. That doesn't excuse my overreaction to the attack, however. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Have you already forgotten this post of yours, Tony? Try drawing some conclusions from your own words. Please. And by that I mean, please don't talk so much and in such insidious flight from the plainness of facts. No, my "complaint" doesn't "reduce" to some "belief" that people "may have" done such-and-such. I did not tell Thatcher about my beliefs. Such is not my habit. I told him nothing but what I know. Know from first-hand information, including logs that I'm looking at right now. For you to suggest that Thatcher "received a distorted account" is an extremely transparent way of saying *I* gave him a distorted account; because, as you are well aware, *I*'m where he received his account from. I don't deal in distortion. What right do you have to imply so deviously that I do? Bishonen | talk 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

  Thatcher falsely claimed that "it is apparent that the dispute resolution process for IRC that exists in theory did not function in her case". I corrected him on this, which is a matter of fact. Mark did clearly communicate your concerns to me.

  Thatcher also said "if I kicked someone for good reason and they were back in half an hour, I would bloody well demand answers" [6] which I correctly stated strongly suggests that he did not realise that Mark himself had restored my access after he discussed the matter with me. I have not erred in stating that Thatcher had "received a distorted account of the incident". He obviously did not understand what had happened. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen stated to me that Mark said to her that if he didn't add you back to the channel someone else probably would. That is what I was referring to when I said I would "demand answers." Thatcher 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It pains me to see two editors whom I admire and respect so at odds with each other. You both want your side of the story told and as far as I can tell, both stories are relatively compatible. I think, and I hope you see, that this dispute arises from the respect you had or still have for each other. I have no doubt Bishonen has been called a bitch and worse by any number of editors she has banned in the past and it made no lasting impression at all; the problem is being called names by someone you have respect for and with whom you have worked for a long time. That makes it hard to let go, which in turn makes Tony defensive about something he wishes he could leave behind him. That's my impression of Dr. Phil. anyway.

At this point I see very little downside to having a public dispute resolution process for IRC, at least the "unoffically official" #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Maybe a noticeboard on Wikipedia ruins the unofficialness of it all. How about a Wikia mailing list then? I can think of no list less official than investigations-L, so why not irc-L? It could be moderated, so logs wouldn't get directly posted to the public list, but it would be public and have a public archive. If some people want to argue that Bishonen goaded Tony as a mitigating factor, let them say it publicly. (And a timely public apology would have meant much more than a private apology days or weeks later.) Tony and Bishonen make their case, friends on both sides have a chance to chime in, a couple of chanops think about an appropriate response that takes into account past conduct, apologies (if any) and other mitigating factors, and announce a decision. It's not perfect, and it runs the risk of being hijacked by the loudest voice, as do all forums, but it would be transparent. Thatcher 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A mailing list is a bad idea. The goal here is something Wikipedia. While the mailing list could bear a Wikipedia name, it puts us right back here, with an unofficial official and a sort-of Wikipedia. A noticeboard is the only real venue. Concerns over privacy are chimera. To post something "bad" and private, one already has to be on the channel. If you're on the channel, then you're an admin and presumably trustworthy (including enough judgment to not betray BLP issues). If you're discussing sensitive material on en.admins instead of using the BLP or Office resources, you're wasting time and making public something you should be careful with. That channel is already inappropriate for discussing matters like that because it has people who are not administrators on it. Finally, none of the legitimately private matters would ever come up. Let's face it: no one has ever started an ArbCom case because, "X investigated a BLP issue and got advice." Nothing like that has ever come anywhere near the margins of a tangent of the complaints that regularly occur. So, a week delay built in for a mailing list, lack of Wikipedia control (again), and no compelling reason for that as opposed to a noticeboard: no. Geogre (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggested both the noticeboard and mailing list to some arbitrators last night. Once concern was that either method could be misused to gang up on people and overreact to minor things that are best dealt with by simple forgive and forget. It was also suggested that the channel is much better than before since the majority of incidents that continue to be raised are from 18 months ago. I see elements of truth in all the arguments so far. Of course, if the channel really is by and large a better place, then the noticeboard would be quite a boring place, right? Thatcher 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's what they told you, they lied. Our current episode dates from December, 2007, which is 1 month ago. No, this is not from 18 months ago. It is specific misbehavior from a non-administrator on the en.admins channel (and no one seems to care that such is the case, that it's for not-all-admins and is for some non-admins? how can it be the place of trust and comfort for secrets if that's the case?). If they told you that, they lied. I will use the very concrete term here. The "ganging up" is an absurd claim and betrays the same mistrust of Wikipedia that I saw in AzaToth's wp:mfd comment. That dirty, nasty "mob" is Wikipedia, and there is no danger of "ganging up" on someone who is in the right. If we're talking about civility issues (and I wish we wouldn't), the "gang" is the only possible arbiter. "Community" determines "community standards," and no one can decide it for the rest. Whoever worried about the "ganging up" honestly does not belong at Wikipedia. That is my actual opinion. We all get uncomfortable with the mob, but that's the choice we make by being here. Anyone who is so afraid of light and honest examination is a person who doesn't belong here, and I defy anyone to defend such abhorrent opinions in the open. Geogre (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the current situation is recent. Other than that, have there been any significant disputes since the Fall of 2006? I don't recall any, but I may have missed something. Thatcher 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I need a hand

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has started edit warring over the Template:Homeopathy/Warning. [7]. I have notified them of the article probation. I think they need to receive a short topic ban, and I would like that template restored to what the community approved, and protected. How do we accomplish this? I am not keen to lose my bit over this conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman (talk · contribs) seems to think that he is somehow not involved in the "edit war", though it looks to me like he is. By the way, I really like User:Arthur Rubin's edit. I'm willing to let that be the compromise, for example. I just don't see any consensus for the community to tag articles as "homeopathy-related" even if it is "broadly construed". The disruption is what is important. Cheerio! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to be reset to what the remedy says, and then protected. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation issue

Hi. Since you have previously been involved with Scn article probation issues, I hope that you will not object to me asking you to take a look at another. Please take a look at Project Chanology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cirt (talk · contribs) floated an offensive idea with absolutely no sourcing. I removed it as a clear misuse of the talk page. I tried to get him to leave it out and finally it stayed out. Cirt followed with a passive-aggressive rant but that is nothing I need any help with. Now, because of Cirt's leading the charge and his behavior we have another climbing on the inappropriate bandwagon. I did a little wp:pointy thing to illustrate the inherent bigotry in what they are doing. Would you please address this issue? My desired outcome is simply that the entire thread after the first two posts be removed and parties cautioned to just not. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Would also appreciate it, Thatcher, if you could go ahead and delete this page, User:JustaHulk/Cirt vs Justanother mudfight, it's useless and the title alone chosen for the page is inflammatory. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

**I have no problem with that, just please look at the Chanology thread first to see why that page exists. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher

I know you are busy with other things and/or may just not be interested. If that is the case and you do not want to look at this then please let me know that. Or if you think I am full of crap on this then please let me know that. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. Lawrence § t/e 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I added a comment after you closed the discussion feel free to remove it. Not sure why it didn't edit conflict since I had the page in edit mode for some time (slow typer). Sorry--Hu12 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it.--Hu12 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you mediate?

The controversy of this photograph continues. [8]

A Chinese user insists.
"This label is a Chinese proverb. Therefore, this is not a Korean pear."
A Korean user insists.
"This label is a Chinese proverb. But, This is a Korean pear."
Because he is emotional, could you lead calmly? --Limited200802th (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter is peacefully being discussed at Talk:Pyrus_pyrifolia and this new user is too obvious KoreanShoriSenyou who officially comes back to Wikipedia past one and half month after our encounter at Japan article. If you visit to his page, this newbie followed every steps of my recent contributions. Thatcher, I added their behavioral patterns. I think it would take 2 minutes to look through it especially bold texts. I'm convinced that they are all same sock of Kamosuke (talk · contribs · block log), banned user long ago. I wish this puppet show ends soon. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dana4 Checkuser

Hi Thatcher, would you mind weighing in at this discussion in regards to a Checkuser you ran ? If this user is unrelated to User:Danaullman it would calm things in regards to that corner of the homeopathy mess. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MilesAgain blocked?

Hello, I saw that you blocked MilesAgain for being a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026. Given that MilesAgain has generally seemed to be a good editor who generally acted well, I am curious as to the details of this. Given the time frame between the two accounts' first and last edits, I cannot really form an accurate opinion based upon content edited alone, and the talk style seems pretty generic from both. As such, I am curious as to the details of this block and the prompting and subsequent investigation that led up to it. I have already done a cursory search of the current AN/I, AN, and RFCU and couldn't find anything. Thank you. LinaMishima (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the other checkusers picked it up and asked me to double-check. The technical evidence is clear that this person has been using multiple accounts and that the accounts are connected with Nrcprm2026. MilesAgain can email the arbitration committee if he wants in independent recheck, but to me the evidence is clear. Thatcher 16:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had suspected it, but never filed a checkuser request. MilesAgain had acknowledged being a sock. It was obvious from contributions, a newly registered user dives right into fairly complex Wikipedia process, not long after a set of Nrcprm2026 socks have been cleared out, and with some similar interests, such as Instant-runoff voting and Approval voting. With the latter article, he was actually fairly helpful, and with the former, just below the edge of being irritating enough for me to ask for checkuser or other process. He caused quite a bit of disruption and wasted time, stirring up old issues where diverse editors had found a working consensus. I had somewhat concluded, though, that he wasn't Nrcprm2026, because his behavior was more sophisticated. He began participating positively in many forums. So ... Nrcprm2026 is learning new tricks. Next time ... he may be even more difficult to root out. I could suggest ways ... but he will read this. One Nrcprm2026 trick he repeated: reverting the checkuser notice on his user page as vandalism. I was about to ask the same question as LinaMishima, but she beat me to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I placed the notice I forgot to actually block the account. Oh well. It's done now. Thatcher 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood restriction

I see you reinstated the probation at Pallywood, and the edit summary from your change at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles states "may not be lifted except by another uninvolved admin or the admin who placed it". I don't see the issue, so would you care to elaborate as to why the removal of the restriction was invalid? -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration case uses a rather broad definition of "uninvolved." I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles. I also thought you might have lifted the protection due to the argument over how it was sought and applied, since you cited the ANI thread, and the thread says nothing about the revert limit being inappropriate (indeed, it is endorsed), only that ChrisO acted improperly in seeking it. If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation. Thatcher 04:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, like any other admin action, it is poor form to reverse another admin's action without at least discussing it. Did you discuss lifting the limitation with Kylu? Thatcher 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also thought you might have lifted the protection due to the argument over how it was sought and applied, since you cited the ANI thread, and the thread says nothing about the revert limit being inappropriate (indeed, it is endorsed)

I don't see where you read that. FeloniousMonk said "It's obvious the 1RR restriction should be removed" and Jpgordon said "for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward", albeit both after rather scathing comments about ChrisO's course of action.

