User talk:Thatcher/Archive7

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

History of Soviet Espionage in the United States

I am disappointed in your edit of the history of Soviet Espionage in the United States page. It would have been more polite to tag the passages without citations with fact tags during your edit rather than simply deleting my unreferenced blocks. I would rather not waste another perfectly good edit today replacing them, as you are well aware another editor on that page will use it against me later for 3RR. Abe Froman 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a talk page note. I suggest you use {{fact}} tags to mark specific areas you feel are deficient. Tagging an entire article {{unreferenced}} when it has over 20 references makes everyone look bad (imagine an outside reader's reaction) and doesn't help address the specific deficiencies you feel are most important. Thatcher131 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've completed these suggestions. Thanks. Abe Froman 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

London After Midnight (band)

I've now changed the article so it has both sides making it a NPOV[1], instead of the POV promo fanpage "blipblip" seemed to want it to be. I've also used some of the sources he has provided... however, it wouldn't suprise me if he just straight reverts it all, he seemingly wants to cover some of the information up.. so I'd keep an eye on it. - Deathrocker 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will. I've had some e-mail where he claims to have access to numerous magazine article. Hopefully this is a simple matter of educating a new user about the way things work here. Thatcher131 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For a few hours I have been attempting heartily to work with Blipblip, refusing to get dragged into a mass revert war, attempting to discuss points with him[2]. Yet he flat out refuses to be constructive.

I have incorporated elements from both variations, including information he has put across; into the article with sources, vastly imporving and expanding it to include a full history (with sources and all)... yet he just indisciminantly reverts it all. It is HIGHLY irritating. Here is what I had spent a long time working on[3].. and boom, sourced info and all gets reverted for an article the user cut and pasted from the band's site.[4] On the Sean Brennan article, he also removed info which he felt "wasn't relevent", such as date and place of birth... but I can't revert it because of the parole. - Deathrocker 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episodes, again

Hi, Thatcher131. I understand that you mediated the dispute over Lost episodes not too long ago. Some of the editors who participated in that mediation have been arguing over one aspect of it: specifically, whether the mediation addressed how individual episode articles should be named. There was an edit war at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, which eventually led to a more general discussion about naming of TV episode articles at WT:TV-NC. In that discussion, Elonka (talk · contribs) insists that the Lost WikiProject decided to append the suffix (Lost) on all articles about Lost episodes, whether they needed to be disambiguated or not. Ned Scott (talk · contribs) insists that article naming wasn't discussed in the mediation, and that Elonka added the naming guideline on her own initiative. I looked through the mediation talk page, and could only find one mention of article naming, here. I see that Ned and Elonka asked you for a clarification on this subject here, but I can't find whether you ever replied to them. The discussion at WT:TV-NC has been acrimonious at times, and the debate over whether episode naming was part of the Lost mediation seems to me like one aspect that could be resolved fairly easily. Could you take a look back at the case and let me know what your understanding of the matter is? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... Thatcher, would you be so kind as to reply to this? The issue of episode naming in general is heading to mediation, and it would be useful if we knew whether it had been addressed before, before it starts. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I left a message. Thatcher131 12:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Thatcher! I think that provided some much-needed perspective to the issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for popping in, Thatcher. The link to the ArbCom proceeding was especially interesting. If you know of other such precedents, I would be very much interested in seeing them. --Elonka 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PMA

Hi, thanks for taking care of the RfC. I'd had half a mind of opening one myself and had a bit of material collected, that's the stuff I added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it needed to be done. Thatcher131 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Thatcher. Thanks for doing the grunt work on the RfC. I find it all rather sad, but I agree with your comment above that it was something that needed to be done. Thanks again for doing all that work. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I believe admins should stick together against trolls and other disruptive users, but I think the flip side of that is that admins should should act when one of us is clearly out of line. I would have been content if he would have agreed that his blocks were wrong and made some effort to change his behavior or get a mentor or something (despite having been an admin for 2+ years). I think, though, that with his puzzled reaction to Adam and his view that he was not going to respond due to the participation of certain people (whoever they are), that it ended as well as it could have. Thatcher131 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

clerkship

Please attend to this violation of the ArbCom procedure. It has been brought up a while ago and not corrected for too long. Thank you, --Irpen 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Already moved the comments. Thatcher131 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, must've been the browser cache problem on my end. Thanks! --Irpen 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing case