As for involvement in the dispute... I don't know how to best address this without revealing how livid I am about it (oh wait, I just did). I would understand you calling me involved if I had been actively editing the Pallywood article or recently been editing the Pallywood article, but that's not the case. I might have understood if I was applying (or un-applying) a sanction against an editor with whom I had a dispute. But that's not the case either. Instead, I am being considered "involved" because I worked on the Israel article (months ago, back to October) and the Jerusalem article (even longer ago, back to May). And that's, of course, ignoring the fact that I was not there to participate in endless, pointless edit wars about politics (and those did not happen), but instead to bring them up to featured status (which did happen). That distinction is what makes me furious about being considered "involved"; my constructive involvement in two other articles on the subject months ago is somehow giving me a conflict of interest on dozens -- and perhaps hundreds -- of articles and topics I couldn't care less about. Indeed, I don't see the problem here; in fact, some see my knowledge of the Israel-Palestine area a strength rather than a weakness when approaching these disputes (via mediation and otherwise). That's why there was a lengthy discussion about the concept of "Uninvolved administers" during the RfArb -- because the definition of "uninvolved" as laid out in the RfArb is problematic.

Your issue with me not talking to Kylu about the block is the only point with which I can agree, although I get the impression that that was an afterthought rather than the reason for reinstating the probation. Since my removal (when I also notified Kylu about the ANI thread), Kylu has commented and has expressed no clear objection (or support) to the removal of the probation. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I think tariqabjotu has a point here. I don't see him as involved at all, and if you spend a little time reading the relevant archives of Talk:Israel, I think you'd agree. I am frankly a little disturbed by your assumption that he's involved. Relata refero (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Replying from ANI) This is still an issue because I can't tell whether you're convinced that I can remove the restriction. I don't want to end up warring back and forth over the sanction, but if you're satisfied and saying If you think it should be removed, remove it, I'll go ahead and remove it. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said above and I meant it. I'm not generally passive-aggressive; "well, remove it if you think so" means remove it if you think so, not "I'm baiting you to see what you will do" or some such nonsense. And I meant my apology about assuming you were involved. I see that you added evidence to the case, and that you have occasionally edited related articles, but if you say you are not involved then I believe you. Thatcher 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Orangepith

Hi, I just wanted to say that I concur with your block there, and with the condition you set for unblock. I would be happy to supervise this, should the condition be satisfied. Anyway, good work, --John (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments#User:BQZip01.2FComments

If you remember, you weighed in on the use of user pages to draft a future RFC, and whether such use might count as an attack page if not promptly converted from a personal on-wiki collection of evidence about a person into an actual RFC or ArbCom case. The above is an ongoing discussion of one such user page; part of the question is what counts as a "reasonable" period of time to bring the RFC or delete the draft. (Opinions differ from "a few days" to "several months.") The discussion seems to be floundering a bit on what this policy means, so, if you're interested, I thought you might have input to add. (If not, sorry to bug you.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

84.45.219.185

Thanks for blocking the IP as a proxy. As it is, I've already pointed it out to the organization and am resolving it with them without having to go via abuse reporting on Wikipedia. Ta, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC case

This section of the discussion on the IRC arbitration appears to me to have got out of hand, particularly the sniping between ChrisO and Jayjg. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding proposed decision talk

Fozzie and I replied here. Just an FYI, if I'm right, this will probably involve following lots and lots of IPs since he seems to hop IPs so easily... sorry for a rough one. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied. You should probably ask Alison or FT2 for any followup. The problem of course is that when a user uses a lot of IPs, unless you find an overlap, the best you can often say is inconclusive. Thatcher 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol case

See [9]. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block them if they're evading socks

• Although KoreanShoriSenyou, Azukimonaka, Orchis29 have been infinitely banned by admin Rleves, still too many ODN and OCN anonymous users are emerging from ground. If this anons are either of the aformentioned users, please block them.

• Special:Contributions/219.66.44.247
• Special:Contributions/61.209.163.247 - The anon who requested to Amazonfire to include several editor who objected to anon's reviosion as my "SOCK" used several ninja-like tactics (writing in Japanese, after my warning, he disguised the message with the strike. [10][11][12]

Translation of the Japanese comment: Amazon, you can speak Japanese per your understanding of Japanese. When I edited the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article, User:Sceener reverted it. One minute after that, I got a warning from the editor(Appletrees), Maybe the former is Appletrees' sock. Ecthelion83 has been silent, but other accounts are active and carefully doing here. This would be my last message because of the unsuccessful gaming. I'm ending this game. --61.209.163.247 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

--Appletrees (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those were both Azukimonaka. Unfortunately, OCN and ODN users seem to change IPs very rapidly, so even after just a few hours they will have a new IP and blocking the old one will not stop them. Thatcher 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to choose their IP address and I don't know how they manage that. But on many cases, abusive ip addresses are blocked. Isn't this case fitting for blocking the ip range?

As for Cellea, are you confirming that the blocked user is not related to Watermint after seeing these new user creation and block log and the others? Are these matched pages and personal info and interest and the log dates really coincidence? The contents and images are all the same. I honestly say you seem to avoid mentioning their possible sockpuppetry.

• Celldea's block log
• Watermint's new account creation log
• Watermint's user page
• Celldea's user page
• Redpepper's user page[13]

I'm really sorry to make you feel annoyed by my RFCU files on the Japanese users. I understand that you have to be objective and not to side any party in any dispute. But my file is the result of my observation for several months from the mentioned articles. I had not figured out how to report RFCU or SSP until about one month ago. With all due respect, I don't think your latest comment on this file as the files becoming an abuse is really not appropriate. I haven't narrowed down and made very lengthy files because I think some of them are long time editors with several accounts. I don't understand why I deserve to be blamed for the opinion because I filed a series of the files in just one month? If you think my reasoning, and evidences look absurd and abusive, you could've rejected them, but you didn't.

I'm a poor English writer, so that's why I've been mainly uploading images or inserting captions to them on articles. I have edited the highly disputed articles, like Liancourt Rocks less than 5 times and that is also related to images. Unless real puppet master is discovered and caught up, I might report another file again.

As long as verifiable sources and plausible rationales are presented on articles, I don't object to include any unpleasant contents against Korea. I usually just put {{fact}} tag to contents added by editors with whom I don't share same point of view. However, all I've faced are just blanking or adding inflammatory contents without any proof by the mentioned editors. Do you think that they have strategy that I don't have? I'm little hurt by your comment, but the listed editors might think so because of my RFCU files if they're really innocent. As for your suggestion on Request for arbitration, I might not choose it because I don't know how to process it and doubt arbitration committee would make another case on the rock. And I have so many frustrating experiences from ANI, my poor English and lengthy writing style, none cared about my plead at all. But checkusers heard my voice. --Appletrees (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Thatcher, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi Conflict of Interest. Evidence

Hm, and www.prem-rawat-critique.org is obviously a neutral, non-biased site that meets reliable source guidelines? All I see here is a group of anti-Prem editors accusing a pro-Prem editor of "whitewashing" or whatever. Well guess what will happen if we decide to ban all editors with a demonstrated conflict of interest from the article. Evidence speaks louder than agitated hand wringing and finger pointing. Go get some actual evidence. Thatcher 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher are you being deliberately obtuse – the material a quoted clearly is not a quotable source for an article which is not the point – what was quoted is: a) http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/falsity.htm a reasoned analysis of the ‘academic’ material currently quoted in the Wikipedia articles related to Rawat. i.e. what is wrong with the current article e.g.

Some 11 separate quotes are taken from this one work by Downton as references for Wikipedia articles about Prem Rawat.

"Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable." [13]

These assertions are entirely without evidence, and the proposition that Rawat had any sense of direction is refuted by Finch[14] and questioned by Price [15] while the role of Bob Mishler [16] and the influential Mahatmas is ignored by Downton.

and

Downton’s assertion regarding ‘deconditioning’ is unsupported and while Rawat certainly used a rhetorical formula regarding beliefs and concepts, Rawat was a primary agent in the introduction of ‘replacement’ beliefs, and Downton seems to have confused rhetoric with process. A view of the environment for belief generation in the early US Divine Light Mission is given by Foss and Larkin[18]

b) http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm A list of sources which are unreasonably, even perversely excluded from or used in wholly partial terms in the Rawat articles. Every source is quoted and referenced !

How is any of that not evidence that:

i) The Rawat articles are profoundly and unnecessarily unbalanced ii) This imbalanced occurred while Jossi was engaged in editing and later and more significantly, energetically acting as an admin on those articles.

Maybe Jossi is just stupid and didn’t understand what was going on, but all of this occurred at a time when he was/is being paid to promote Rawat. Why would any reasonable person not conclude that, for instance quoting Geaves, [[14]] who like Jossi is a devotee of Rawat, but not quoting Foss and Larkin http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm whose work Geaves disputes is not evidence of partiality.

The point about the Register article surely, is that many non Wikipedians are now looking at these discussions and wondering just what the hell is going on. My prediction is that there will be closing of ranks and nothing will change, just the same old embarassingly self congratulatory hyperbole. But unless Wikipedia not only cleans itself up – and is seen to clean itself up – it will be most visited joke site on the Internet, the place people access not to be informed but to look for literally, the most unbelievable trivia.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that prem-rawat-critique analyzes the wikipedia article, it might be useful as a guide for editors looking to improve the article, but it is certainly not a reliable source for use in the article itself. However, no surprises that an anti-Prem web site thinks the article is not negative enough. The next step is for someone to try and fix the articles on wikipedia, consistent with policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, undue weight, and so forth. Thatcher 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat please re-open

Why the closure? Can you please re-open? I think that Jossi's has actively discouraged and sabotaged dispute reolution by failure to assume my good faith quite recently. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2

It is very easy to give diffs of disrputive edits by Jossi. Check the early history of Criticism of Prem Rawat.

I will admit that the article in the register is exaggerated. Andries (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• By early history do you mean 2004-2005? No action is going to be taken on the basis of contributions that old. I made a quite thorough statement when I closed the complaint. The COI noticeboard doesn't override or replace the normal dispute resolution mechanism anyway; it is useful for blocking obvious sockpuppets or deciding to warn people, but the response to disruptive COI editing is the same as for any other disruptive editing; mediation, or article RFC, then user-conduct RFC and finally, arbitration. Thatcher 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • True, I also think that it would be unfair to criticize Jossi (and me) for edits made years ago, but Jossi has quite recently and repeatedly failed to assume my good faith and was successfull in stopping my good faith mediation attempt with user:Momento. Andries (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If true, that was 5 months ago. Did you file an RFC at that time? Please read my additional closing message. The COI noticeboard does not have the power to issue blocks or bans, regardless of the findings. It exists to bring conflicts out in the open, to issue warnings, and to recruit admins to fix problems. You need to purse the normal DR channels. Thatcher 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • At a certain time, I stopped filing RFCs, because I did not receive replies. Then I resorted to mediation which Jossi stopped by highlighting statements by me that can be interpreted as a bad faith attempt at dispute resolution. Andries (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So do you suggest me to pursue to abritration? This article has has dozens of RFCs and three aborted attempts at mediation. I think Jossi partially guilty of the failed mediation attempts. Andries (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is one possible next step. I would probably move to a user conduct RFC, though. You need evidence of recent disruptive editing, and that at least one other person besides you has tried to intervene with jossi on this matter. Thatcher 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision to prematurely close the discussion make the register article seem all the more accurate. So much for attempting to avoid the apperance of a COI, eh?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.137.33 (talk • contribs)

• Um, What? The COI noticeboard does not hand out blocks or bans except for disruptive behavior. It brings issues to the community's attention, and this certainly qualifies. If you want Jossi banned from Prem articles (for example) you need to go through the normal dispute resolution process. COIN is not a shortcut. Thatcher 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

CU on Calton harrassment IPs etc

I assume you saw this, but in case you didn't... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Time out - Mary Spicuzza is legitimately a news magazine reporter in San Francisco, please be precise about who is tied to what with CU results, and if Spicuzza is involved please let Cary and Jay at the Foundation know. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. She is  Unrelated to the sockpuppetry. Thatcher 05:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fadix

Can you please review the expiration date of the ban based on confirmed evidence [15] and self admission [16]. Similar extensions have been applied in prior instances: [17] and [18]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing of COIN discussion

Hi. I disagree with your decision to close the discussion at the COIN noticeboard.

Jossi has offered to abide by the community's views on this, so there is a point beyond formal sanction. Further, I said repeatedly that there were issues beyond the question of individual bad edits, and still believe that. Yes, the COIN noticeboard is generally used for bad edits. However, if discussion has to happen somewhere, there seems to be little harm for it to continue on the COIN noticeboard.

For now, I'll take this, as you suggested, to the WT:COI page. But I'm frustrated that you've yanked the rug out from under me because you don't agree with my views, and mischaracterizing them with something starting with "OMG" is not helping. Consensus happens when people agree, not when people are told to stop discussion. Thanks for listening, William Pietri (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I did not look at the views in depth; I saw the length the discussion, the fact that the majority of diffs were old and posted by a SPA, and that the discussion was veering off into general policy issues. If my recommendation has any weight, it would be to hold a user conduct RFC limited to vested editors (say, more than 100 edits) and limited to edits within the last 6 months. That should focus the issue on whether Jossi has a current, ongoing problem wearing his wikipedia hat and his Prem hat at the same time, while avoiding bad blood over old issues and trolling by SPAs and Register readers. (I mean, Andries above complains about 3 year old edits; some reasonable time limit is needed here.) Of course, Jossi can ask for feedback in any forum he wants and if he feels the COI report was useful I would have no objections to him reopening it. And yes, I do think that the broader issue should be explored, but not there. There have been many disputes between editors who are involved in off-wiki advocacy. It is the general rule that off-wiki advocates for causes can edit without restriction as long as they follow Wikipedia's rules while editing. If the community wants to change that it can, but not on the COI noticeboard. Thatcher 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you didn't look at the views in depth, then you can see why I'd be upset that you closed the discussion by saying you saw "no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage." Without looking, it's impossible to see much of anything, and forbidding further discussion won't help that. I agree that some people on both sides of the discussion were contributing more heat than light, but summarily closing all discussions like that, especially without reading them, is not a recipe for coming to consensus or building community. I agree again that the COIN noticeboard is not the perfect place, but given that we were trying to discuss a particular conflict of interest, I believe it's pretty close. Even if some other spot were optimal, it would have been better to ask people to move there or move the discussion entirely, rather than unilaterally issuing a judgment on the issues and stopping conversation. Regardless it's done now, so , I'll let this rest a bit and then take it up elsewhere. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Opp2's another ssp case

Hi, Would you give your comment why you thought that "Since Opp2 admits using Plala I can confirm that he seems to use Plala at home and another IP at work"[19] to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (3rd)? I think it is your misunderstanding. Thank you.--Jjok (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I take down my request. In Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (3rd), Opp2 is supposed to be also using OCN while I think Opp2 is only using plala and different from (220.109.159.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) = [ i220-109-159-35.s06.a013.ap.plala.or.jp ] came from Tokyo using B-flets (optical fiber) basic plan (s06.a013) who left the most disruptive comments.--Jjok (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "IRspeechlessness," etc.

Now that the case has been concluded, I can tell you that I found that opinion^[20] to have been a breach of decorum on your part, again.^[21] El_C 10:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He was playing favorites not 10 days ago. This is of no surprise to me. His actions throughout this case have been irresponsible. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Strengthening editing expectations for Isr-Pal articles

Thatcher, greetings. Writing to ask you whether the ArbCom ruling (or another route) might allow us to set a higher hurdle for the conduct of experiences editors at high tension Israeli-Palestinian articles. For example, might there be a way to put folks on notice that (sample idea:) Bold-Revert-Discuss doesn't apply to a selected article or section -- instead, editors are expected to raise concerns or propose changes first in Talk? Or sample idea: if a new edit has been reverted, nobody should knowingly restore it without adequate Talk discussion?

From what I can tell, the ArbCom ruling seems geared more to sanctions on users. Still, I think it would be helpful if we could somehow focus on key articles, maybe by giving a warning that is tailored to that article. Maybe this could be tried on an experimental basis? I look forward to your counsel and any other suggestions you might have. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Do you have a chance to comment on this? thanks. HG | Talk 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RDOlivaw and Unprovoked

User:LaraLove has blocked User:RDOlivaw and User:Unprovoked for alleged sockpuppetry, with reference to yourself. This is puzzling and I'd appreciate an explanation of these blocks. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara asked me to check her suspicions of sock puppets and disruptive behavior on homeopathy-related articles and I found technical evidence that RDOlivaw and Unprovoked were sockpuppets of DrEightyEight‎ (talk · contribs) (or vice versa). Thatcher 17:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked too and agree with this finding as it relates to RDOlivaw and DrEightyEight. I did not finish looking at the other socks but have no reason to disagree with Thatcher's findings. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Without divulging any secrets as to how CU works, could you explain "technical evidence"? See my last at [22]. I may be an IT specialist for a major gov't agency), but I'm not an expert on Wi-Fi (that's the purview of telecomm). If Dave and I are asking, it must be because something just "feels" wrong. On the other hand, we could be wrong too, but it's worth looking into. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, if you're an IT specialist, why not try sorting their merged contrib logs? —Whig (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Which would prove? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My interest in this was raised because my interactions with RDOlivaw found him constructive and helpful. Have diffs of alleged disruption been made public? If my impression of the technicalities is correct, LaraLove seems to have indefblocked one or two university networds, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". At the least the IP blocks should be reviewed as a matter of urgency. .. dave souza, talk 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of urgency, I killed the autoblock. Laters. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs attention. Too many unanswered questions.. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to share the technical details; there is nothing particularly mysterious, but I want to avoid educating the user on how to better avoid detection next time. The issue of whether to block 2 accounts and give the third one a second chance, or block all three, is a matter for administrators' discretion, and you can Lara to review her decision, or the user(s) can contact Arbcom for a review. Thatcher 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but in the absence of any clarification of the alleged wrongdoing, there does still seem to be a possibility of coincidence. Of course I don't have your technical knowledge, . . dave souza, talk 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

checkuser abilities

Same user agent, whatever. RDOlivaw has just one overlapping edit, his "fingerprint," on a static residential DSL IP used exclusively by DrEightyEight. Otherwise RDOlivaw edits exclusively from a college during working hours and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from his residence during non-working hours and weekends. I guess they are roommates, and RDOlivaw has never, in the last month, had an urge to make more than a single edit outside of working hours. Thatcher 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User agent? Does wikimedia use some kind of fancy extended checkuser that's not pictured in commons:Checkuser? —Random832 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered - it's a tangent and not really relevant to the main topic of discussion on WP:ANI but I am interested in knowing. —Random832 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All the secrets of how checkuser works are cleverly hidden in plain sight at the user manual, m:Help:Checkuser. Thatcher 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