Thatcher, it looks like we've got a case that was never listed properly: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Khosrow II. No idea how this happened. Could you please list it? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only was it never listed, it was apparently created as a closed archive [5] which explains why it never showed up in the unlisted category. Weird. Thatcher131 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed limits to my actions

I would appreciate if you could spell out a bit more clearly what actions you think I should not be allowed to take - I would like to know what you expect me not to do. I would also appreciate if you could look over my administrative actions and see which ones are not in keeping with what I should be doing. Thanks. Guettarda 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. We can talk about it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop, if you like. Thatcher131 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume this means that you consider me a party to the arb case then? Guettarda 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it belongs on the evidence page. Guettarda 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are taking this so personally. I haven't accused you of anything or even looked at your contribs or logs, and have no interest in doing so. I am suggesting (and I may very well be wrong) that an admin who, hypothetically, thinks global warming is a hoax and who runs an off-wiki blog arguing that global warming is a socialist conspiracy with the goal of forcing the world to adopt a uniform low standard of living, probably should not be unblocking editors whom third parties have identified as coal industry trolls. Thatcher131 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking it personally because you are calling for a restriction on my use of admin powers that is, at best, based on guilt by association. Based on what you are calling for, my membership of a WikiProject is reason enough to limit my admin actions. I would like you to substantiate your accusations based on my actions, not on my associations, or even on my beliefs. How is that too much to ask that you judge people and make accusations against people on the basis of their actions and not their beliefs? Guettarda 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it you don't see my point? Oh well. What a shame. Guettarda 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest guilt by association. I meant to suggest that admins who feel strongly about a subject should not take administrative actions based on those strong feelings, even if they were technically uninvolved with a particular editor or article. Obviously I phrased it poorly, as membership in a particular project does not necessarily indicate strong feelings about a topic. I probably should have said that admins with a history of editing within contentious topics should consider themselves "involved" with respect to all articles of that topic, even ones they haven't (yet) edited, and with respect to other editors who also edit that topic, even editors they have not been in conflict with. After all, I believe the admin community generally accepts the proposition that an admin should not act against a user he is in a dispute with, even if the actions are those that would be taken or endorsed by a neutral admin. My proposal seems to me like a logical extension.

Referring to my example above, there are 117 articles in category:Climate change not counting the subcategories, and even the most ardent climatologist is unlikely to have edited them all. Suppose admin John Doe has a record of editing climate-related articles, defending the current scientific orthodoxy that global warming is a real and human-caused phenomenon. A new user Jane Roe appears and begins editing climate-related articles from the point of view that global warming is a hoax. She is accused of being a troll and of acting disruptively. Under the present rules he could block or ban her as long as he and she had not edited the same articles in direct conflict. I would prefer that admin John Doe not be the one to block or ban Jane Roe for disruption, or trolling, or whatever, even if he is technically uninvolved, because her editorial contributions and viewpoint are in direct conflict with his previous edits to the same topic. Or on the reverse, if new editor John Stiles, an ardent environmentalist, is blocked for edit warring or disruption, I would not want admin John Doe to unilaterally unblock him.

In any event, it is clear that Fred viewed the unblocking of the Fisher accounts as an ordinary lapse in judgement not related Felonious' views on Intelligent Design or Chris Langan, and furthermore Fred seems to agree that the lapse was not so serious as to require desysopping after all. I have indicated "never mind" on the proposal; perhaps you would prefer I actively strike it out. Thatcher131 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again

re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clerk_notes thanks again for all of your hard work. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

looking for feedback

Thatcher131, I have made three reverts on the Kosovo article today as a result of an ongoing give and take with Laughing Man. I will not make another revert today which keeps me within the 3R rule. However, I believe the Kosovo article is under a tighter leash. I am doing my best to explain my edits and have offered reasons on the discussion page. I believe the edit Laughing Man is pushing is simply inaccurate.