I read this

If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway?

in a comment from you. I've not encountered that before now. Is it original to you? —SlamDiego_←T 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think so, but maybe it came from a subconscious memory somewhere. Thatcher 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR:Mantanmoreland

I know that you are recusing from this RFAR. I thought I'd bring to your attention that the ArbComm (or at least NYBrad) has asked Lar and Alison to "Please forward a summary of your [checkuser] findings confidentially to the Arbitration Committee. Alison should kindly do the same." Since you reported the initial checkuser finding that started the investigation, I suspect that they would also appreciate your results being sent to them, in case you haven't yet. GRBerry 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I recused from clerk duty in the case. I have already emailed them a summary of my findings and I intend to make a brief statement in evidence. Thatcher 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never been through the Arbcom experience before, so I'm not to sure how to let people know things, but could I draw your attention to my post on the evidence talk page? Thanks Whitstable 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuous disruptions by User:Grandmaster

Hi Thatcher! I dont know if Grandmaster is allowed to post on ArbCom so Im posting here. After the last incident at Shusha pogrom, where Grandmaster supported bad edits by two users who were proxying for him, now during the last days he is engaged in another disruptive edition at Nakhchivan.

After I explained and some days ago rewrote a misinterpretation Grandmaster reverted it [23]. The text by him says: "According to other versions, the name Nakhchivan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan ("Image of the World"), a reference to the beauty of the area.[11][12]"

The problems are (I explained them at talk):

• both sources (obviously more younger than the name for the region) were translated into Russian by me: they never say "the name Nakhchivan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan", they just mark Persian name Nagsh-e-Jahan.

• in addition, they mark Nagsh-e-Jahan name for the Nakhchivan town (we have a separate artilce on it), not the region or republic.

• at last, one of the sources is obviously unreliable. Mostly criticized for his anti-Armenianism and misinterpretations of sources, author of an "Armenian conspiration theory" and well-known as "Azerbaijan’s foremost Armenophobe" (Thomas de Waal, Black Garden, page 42), only editor of that book Ziya Bunyadov printed it in Baku and two Russian scolars Shnirelman and Diakonov mark his continuous misinterpretations and distortions of primary texts reprinted by him.

After all the explanations he seems dont want to stop the "discussion" on that question. Then User:Aynabend, who was not active during a week and never contributed to this article, proxyed for Grandmaster and reverted to his version [24] with an explanation: "Please bring quote and sources when this particular translation work of Bunyatov was critisized for mistakes in it". It seems he even didtn read the talk and dont know that this sentence was changed because of misinterpretation not only for unreliability of source edited (not only translated) by Bunyadov. An admin attention is welcomed! Andranikpasha (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a frivolous report. And accusation of disruption just because of a content dispute are really bad faith, especially when they come from a person with quite a documented history of certain type of activity across various wikimedia projects. Andranikpasha attached a POV title tag to the geographical name of Nakhchvan: [25] Previously Admin User:Golbez said that the geographical name cannot be non-neutral: [26] Then Andranikpasha tried to delete info and sources from the article that were there for many months, using as a pretext some accusations against one of the translators of the primary source. However Andranikpasha never demonstrated that the translation was not accurate. I said I would agree with deletion of that source if he proves its inaccuracy, but Andranikpasha failed to provide any proof. And it is not the only source used to support this version. And there's no misinterpretation on my part, Muslim chronicles claim that the name has Persian origin and means "Image of the world". I don't see any reason for deletion of that sourced info, considering that I used more than one source to support this version of etymology. Grandmaster (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry, guys. I'm kind of taking a break from Arbitration enforcement due to other more pressing matters both on and off-wiki consuming too much of my time.

IRC

You didn't add this case to completed cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Stifle added it for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Becoming a Moderator

I notice three of the fours users writing to me is an administrator. Do you pay a certain amount of money for these tools or do you need a certain amount of edits?Jason (talk, contributions) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Admins. Administrators are either nominated by someone they have worked with or self-nominate and then the community has a discussion/vote; usually you need to be an active editor for 2-3 months and demonstrate a decent knowledge of policy issues in order to receive enough community support to be promoted. Thatcher 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mild objection

I would like to register a mild objection to your evidence against me in the Mantanmoreland case. Here "Overstock abusers" was a quote from the previous comment; you will note please that I also said that editors who used such tactics were absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Clearly, if Piperdown or someone like him was willing to edit other topics, leaving Overstock, MM and associated topics behind, we would not even know he was here. And here please note that my comments about naked short selling obviously apply to Wordbomb but that my comments about misogynistic and antisemitic edits refers to other stalkers of SlimVirgin and others, not to Bagley. Finally, you can call this a poison pill if you like, but it is a fact that the suspicion was raised by more than one checkuser, and by at least one non-checkuser admin, and was a matter of consultation among myself and other checkusers before I answered the request, so it seems reasonable to mention it; if only to give an answer to those users and admins who may remember Wordbomb also using proxies and wonder whether it was looked into. Thatcher 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think those are good points and I'm going to retract those statements and I apologize for making them. I don't think you should have said that about WordBomb and SamiHarris, but I'm going to retract it anyway. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured if I didn't someone else would have brought it up. It was my best judgement at the time to make the comment (and after all, I did answer the check request instead of deleting it as filed by a banned user). I appreciate that it could have been seen as a poison pill although it definitely was not meant that way. Thatcher 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Under review

A tag has been placed on Template:Under review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Spratsareours

Spratsareours (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - This user may be another Archtransit sockpuppet. — Save_Us † 05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is one of half-a-dozen suspects with too few edits to really be positive from a technical standpoint. The behavior is good confirmation. Thatcher 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Hi,

You may recall our discussion here.It appears that User:Yahel Guhan has twice reverted within seven days on Arabs and antisemitism: [27] [28].Bless sins (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You apparently count reverting an annon vandal as a content dispute revert. My revert limitation didn't include reverting vandalism. It should also be noted that 1. nobody else restored the vandals edit to date, and 2. I am not the only person who thought this edit was vandalism; another uninvolved user restored my vandalism warning to this annon, after the annon cleared it. Yahel Guhan 06:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The anon actually raised this question on talk, in order to have discussion on the topic: Talk:Arabs_and_antisemitism#Clear_False. Yet I see you haven't responded. Whether the anon's reason for disputing you is legitimate or not, this is a dispute not vandalism. If you begin engaging in discussion, instead of simply reverting, then I wouldn't be complaining against you.Bless sins (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please, who are you kidding. You would complain against me for any reason you could think of, because your edit history shows you probably want to get rid of me because my editing shows an opposite bias as yours (whether or not you will admit it). The annon made a WP:FORUM post, (and likewise it should have been removed). Second, do you think his edit was legit? I noticed you didn't restore it (like all other editors watching that page). And I also know you aren't trying to avoid revert warring, as you just removed the image again from that article (against the opinion of most of the editors of that article). Yahel Guhan 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The disputes that belong to Arabs and antisemitism should be taken to that article. I will be responding to such disputes there. Thank you.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another 1rr

On Islam and antisemitism, within one hour, Yahel made atleast two reverts:

• [29]

Yahel inserts "passages in the Qur'an contain attacks on Jews."

• [30]

After I change the passage, Yahel re-inserts (thus reverts) "Qur'an contain abusive attacks toward Jews." bringing it almot back to the previous version.

• [31] Yahel restores (thus partially reverts) a duplicate sentence "made Jews out to be untrustworthy, treacherous oppressors, and exploiters of Muslims", that I had deleted. The reason I had deleted it because it was already covered in the "Literature" section.

Bless sins (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored " bless sins last version for now, in case it was a violation. I don't think it was, but just in case, I self reverted. Yahel Guhan 09:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'm kind of taking a break from Arbitration enforcement; a number of other pressing matters are occupying my wiki and non-wiki time. If this is still a current issue, please try WP:AE. Sorry not to be of more help at the moment. Thatcher 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It appear I'm getting lots of feedback and I haven't edited for an hour. Thank you for your advice. \

You're welcome. Thatcher 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

More of a recognition, than a barnstar.