If I have transgressed the current rules governing the Kosovo article as a result of this give and take with Laughing Man, I will respond positively to a simple heads-up from any administrator. In fact, I would welcome feedback before needing a shot across the bow from an administrator.

When you get a chance, could you review recent edits at the Kosovo article and let me know if, in your opinion, I have transgressed. Thank you. Fairview360 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

SA RFAR

If my unblocking of Haldane Fisher warrants being listed as a party to that proceeding then Cowman109's blocking of him that prompted my taking action certainly warrants it as well. FeloniousMonk 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Too slow Fred Bauder 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for fixing my user page. It's nice to find that someone cares. Also thanks for the cool archive dingbat. Neat :) GuardianZ 14:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Please see if there is a way we can signal that there is a motion to vote on. Fred Bauder 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Fred asked me to find a way to show that there was some sort of vote going on in the Seabhcan case - I managed to get something working since this is an unusual case (anything after the | in the case makes you redirect to the temporary injunction section, but the place where the voting is is above that), so I added a messy Wikilink there that works, although perhaps it should be under another name other than Inj. I know it makes the edit window messy, but is that alright? Cowman109^Talk 18:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's the diff just for the sake of making things easy. Cowman109^Talk 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. See the note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. Thatcher131 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding disruptive users on Arb

Hi, I was wondering if you are the designated clerk of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. If so, then please advise me on how I should deal with the inflammatory statements made by User:Street Scholar in the Arbcomm and several other pages, including numerous racist, anti-semitic statements and hate-site spamming. There is an [[6]] on him launched by several other admins but no action has been taken. I reported him on WP:PAIN here but an admin said that since this is related to his posts on Arbcomm then I should ask the clerk about what to do[7]. , despite the fact that several of his racist comments were made outside the arbcomm page. Please advise.

His objectionable statements:

1. [8] against Bengali people in Talk:Martial Race
2. anti-semitic comment [9] and making false allegations of anti-Arabism on my part (patently false based on an unfortunate statement made by me in a backfired attemot at sarcasm which I immediately corrected and apologized for in the edit summary see)
3. Ethnic baiting

[10][11]

he has a history of such actions, going back to making numerous sexist attacks on lady wikipedians, getting blocked for it, continuing with the attacks in his talk page thereafter, and getting his block extended.

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] If you see his archive from here and below, you will see that it gets worse.

He has also vandalized articles with sexist POV before [19] [20]

Hkelkar 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You should put all of this on the Evidence page of the case. The Evidence page is the place to lay out your side of the case; arguments that you are not a sockpuppet, diffs showing that others are engaging in unacceptable conduct, and so forth. Thatcher131 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi, I would like to know where I respond to other people's accusations (on the evidence page) on arbitration cases. I'm not sure if I should put my responses on the evidence page because the evidence will be the same diffs the other party is using. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably the evidence page is the best place. You can make a new subsection "Response to User:X" and so on. I assume if you are using the same diffs you are going to put your own "spin" on them or explain them differently than the other party. That's perfectly fine. Let me know if you have any more questions or want assistance. Thatcher131 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One more question (sorry to bother you). How long will the case stay in the evidence stage? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The minimum is 7 days after opening. There is only one case ahead of you and it is almost ready to go to voting. If you would like to ask for an extension and can give a definite date when you will be ready, you can post a request and I will also make a note of it. Hopefully you are more or less ready to go since you filed the case in the first place. Thatcher131 04:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I should be done writing my evidence there within 2 or 3 days. I don't want to ask for an extension but I'm wondering if other people need it since they have not yet provided any information on the evidences page. We'll see I guess. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think minds are likely to change. Futile to keep it up or put it back. Fred Bauder 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? BhaiSaab ^talk 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Fred's comment is about a different matter. Thatcher131 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the workshop page say this: "On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority." Aren't 3 votes a majority? BhaiSaab ^talk 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered on the proposed decision talk page. Thatcher131 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello, I put a request in the ArbCom case for Hkelkar, in the talk page: would you be so kind as to see it ? It is in the "For the sake of clarity" paragraph of the talk page, there.

Thank you.

TwoHorned 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedural Question

As the designated clerk for the Clash of Civilisations that is the RfArb on HKelkar, I wonder if I could ask a question: when a RfArb has been opened on a particular user, are the findings of fact going to focus on that user alone, or on all users cited by ArbComm as parties to the dispute? I ask because I have avoided, for purposes of sparing myself considerable aggravation, discussing my interactions with another user. However, if the ArbComm will be passing out some form of judgment on all involved, as has been suggested to me[21] I would not be able to square it with my conscience if I did not make an effort to at least begin to spell out some of the damage done. About your comment on the project talkpage that I didnt seem to mind HKelkar replying in my section of the evidence, I sort of did, but decided to demarcate it and leave it there as it appeared relevant to the fact-finding process. Thank you for your time, and I apologise for the degree of work that this arbitration will involve. I do hope that some good will come of it. Hornplease 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First, regarding the conversation, feel free to move it to the evidence talk page if you prefer. Regarding the participants, the arbitrators have wide latitude and often consider the behavior of editors not originally named. Hkelkar has certainly brought complaints against a number of editors, and Bakasuprman seems to be taking his side, so it might be reasonable to offer some evidence if you believe he has been a disruptive editor. You could also ask arbitrator Fred Bauder, who has already started reviewing the case, what his opinion would be. Thatcher131 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk work

Hi, can you please refactor the truckload of irrelevant discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop? I left a note here and tried to get Flo's attention on IRC, but neither seems to have worked. Thanks --Srikeit 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Another truckload has been added in the past few hours. Some sections are getting difficult to read with all the external links and quotes. I echo Srikeit's request. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed some comments. I'll keep a closer watch. Thatcher131 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Thatcher, what does "probation" mean anyways?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Probation. If you still have questions, ask me again. Thatcher131 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

How would I go about getting my Arbitration withdrawn? The concern that everyone had was my +sysop bit which is long gone, the arbitration was accepted to look at whether I need to go through RfA again, but... neither I, nor anyone else, has ever disagreed with that. Now what is being debated is a very stale issue that was over 3 weeks ago for God's sake! The accusers have stated that they want no action taken against me for that, and Fred's proposed "remedy" (to what I'm not sure) got unanimous opposition from the people involved. I have a feeling that no one will miss it if this case was over early and put an end to this mess. What needs to be done to achieve that?--Konstable II 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. You've certainly raised the issue in several places. Before I opened the case I specifically asked Dmcdevit and he indicated he still wanted to hear the case (in fact, I emailed Arbcom-L but it turns out the listserv was down and the message didn't go through). My only guess is that some members of Arbcom are unhappy about how the departures of past admins were handled (thinking here of Homey, perhaps) and want to be clear both on the conditions of your departure and of your return, should you want to. I know you indicate no desire to return for now, but in the future if you changed your mind, it would be unfortunate if someone siezed on the abandoned arbitration proceeding as basis to claim you are a banned user, or as a basis to exonerate you from all past complaints, leading to factionalization over your status. That's my guess anyway. Does that help? (Probably not) Thatcher131 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I apologize in advance - I understand that you're very busy.

Regarding the RFarb that I'm participating in - should I be participating in the workshop more? In other words, are the arbitors reading the evidence at this stage, or just the workshop?

Is it worth contributing further in the workshop at this point, or would it be best to just stop? I don't want to impede or delay this process in any way, but I also want my evidence to be seen and read.

I don't really understand this process, and I would be grateful for anything you might have to say about it.

Thanks for your time (and very hard work), Nina NinaEliza 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point Fred has finished writing the proposed decision and placed it out for arbitrator vote. Voting may take 2 weeks or longer as the arbitrators are pretty busy and they need time to review the case and the evidence. I don't know how much they read the evidence and workshop pages, so I can't really tell you if you should keep adding evidence. Are you satisfied with the proposed decision? If so, you can probably stop adding more evidence unless there is some indication during voting that more evidence is needed. If you are not happy with the proposed decision, you can make comments or new proposals on the workshop page. Does this help? Thatcher131 04:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That was exceptionally helpful. As I understand it, I look at the proposed decision, use that as my guide, and work backward if I feel it's necessary.