Thatcher, I've seen you clerking many areas of en.wp recently, or maybe that's due to my involvement with Archtransit's slow deteoriation of what is seemingly the "deepest abuse of trust of an admin" - according to one user. I personally wouldn't know because I've not been here that long, and was only promoted a day after Archtransit himself, hence my interaction. I am surely going to turn this comment, into a paragraph, a novel and then eventually a fable - so I'll stop whilst I'm ahead. Your work around here is much appreciated and the effort plus your determination of what is appropriate or not is fitting, into almost every area I can think of is superb. I didn't want to turn this into a barnstar, so I'll give you a little star instead - barnstars are old nowadays. :) Hopefully, this will serve as a little acknowledgement of your attitude that is (I think) enjoyed across en.wp. Regards, Rudget. 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. Thatcher 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for confirming my suspicion. Regards, — Save_Us † 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thatcher 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the work you did in exposing Archtransit's duplicity. It was not an enjoyable last few weeks for me, and that whole fiasco was a decent-sized part of why. I'm very glad it's over, and you played a large part in ending it. Thanks for the work you did! Best regards, Bellwether ^B_C 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't enjoy it but it seemed necessary. Thanks for the kind words. Thatcher 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

a checkuser case for deletion

here. He didn't follow the rules and started a checkuser on himself to "prove his innocence." Additionally, it wasn't listed correctly. Enigma ^msg! 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some clerks who fix listings for the checkusers. They seem to have taken care of it. Thatcher 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence cleanup

Thatcher, hi, when you have a moment, could you please do some cleanup at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence ? PHG seems to be going through and putting "response" sections after other editors' evidence sections, and it's making the page a bit difficult to follow. My understanding is that his responses should be put in his own section, but for obvious reasons it's probably not wise if I rearrange things myself. Thanks for your attention, Elonka 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Thatcher 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you check this?

I got to know that why I have been chased by so many Japanese people since December. They made two treads at 2channel, a Japanese bulletin board.

Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21.

http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1198939173/  :translation tool for not Japanese speaker

It is filled with personal attack and racial slurs against only me such as Chosenjin, hwabyeong patient, psycho, institutionalized mentally deranged person, irrational person, stupid, .etc. I translated some of the Japanese thread. I'm so exhausted of all these dramas, so didn't consider to report it at ANI or Arbicom, but the meatpuppet and sockpuppet of Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou/Orchis29 are haunting around me and pushing POV much. I talked to admin, LordAmeth who can read Japanese, see this User_talk:LordAmeth#Need_a_guideline

Before reporting the incident at ANI, I ask you to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki

211.131.78.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs), Limited200802th (talk · contribs) look like obvious sock of Azukimonaka per the same interest and writing style, especially "erroneous". I believe these editors are also socks of him, and are proved as sock to each other at RFCU but they were not infinitely blocked. They abusively used the accounts though.

• ShinjukuXYZ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), NekoNekoTeacher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• the erroneous information

They write poor wording in English and the literary word, erroneous is not commonly used and is likely for non-English speakers to see it in advanced test preparation books like GRE, GMAT.

[32] by 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs)

[33](As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) by ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs)

[34] He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs)

I can't file another RFCU files right now because my two files are not finished and you advised me not to use it much. But I couldn't help plead this again to you.--Appletrees (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• 211.131.78.108 (talk · contribs) is Azukimonaka and 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) is Limited200802th but there is nothing allowing me to tie them to anyone else. The rest of the results are as indicated on the RFCU. Thatcher 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Crips r us

Hey Thatcher, was hoping you might have a look at this; you were the CU that attended to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crips r us. Any thoughts? GlassCobra 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• If an IP user claims to be a banned user I would revert the edit and ask at WP:AIV for a block. No checkuser needed. Thatcher 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AN3RR

Hello Thatcher, I agree with what you wrote about disruptive editing, but I didn’t think that AN3RR was the place to handle that particular case. That rather silly edit war started nearly 4 months ago and, while it breaks the spirit of the policy, it doesn’t come even close to 4 reverts in 24 hours. I like your solution, by the way - if they’ll abide by it - but I still think that AN/I would have been a better forum. Cheers —Travis^talk 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Segregation of complaints is for our convenience but it is not meant to be a straightjacket. Thatcher 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request block

I'd like to request a block on User: 68.207.126.117 and User: Lady armida for their edits on Baba Raul Canizares. They seem to have to other reason for being in Wikipedia, and have edited several times violating WP: Bio by adding massive insupported derogatory material. One has been warned more than once, and I suspect that the other is the same person but not logged in, since the material is identical. Please look into this? Rosencomet (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure of appeal

I'm unhappy with your closure of my appeal. Motion 1 had 8 votes and Motion 2 had 12, yes—but four of the Motion 2 votes were qualified as second choice, while none of the Motion 1 votes were qualified as second choice. Therefore it seems to me the vote was split; I would expect the second choice votes to not count towards Motion 2 if Motion 1 also had majority support. Everyking (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite; there is one conditional oppose (NYB) and two "second choice" (Sam and Paul). "Either is fine" does not mean second choice. Evaluating the conditionals then motion one is at 8-2 with one abstention and motion 2 is at 9-1 with no abstentions, so motion 2 passes 11-1. (And clearly has more consensus support) Thatcher 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 also gave motion 1 as his first choice. It seems to me that if "second choice" is to have any practical meaning those votes have to only apply to the first choice if both of them have a majority. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is also correct that the purpose of these votes is to evaluate the committee's consensus. At best under your interpretation, version one is 8-2 and version 2 is 8-1, which still indicates stronger consensus for version 2. All the arbitrators had the opportunity to issue a binding conditional oppose as newyorkbrad did, but they didn't. I suppose you could try contacting the 3 "second choice" admins and ask them to modify their votes... And as far as the recording the final tally as 11-1, the conditionals are used to evaluate the various alternatives but then all votes are applied to the final tally, per long practice on dozens of cases. Thatcher 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the two oppose votes still give Motion 2 an edge, but in that case it's razor thin and we should wait for other arbitrators to participate (I believe there are two others who are active but haven't voted yet) to get something more conclusive. Furthermore, can arbitrators still change their votes after you've closed the appeal and moved the discussion to talk? Wouldn't it have to be reopened? Everyking (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Once a motion has sufficient votes to pass, the clerks usually wait 24 hours or so and then close. Here that occurred on 19 Feb with Paul August's vote at which point #1 failed 6-2 and #2 passed 8-1. Even as of yesterday #1 was failing 7-2 and #2 passed 10-1. I don't see how adding one more vote for both proposals should make the situation more doubtful. I think that modifying the terms of the probation in the event of a change or clarification to a vote would be less disruptive than reverting the entire close and waiting for more votes. I remain always open to view of arbitrators that may contradict me in interpretation of votes or voting procedures. Thatcher

(outdent) I would like it noted that this misrepresents the intent of a "support", even if it is qualified as a first or second choice. That is far from saying either are opposed or rejected. "Second choice" is in no way ever to be taken to signify somehow a tacit oppose. If I had had a problem with either, I would have said so more forcefully or opposed. I did not. I supported both, and stated as much. I stated there was "some question" and "marginal" preference. These give a "flavor" somewhat, to the votes. In this decision, the matter is evident. Motion 1 received 6 net votes, allowing for two opposes. It failed to pass. Motion 2 received 12 net votes, and significantly, no arbitrator opposed it. It passed.

Wikipedia works on consensus. Part of consensus is addressing the concerns of minorities as well. It is clear that motion 2 received double the net support, and also, took better care of minority concerns. Had others felt it unreasonable, it would have been opposed, but it was not. The debate was adjudged and closed by Thatcher. Thatcher is an arbcom clerk, and a highly experienced one. His role for a long time has been balancing such decisions, and he is good at it. As with AFD, the arbitrators state views, and the clerk will consider which view has gained the stronger consensus, if more than two have. Thatchers' judgement is not even close to borderline here. It's the only viable evaluation that any experienced RFAR clerk or arbitrator would be likely to come to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This means that saying "first choice" or "second choice" is just kind of a personal statement without any bearing on the result? If each received eight votes, but one received all first choices and the other received all second choices, that would actually be a tie? Or if one received eight first choices and the other received nine second choices, the latter would win out? Everyking (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It means a degree of equanimity between the two. First and second choice are most usually significant when variants are proposed that get similar numbers of votes for each, and therefore it is useful to get a "feel" beyond just "support/oppose" how the individual arbitrators see them. These may be in the form of comments, first/second, and so on. It's extra information for the clerks to use, to compare the nature of support different motions receive. It doesn't really supersede basic "support/oppose", but it can sway it a bit, if a basic comparison is ambiguous. Best ask Thatcher for his view, which will probably be quite well explained. For example if an arbitrator states "I would prefer motion 1, and motion 2 is my second choice" and then motion 1 doesn't pass, then it is a way of transferring votes to other motions. Thus conditionals and preferences are not uncommon. But as with all consensus-seeking, it's not a simple matter in every case. In this case though, with only one motion passing, and that one passing strongly and unanimously, it is not an issue; motion 1 did not pass, which means the question of which was preferred by various people is a non-question. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion 1 did receive a majority of eight votes, so I thought it had passed. Do oppose votes cancel out support votes in determining whether a majority is reached? That doesn't make sense to me; it still received support from eight out of 14 active arbitrators, which is mathematically a majority. Everyking (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a typo above "failed 6-2". It should be "8-2". The appropriate decision is unchanged though, 8 with 2 opposes and an amended motion that then results in 12 with none, will almost always be the latter that is deemed to convey the stronger consensus. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I'll just have to keep waiting. Everyking (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