I understand that the arbitrators are very busy. On top of the fact that this has gotten incredibly long and convoluted (and more than a little evil, if you were to ask me), it (directly or indirectly) involves four major religions with millenia of history, along with some of the most controversial political situations of this century (and the last, and so on).

I understand that caution in the face of such overwhelming factors is vital to even the smallest decision here. I wish I could send them a plate of cookies or something.

Giving me some kind of timeframe helps me tremendously. It was really frustrating before you did. Now I realize that I should wrap things up and start editing the things I really wanted to edit in the first place (and those things are pretty far from these topics). In other words, I should just walk away and hope for the best.

Again, really, thank you so much (for this and your statement on the admin board as well). If it's possible to be both very neutral and very kind at the same time, then you exemplify it.NinaEliza 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections edited

User:Stone put to sky also had a few comments added to this section on the evidence page at the Seahbcan arbcom case. I already asked Cowman if he would attend to this, if someone wants to further explain to Stone put to sky where he needs to add his rebuttals. Thanks.--MONGO 08:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I missed that last night. It looks like Nuclear removed it and Stone then put it back where it belonged (more or less). I have combined his two evidence sections into one. Hopefully he's got the idea now. Thatcher131 12:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Re: Checkuser task

Will be no problem, just a "find and replace" job using AWB. However what really ticks me off is that the dates are wikilinked which means I can't do a direct load from the links on the page without a lot of tedious omissions. Why are the dates linked anyway? Its completely useless AFAICS. Do you mind if I un-wikilink the dates so that my job gets easier? Cheers --Srikeit 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean in the table on the /Case page? I know Daniel.B set it up that way but I don't know what good it does. If he thinks having the dates linked is useful that we can just revert the case page. right? Thatcher131 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The dates linked allow user prefs to kick in. I have no objection to them being removed, though. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution is that I remove the date wikilinks, load the page links in AWB and revert myself after that. No harm done ;) --Srikeit 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Using CheckuserClerkAWB (talk · contribs), I have changed the links for 200 cases. There are still 500 more cases left for which the links have to be modified. I will complete the job in 2-3 days. --Srikeit 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. Unfortunately as a proud Mac user, I can't help, otherwise I'd be more than happy to. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I'll be opening the "Sex Tourism" case tonight, I have left note on the Administration page regarding the name of the case. I'd like your opinion on it. Thanks --Srikeit 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally completed, however AWB ignored about 10 cases (I cannot pinpoint which) because they did not meet the find and replace regex. Guess all we can hope is that cases are never reopened ;) Cheers --Srikeit 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My Vote Against FloNight

Thank you for your concern. I realize that she has been a clerk for 3 months, but a 3-year term would be the result of selecting her now (for a total of 3 years, 3 months continuous service, albeit in different roles.)

The rotation of personnel is a good thing, I believe, and too long in one spot is not. (I would support term limits, if that were up for discussion).

That is the limit of my objection to FloNight. She otherwise seems like an excellent candidate. My objections notwithstanding, I am unsurprised that she is one of the top vote-getters, and if somehow she is not selected, I would likely strongly support her at the next election.

If you have any suggestions how I can clarify better on the voting page, please let me know. And if you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask. Jd2718 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser policy

I replied to you at User talk:Dmcdevit. Not sure whether you'd be back... -- Renesis (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this here. I respect your right to disagree on the matter of whether User:Tennis expert is User:Tennislover or not, since it is subjective for all of us. However, the evidence that they are not the same is overwhelming, and is only partly based on the fact that this one account is non-disruptive (while all others, 10 or more, see the case, are disruptive). I listed much of my evidence at User talk:Dmcdevit, including tone, time of edits, editing patterns, editing subjects, etc., but I only stopped because it seemed clear to me. I could have kept going. -- Renesis (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, only one suspected/confirmed sock of User:Cute 1 4 u had anything to do with tennis, as far as I know... (and that may have just been a friend) -- Renesis (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The technical checkuser evidence is not subjective, merely restricted and not disclosed.