With one correction: Brad's vote is a firm conditional that should be read as oppose if both motions have enough raw votes to pass and it comes down to the conditionals, so the tallies are 8-2 and 11-1. From the simple point of view that 8 votes passes, then both pass, but since they are inherently contradictory, some kind of analysis must be used. It is hard to see a way to avoid the interpretation that there is more consensus on the committee for keeping the harassment parole than for lifting it. The actual final tallies are 8-2 and 11-1. If you look at conditionals under the light most favorable to lifting the parole, you get 8-2-1 to lift versus 8-1 to keep it. If you consider arbitrators who cast binding votes as opposed to stating preferences, then 2 arbitrators are opposed to lifting the parole and one arbitrator is opposed to leaving it in place. Proposal #2 passed 3 days earlier than #1. We don't normally use net votes for decisions that are majority based but if you look at net votes there are 6 in favor of #1 but 10 in favor of #2. Two arbitrators only voted on #2. No matter how you slice the loaf, the result as I see it is to leave the harassment parole in place. Thatcher 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments on all this are on WP:RfAr at the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ban

Although I don't like the ban of not being able to edit Amon Amarth at all, I will except it. Especially since this means Twsx can not edit war on the page. What about the Dissection page? I'm not sure if I trust that Twsx won't mess with that. I can assure you though, that when the ban lifts, I will not mess with the page, I may edit it, but I will not edit the genre delimiters and restart the edit war. I'm not sure Twsx will feel the same. But as long as he doesn't edit the genre delimiters then there's nothing to worrry about on my end. I supposed if he does edit them I will report it to you immediately. Is this the lamest edit war? No doubt, and it's not the first of it's kind, but I'm not the one who was in the wrong. Twsx has been warned and reverted by plenty of users. Circafucix, Kameejl, Scipo and some IP users to name a few. Anyways, I'm not so sure me and Twsx will come to any concession. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally it takes at least two stubborn people to make an edit war; the test will be to see what Twsx does not month. If he continues to make that edit and is still reverted by multiple other accounts then firmer steps will be taken. Has he been doing the same thing at other articles? Thatcher 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement gone stale

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive14#User:75.72.88.121. This user is still editing, and is still inserting mass POV problems into the article, despite being blocked for it twice before (once under IP which he steadfastly and not believably claims isn't his). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that he is editing, make a new report at WP:AE showing that these edits are disruptive or in violation of the probation. Thatcher 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AE

Do you want to keep the resolved section or not? It doesn't matter to me. Your choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don'r mind either way, if you can get the bot to leave it alone. Thatcher 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on Misza13's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry for the edit conflict. I didn't see we were editing at the same time. I'm OK to post my answers separately of course. Can you unblock so that I can proceed? Regards PHG (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I set it to 10 minutes, its probably over already. Let me check. Thatcher 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. PHG (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Ban 2

Sorry it took me a whil to get back to you. I agree with what you said. As far as I know Twsx has only been warring on the Amon Amarth page and the Dissection (band) page. However, I know he has recieved warnings about WP:OWN on the nu metal article and has run into problems with that and articles having to do with nu metal bands. I honestly don't know that much about those things, though, as I do not edit the nu metal page or any bands that are nu metal. Not my territory. I mostly edit things I enjoy. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoring evidence I would like to appeal

[35] I hope that the topic ban can at least partially retracted e.g. for articles for which I was the only serious contributor and for which no serious problems were ever reported. E.g. Sathya Sai Baba movement. I fail to see how topic banning the only serious contributor could possibly help Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why you wanted to restore the discussion that you wanted removed before. You certainly can file an appeal; use the request for clarification section of WP:RFAR and the new template provided in the instructions there. Thatcher 11:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I want to restore the discussion is to enable people to look at the discussion in preparation for my appeal. I admit that they could also have looked at the history. Andries (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's up to you since it concerns you. Thatcher 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy POV pushing by Saedirof (talk · contribs) who is a sock of MarkPC (talk · contribs)

Hello Thatcher,

Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive edits to a number of articles, specifically Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi (all 3 are related articles) by using multiple socks and open proxies. He was initially blocked by JodyB (talk · contribs), check [36]. MarkPC (talk · contribs) who was initially confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but later managed to escape by saying that he only edits Devadasi. But the account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],[44], [45] while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. These are all socks of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) (username same as article name) or Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check [46]. Request you to take action against Saedirof (talk · contribs) who has a history of pushing POV using socks. See his latest edits [47], [48], [49] where he has deleted multiple references.

Also note the strong similarity in sentence structure of Saedirof's edit-summary "reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user" [50] and MarkPC (talk · contribs)'s edit-summaries [51], [52]. Look at the way they both allege that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user before reverting. MarkPC (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs). This was confirmed but he escaped by saying he never edited anything other than Devadasi. In any case Saedirof (talk · contribs) must be banned for abusing using socks. See how he keeps blanking his talk page)[53], [54] where the info that he has abused using socks been clearly put by an admin JodyB (talk · contribs) [55] for using socks.

Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. Same answer and advice applies to you. Thatcher 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with degenerating Arbcom thread

Hello. Can I ask you, as an outside admin and ArbCom clerk, to review the happenings at my request for clarification of the Ferrylodge decision? A user with whom I've had problems past and present, NCdave, showed up to post a "view" consisting mostly of criticism of me ([56]). Subsequently, Strider12, a user about whom I've filed an active RfC, also showed up to continue in the same vein ([57]). I believe her participation may have been canvassed by NCdave ([58]). Obviously, this pile-on has nothing to do with the narrow clarification I requested. I'm a big boy; I don't mind a bit of abuse, but I find myself getting very annoyed, baited, and tempted to say something I shouldn't. Can I ask you to review this situation with an eye toward restoring order?

As a heads-up and full disclosure, I have an active request for help with issues related to NCdave at WP:AN/I#More help. Separately, regarding the actual issue at hand with the clarification, do you think there's sufficient guidance from ArbCom to apply the remedy to the talk page, or should I await more input? I asked Newyorkbrad this question and his reply was that it varies from case to case. Given that the thread is degenerating into argumentation, I'd prefer to close it if you feel there's sufficient guidance from ArbCom. Thanks - MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland

Note to all: As much as I love this case, I will be away from my computer for about 2 hours, and then available only intermittently for the next 3 hours, so if you want to yell at me or shake my hand you will have to wait in line. Thatcher 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you protect the evidence page? I thought you were recused? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked for help, and something needed to be done. The reason I stated a recusal is because I answered the original checkuser request. However, since the issues have long since passed beyond that request, and since the results were inconclusive, there does not seem to me to be a conflict of interest in my resuming clerk activities. If I was recused because I was a participant, or because I had been involved in editing disputes with any of the main parties, it would obviously be a different story. Thatcher 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For doing what had to be done. DurovaCharge! 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CU on Mudaliar and Youonlylivetwice

Hello Thatcher,

I request you to give me some advice. From the checkuser page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mudaliar, I see that some of the IP addresses are open proxies. Some are unrelated apparently, however their edits are exactly the same as that of a banned user including his mistakes.

Youonlylivetwice has been supporting these IP addresses. He makes the exact same edits as those IP addresses. Should not he be banned along with those IP addresses because of the duck test?

Youonlylivetwice tried to do a CU on me and it failed. He reverts all my edits and insists on calling me a sockpuppet on my user page.[59] [60]

Admin J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano (talk · contribs) seems to be strongly supporting Youonlylivetwice. see [61] and [62] and protected the article Mudaliar [63]

A CU on Youonlylivetwice has come back as inconclusive. A CU on me has come back as Unlikely more than a week ago.

So how come if I bring to the users notice that a CU on Youonlylivetwice is going on, I am being threatened of banishment? But Youonlylivetwice is allowed to write on my user page that i am a sock puppet when clearly I am not?

My questions are:

• Is this normal for an admin? After all, I have been cleared of being a sock puppet.

• Since Youonlylivetwice does the same edits as banned user should he not be banned based on Duck Test?

Saedirof (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You and MarkPC edit from the same place. It is possibly a workplace, and I can't tell how many people work there, and certain other features make it look like you are not MarkPC, but that does not rule out that you are not the same person using two computers, or two people who know each other and coordinate over lunch or something. It is certainly suggestive that you have similar points of view on similar topics. Youonlylivetwice can not be connected with the IP edits by technical means, either, although the fact that he edit wars to support them (or they edit to support him) is also suggestive. It does not seem possible to solve the dispute between you by technical means. You may wish to file a suspected sockpuppet report to see if some admin will investigate and make a determination, or try mediation on your issues.

The open proxies are the handy work of Saedirof (talk · contribs) alias MarkPC (talk · contribs) who comes via open proxies as Redlance (talk · contribs). We must not forget Redlance (talk · contribs)RFCU result:[64]. FYI: I have filed a suspected sockpuppet see:[65]. Thanks for the help, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla RFCU

I saw your response to NYB, did you get a chance to look at the deleted SSP I had filed? I'm fairly certain there was an additional IP and account he admitted to using after I suggested he might've been using them. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing more. Thatcher 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hickory cluestick needed

See [66]. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BOT not wiping the resolved section

[67], it pulls threads from both resolved and non-resolved without wiping out the resolved header, must be people keep changing it. It'd like to keep using the resolved section if it's okay with you, but if not, we can go back to all in one section. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually what looks like is happening is when the section immediately above the break and immediately below the break are archived at the same time [68] then it takes the break as well. [69] This is a result of discussion going stale for 3 days and not being moved below the break before the bot gets there. Thatcher 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki

User:Appletrees added myself and others to the list, after you completed the last checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki. As far as I can see, there's no rationale for adding myself there, and perhaps the same applies for most of the others. Will you please clarify in the report, whether Appletrees is abusing the system now?

I sense that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks may need to be revisited if WP:BATTLE is being violated here.

Thank you for your help.--Endroit (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you're so contradictory to what you've done. RFCU tool is one of your favorite tools so far (12 RFCU files by you). You're also very quick to catch my recent contributions and so calm at the obvious meatpuppetry from 2channel. It is also contradictory to your ANI report when I reverted your one edit.

See these RFCU files reported by you Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639, which had no evidence but your assumption, and just accused Korean editors of socks. Obviously, the final result appeared to be very disappointing to you. I added some valid evidences. If you're innocent, you can worry about yourself. Japanese socks /open proxy users have vandalised to J-K related article and as the result, Namdaemun and South Korea article are under protection. --Appletrees (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, I fail to see your rationale for adding me and others under "Code letter: C, E, F" as a sockpuppet of "2008FromKawasaki". Please clarify.--Endroit (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, be patient. I provide evidences to Thatcher, not you. He has his own judgment, so just wait for his answer. You didn't accused me to AirFrance's sock but Ech...somting83 and infinitely banned user, Appleby. I need to hear about your rationale on that first. Besides, why do you so care about other listed people? If they're not related to you, you don't need to worry it much. You only need your innocence.--Appletrees (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if Thatcher believes Appletrees to be abusing the system now, or is in violation of WP:BATTLE. That's all.--Endroit (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, your saying just proves your inconsistency to your past behaviors. You might need to read these useful article again. WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:SOCK along with the WP:BATTLE. Why don't you also give your input to the wonderful meat dolls at Talk:Sea of Japan? huh? --19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)

If it was just a case of misusing checkuser to gain position in a content dispute, I would not expect to find so many positive hits on these checks. There are good faith editors on both sides but there are also apparently some people who are misbehaving, and I'm not sure how to deal with it as a long-term problem. Thatcher 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher. I know that the checkusers have been doing a nice job already, and you can always go back to this arbcom case to get a 3rd opinion from others. Although I am not privy to the information you have, after the numerous successful RFCUs in the last 2 years, I see that the number of (Korea vs. Japan) reverts is down from upwards of 100 reverts in a day in 2006 to just 3 reverts a day yesterday. The current revert war appears to be between Drop the soap! (talk · contribs) and Princesunta (talk · contribs), and perhaps someone should semi-protect the articles they are reverting.--Endroit (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no 3 revert. You mislead this thread. However, I should bear in my mind of the Princesunta's reverting articles that Azukimonaka, Amazonfire, 2008FromKawasaki tried to erase. I am so wondering why you keep silent about Japanese meatpuppet/sockpuppets? Isn't is a very shameful misconduct for Japanese project? --Appletrees (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Azukimonaka was just as disruptive, and is perhaps related to Kamosuke. All revert warriors are disruptive on BOTH sides, especially if they revert across multiple articles without much discussion. I think we should request arbcom to extend their "Liancourt Rocks article probation" (and the "New rules of conduct") to more articles, based on where the revert warring occurs.--Endroit (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not BOTH side, but just Japanese side at this time. The ill-faith editors from 2channel should be blamed for these disruptions. You must not confuse this situation with Liancourt Rocks probation. You are also major player from Japanese side, so please don't evade the subject.--Appletrees (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endroit is on the wrong side of the ocean, so you can leave him out of further speculations. File a new separate request on Saintjust that focuses on the evidence connecting those accounts. Thatcher 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I make a new report on Saintjust and think I have to make another file on Princesunta (talk · contribs). He is an obvious sock who acts very similar to Azukimonaka or Opp2. However, Endroit's condoning 2channel (he might be related to that) and his several break times also give me several big questions in my mind. --Appletrees (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go easy with your assumptions, Appletrees. I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel.--Endroit (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, please show a good example first before saying to someone like that. Didn't you take advantage of Thatcher's previous comment on me? That is very bad faith. You accused me a meatpuppet because I reverted your edit. You so quickly rushed into ANI unlike me giving plenty of time for Japanese meat puppets to stop the disruption. And you could be very generous to stalkers if your every single edits have been monitored by someone like Nanshu (talk · contribs) and stalked for over 2 months like Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) did to me. I was disappointed at Kusunose of whom I thought a fair editor once. --Appletrees (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If editors associated with 2chan are causing problems, that could be a matter for discussion (RFC, mediation, etc) but it is not a matter for checkuser. Thatcher 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm the only one and they're too many. --Appletrees (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there appears to be revert-warring between Appletrees (talk · contribs)/Drop the soap! (talk · contribs) vs. Princesunta (talk · contribs)/Baru (talk · contribs) across multiple articles. If we still have revert-warring after all the vandal-hunting and the RFCU's have been exhausted, we need to go to WP:DR to handle the content disputes. Please let me know when that happens.--Endroit (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you're speaking like a third person. You, Endroit (talk · contribs) and Kusunose (talk · contribs) should be included in your list. Don't forget you also a major player who has denied to resolve the problem on "East Sea" in DR. RFCU is a valid method in this massive sock/meat shows. If you really wanted to solve the problem on "East Sea", you should've visited me first. I don't see any practice done by you.--Appletrees (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the one added to the list by Appletrees, but there seems no rationale for adding myself. Hey, am I the sockpuppet of Endroit? It looks like Appletrees blindly adds a user to the list whenever s/he believes the user is against him/her. Isn't that an abuse of the system?

And please do not condone his/her double standard. While s/he blame others for wikistalking him/her without foundation [70], Appletrees traced my long-term (more than a year) contribution log.[71] I think that's what "wikistalking" means.

As I've already explained to LordAmeth [72], there is no evidence that the copy-and-paste bombing on 2ch works. This may not be a right place, but I'm not sure where to go because Appletrees spread the misinformation around Wikipedia. --Nanshu (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu, obviously you're the one who has been wikistaking me just like Mochi and Kusunose. I was very surprised at your sudden and unexpected appearance and malicious bashing on me at LordAmeth's talk page. In my eyes, you're trying to cover the bare truth. Japanese meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are revealed in the light and you lied that I fabricate the info from your bad faith.

I'm mainly editing Korean cuisine related articles, and used to check history of every article when I start to edit. That's why I remember your past disruption. In old days, the definition of vandalism might be very different from now, but that kind of misconduct can't be condoned any more. If some has problem on NPOV and deliberately introducing factual errors just like you have done, every one especially admins should keep eye on the people not to commit further vandalism. You're just like Azukimonaka. Blindly added by me? Your appearance to inform LordAmeth with your special care can hardly be a coincedence. Editors should not believe when it comes to Japan because history tells us. I make this adapted version of your claim. How does it sound? Just vicious. I have given a plenty of time to Japanese to stop all this ill faith behaviors, but there is no trying so. --Appletrees (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The main point first. So your excuse doesn't bear the criteria of checkuser. I've reported your abuse of the system to WP:AN/I. --Nanshu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop cross posting. I have already replied here: User_talk:Jossi#Please_cancel_an_edit_violating_The_3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestine sanctions

I believe User:Sm8900 has violated the edit process by making a point with this edit. I believe some sort of restriction is in order. Regards Suicup (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

addtional ips on Saintjust

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Saintjust

I added dion ips used possibly used by Saintjsut or Hermeneus so please look into it. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Too old. There isn;t anything else I can say at this point. Sorry. Thatcher 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I add more dino ips which are all on January and last December. The dion ip anon made disruptive edit warring with another anon on Gaijin in which Saintjust also edited.

• 218.222.25.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 222.12.149.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 222.3.75.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 218.222.25.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 222.12.149.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 218.222.24.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.198.209.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))[73] Talk:Japanese sword which Saintjust edited.

--Appletrees (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The ips I provided is for confirming on whether Hermeneus and Saintjust is the same person. The result is already proven as "Likely". Please clarify it, Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hermaneus has too few recent edits to do much with. His edit of 30 Nov was made 4 minutes after an edit by Saintjust on the same IP address, but he could be a housemate. That's as far back as I can go. Thatcher 12:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Saintjust [74]

Is this a category that you made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.246.37 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A "sock puppet" is not just an alt account but an alternative account used deceptively, like using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll. Very bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.147.168 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The category is created automatically by putting {{sock|Saintjust}} on the user or talk page. Its important to note those are merely suspected IPs, not confirmed. Thatcher 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris

Hi. Per your finding, could GordonJosh (talk · contribs) have been using an open proxy? The few edits seem awfully related. (Could be an EHC fan I suppose). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• GordonJosh is on a firewall/proxy for a large organization, but to the best of my knowledge it is only accessible from within the organization. Thatcher 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeq on AE

Tony has now said that he didn't intend to issue an indefinite ban; I've reported the diff on WP:AE. Can you take over addressing this report, to see if the ban should be lifted, reconfirmed without action, reconfirmed with action, etc... For the newer RFAR, I felt clear to give warning, but for the newer RFAR I don't feel I meet the explicit standard for blocking and banning. GRBerry 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review

I think it has now been proven that the Tony ban on that article expired on 2007. can you close the issue ? Thanks. --Zeq (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Could you check the explanation at [[75]]. It does not ring true due to the behavioral similarities of the accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seems unlikely. For starters, that would mean that the only (and I mean only) registered users to have used that address in the last ? months have been independently accused of being Neutralhomer socks. I mean, what are the odds? He is welcome to contact Arbcom of course, who can check my findings. Thatcher 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring work group

Carbon copy from my message to Durova; the note on good opinions is the same as that given to Durova, but doesn't lessen the effect ;)

Hey Thather. I'm just doing some tidying up of the work group's wiki site, and noticed we've not got a confirmation for your account. If you've got a spare moment, could you just note a quick reply, along the lines of "I'm Thatcher, I confirm I have control over User:Thatcher on the Work Group wiki", or whatever takes your fancy.

Whilst we're on this topic, I've posted an observation on the topic of inactivity (see the Observer's noticeboard). As somebody who usually has well-thought-out responses, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. Any chance you could drop by? Otherwise, thanks in advance for the confirmation diff, and happy editing! AGK (contact) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never accessed the account FT2 set up for me. I suppose I should drop in and take a look around. Maybe tonight. Thatcher 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

The user User_talk:Reginmund whom you blocked I have had not contact with but I was looking at users which have been editing UK government pages. This user appears to work for UK Trade & Industry which raises lots of COI questions but also means the IP address would be shared with lots of people who also would edit similar pages. Are you confident in the sock diagnosis given this, in this case? I ask because I am about to contact UK Trade & Industry about their employees spamming their websites and would like to know if it is a possible good faith from employees who didn't know or whether there is definitely underhand stuff. --BozMo talk 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The IPs used by Reginmund are not in the UK and do not appear to be shared with anyone else. Thatcher 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --BozMo talk 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these people evading their block?

I'm sorry to bring in this ugly 2channel matter, but I couldn't help to report this. This people(?) insist on inserting contents with fabrication to Japan-Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I read the citation but no such claim that they(?) insist. If they're are Azukimonaka, can admins range-block these odn ips and socks? Thanks.

• 211.3.124.218 (talk · contribs)
• Opoona (talk · contribs)
• 211.131.246.69 (talk · contribs)

--Appletrees (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are Azukimonaka, Opoona is OCN, not ODN, and can not be connected with confidence, but is consistent with Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou. Thatcher 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you block this ips for even a day? I'm so tried of Azukimonaka's endless block evasion. --Appletrees (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It did wipe out the section

Posted on the bot operator's page...."See [76], the bot did wipe out the resolved issues section, though it didn't the last time. ??? Can you look into this? Thanks." — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that when there is section just above the divider and just below the divider that are both archived by timestamp, then it takes the divider too. It does not seem to recognize =sections= in the same way it recognizes ==sections==. Thatcher 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - maybe I wasn't clear enough when I explained it earlier - the dumb parser I use doesn't recognize =big headers= as such - it is being treated line an ordinary line of text and will be archived along with the last ==second level section== that precedes it. And yes, both sections above and below it are archived by timestamp, using the same algorithm. I suggest lengthening the timeout before archiving in this case - this will make the resolved issues linger for a while longer. Миша13 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman

Jehochman suggests asking you what needs to be done here. —Whig (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what you can do about it. This is probably a case that will go to arbitration soon based on the fact that both Jehochman and I seem to think that is likely. Anything you can say to help defuse the situation might be helpful, or if you think that there is a better place for this conversation to be happening, I'm certainly open to any kind of mediation with Jehochman. —Whig (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Dreadstar should be on top of the situation, but referred follow-up conversation to WP:AN. —Whig (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed short topic ban for Whig. There appears to be support to bar Whig from having anything to do with these articles going forward. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on the situation with The Tutor; I think we should leave him alone. The previous account does not have a long enough history or any significant wrongdoing so that Wikipedia would be improved by denying this user a small measure of additional privacy. No comment on the topic ban at this time. Thatcher 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything to prevent MC's user talk page from being reinstated? Since he had it wiped on false grounds, and it contains some evidence of his interactions with the rest of us, including warnings, allowing him to get away with this would certainly be a new application of policies regarding RTV (when that's not what has happened). This is not related to any concerns related to privacy issues, which MC has never uttered to the community, but which I am certainly willing to support. -- Fyslee / talk 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is no proof that these are the same person, and The Tutor has denied the connection. —Whig (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If they behave, there is no problem. If they don't behave, they will be restricted. It's not like the old account had a long block record of anything like that. I think we should drop the issue, rather than drawing more attention to it. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, but it would be unjust and leave things open to questions, repetition, and outright exploitation if the RTV policy isn't revised accordingly. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors (unrelated to privacy matters) is not allowed here. We need a policy change to do this. -- Fyslee / talk 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't a significant problem, why create an issue for the sake of creating one? It's not as if there aren't enough other matters requiring attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't the RTV policy just be quietly revised without any mention of this issue? -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, TT's one (very brief) denial seemed more like a "don't call me MC anymore, call me TT". He was trying to reinvent himself. That's the most logical (and generous) explanation that fits the situation with TT, also a Brit. -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. Would you like me to supply the diff again? —Whig (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Provide it. I think my interpretation is the most generous one provided so far. Other interpretations have been far less gracious. TT could deny he was actually the real MC, or deny that he was User:MC anymore, a la "dont' call me that anymore, now I'm TT." I choose the last interpretation. The diff shows a sufficiently brief and inexact exchange to allow for a generous and gracious interpretation. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, since pretty much everything else, including his accent (yes, it shines through), are pretty clear that TT is identical to both the real MC and User:MC. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: "I am The Tutor, not Martin." [77] That can be interpreted in several ways, and the one I have chosen doesn't make him a total liar. Other's who questioned him often got evasive answers. -- Fyslee / talk 06:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith and lacking proof that these are the same person, which proof you have no right to as there has been no abuse of sock puppets alleged, we should take him at his word that he is not Martin. And who cares? There's not even an allegation of COI. —Whig (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are ignoring is that no editor, controversial or not, has any right to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. (Outing and personal privacy are another matter.) RTV was also improperly used to manipulate an admin. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what the problem is. There is more than enough to do around here without creating an issue for the sake of creating an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Brad. This issue apparently involves matters to which you aren't privy. It was started by several people and didn't come out of nowhere, and has only ended where it has (publicized nad blown out of proportion) because Whig chose to escalate it (even starting threads with the MC's real name) and even chose to aggressively and threateningly act as a sort of "spokesperson" for TT, instead of letting TT speak for himself. He also added a straw man that it involved outing, which wasn't the issue. As an admin explained to Whig, when an editor improperly tries to avoid scrutiny, there's nothing wrong in pointing it out. The matter could possibly have been settled very quietly, even by email. This isn't the "creation of an issue." It involves violations of RTV and avoidance of scrutiny (a matter unrelated to privacy issues). Keep in mind MC was a very contentious and disruptive editor who quickly came on the radar of a number of users and who even openly voiced his intention to violate sourcing policies, even when explained about it. I had to speak very strongly to him to get him to desist. There were many reasons besides ordinary privacy reasons why he would want to get his talk page deleted. Please just restore the talk page and this can go away. Revising the "avoidance of scrutiny" and RTV polices needs attention as well. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these accusations about the named person are false and unsupportable. Also the only person who made this "scrutiny" argument to me was you. No admin has done so. —Whig (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so. Lawrence § t/e made a similar admonishment to you. [78]. Oh, I see now he isn't an admin, so I have refactored. By bad. Maybe he should become an admin. -- Fyslee / talk 15:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have struck my inaccuracy. Thank you for the correction. —Whig (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing on the deleted talk page worth making a fuss over: DrEightyEight warns him about the probation and makes some assumptions about his identity and Whig welcomes him. All his article talk page contributions remain intact. Thatcher 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Okay. Then just revise the two other matters so they don't get improperly exploited again. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for contibution to suspected sock pupppet page

WOuld you mind taking a look at the SP page in the header. I saw you performed a checkuser and when I looked at the WHOIS I saw that they came from a set of dynamically assigned IPs. Iassumed that was the reason that the checkuser was unrelated.

If I am wrong then could you say so on the SP page so as to speed the process so Spitzer19 can get on with removing the SP accusation?

I came in to this when reverting what looked like a blanking of a source without an edit summary and whilst I've avoided actually geting involved in the page it seems like there's a nasty edit war which could errupt again if left unchecked and given the subject matter I thought it important that if I saw any policy violations this might be the type which needs stamping on

Neither side in it comes off too well but it did appear (given that I am reasonably neutral in the subject as I've not contributed to the article other than the reversion) that something fishy was going on. Thanks for your time. BigHairRef | Talk 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the sock page. BigHairRef | Talk 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The usual...

The account's been blocked, but could you have a quick peek at

• TrouserPleasure (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 79.76.139.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.76.165.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing else obvious shows up. Thatcher 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser follow-up

Hi Thatcher, you closed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko with a verdict of "somewhere between possible and confirmed". This is the first time I've been involved in a CU case, so what is the next step? Should I block him (indef, or shorter?), or should I request another admin to do it, or do nothing? Thanks for any sage advice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See the final conclusion on the closed SSP page. Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases, including any closed SSP case. Eliko (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, the person filing the request is responsible for follow-up, although sometimes the checkuser clerks do some blocking. If you are not involved in a dispute with the editor, you can review the evidence (contribs and other data in addition to checkuser comments) and make a decision; if you are involved in a dispute with the editor, best to ask for other admins to review the case. In this specific case I have no complaints with Rlevse's proposed handling of the problem, however, characterizing the case as "they are all sockpuppets of Manstorius except me" does not explain all the evidence, and Eliko would be well-advised to stick to a single account from now on. Thatcher 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In this "specific" case (as you call it), Andrwsc - being involved in a dispute with the editor - has already asked for other admins to review the case; and the case was closed with a final clear conclusion. Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases. Eliko (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians should also not use sockpuppets to gain advantage in content disputes, and Wikipedians who are caught using sockpuppets in content disputes should probably avoid giving unintentionally ironic lectures on procedure. Rlevse does not have access to the checkuser data--I do. I am content to leave it as is but that is not the only possible outcome. Thatcher 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your opinion about the Wikipedians. Eliko (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Rlevse saw that a CU case had been opened a week after the SSP case, and might have drawn his conclusions on the SSP comments only. I shall notify him of the additional evidence. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse closed the SSP case with a "let's watch and see" conclusion - after the CU verdict. Eliko (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)