Let me ask you a related question. Suppose a checkuser is running a routine check on some recently created vandal accounts to see if there is an IP that can be blocked to stop the vandalism. He finds that the vandal accounts are being created by a long-time editor with over 3000 contributions; an active vandal fighter and recent changes patroller with no blocks or warnings in his history. The checkuser can see the editor logging out from his main account, creating vandal accounts and vandalising with them, then logging back in as himself and reverting the vandalism, reporting it to AIV. The editor has the stated goal on his user page of becoming an admin, and has a well-received editor review in progress. True story, by the way. What would you advise? Thatcher131 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would advise further investigation. In a case as complicated as that, relying solely on checkuser data is as bad a decision as dismissing the case altogether. This would need to be an investigation that takes into account all aspects of the case: checkuser data, contribs from the legitimate account, contribs from the vandal accounts, editing times, editing patterns, both intentional and unintentional. Some of the things I observed in the case of Tennislover ("TL", bad sock) and Tennis expert ("TE", user in question):

• TE edits between 15:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC, with some edits coming between 05:00 UTC and 08:00 UTC. TL edits between 20:00 UTC and 03:00 UTC.
• TL tried to get User:Cute 1 4 u unblocked by posting messages pretending, quite unsuccessfully, and in childish language, to be a different person, as well as subtly posting messages saying that maybe C14U was a bad user. TE was upfront and articulate with his request for unblock, as well as presenting as much evidence as possible for his asserted distinction from TL/C14U.
• TL posted on TL's user page that she "wanted to go pro" (in tennis). TE has stated his age to be over 40, and mentioned that he became interested in hurricanes in the 70s.
• TL welcomed many users and posted mainly on talk and was immature, but not necessarily a full-blown vandal (which isn't consistent with past dual-personality accounts), while TE's user talk edits are mainly about scoring formats in tennis articles
• TE's account has posted consecutive edits to tropical cyclone articles, during which TL's account posted immature talk messages, including to Jimbo. This would have to be one crazy person.
• C14U's socks follow one another in chronology, beginning in June. TE's edits began later, in August, with a much higher contribution level than C14U or any of it's socks. Would a vandal/disruptive editor turn INTO a good editor (particularly with such high levels of research and time put into edits and new articles), while maintaing the split personality? This is also inconsistent with past dual-personality accounts.

Anyway, I don't mean to barage/bore you with details. I just think that while checkuser data is objective in and of itself, the case as a sum is still subjective, and in this situation, I don't see how it can be "case closed" by any stretch. (By the way, by "subjective", I meant that no one will ever know if the person sitting at the computer logging on to Wikipedia merely has a split personality or is really two different people. I of course am not disputing the checkuser data.) -- Renesis (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate all the time Renesis has spent on this matter. And I would hope that any administrator would make a similar effort before banning a user permanently, without prior notice and without the opportunity to be heard and dispute the evidence. (We're not talking about a 24 hour block here. A permanent block is much more serious.) I'm not sure why you (Thatcher131) brought up the administrator-wannabe example because it certainly has no applicability to me. I have no interest - zero - in being an administrator. I simply like to write and edit articles and am primarily interested in promoting excellence in the tennis-related articles (having played and followed tennis for 40+ years) and, when time permits, the tropical cyclone-related articles. What I say is "evidence" of my intentions and my past actions, just like my edit history, my IP address history, and every other relevant fact is "evidence" worthy of consideration. It appears that almost everything I have been saying about myself is being ignored by some under the assumption that nothing a suspected sock puppet says is credible once that person has been labeled a suspect. The system should not work this way. I will never accept the false accusation that cute 1 4 U/Tennislover and I are the same person. We do not live together. We do not share a computer. We do not know each other (in person or virtually). We have no connection whatsoever, now or in the past. Tennis expert 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I note in your response to Dmcdevit that you state you are on a different IP range than Cute 1. The only IPs known for Cute 1 are those that she publically disclosed in her e-mails or by editing. Only the checkusers know how many other IP addresses she might have used. I also trust that Dmcdevit and Essjay are experienced enough to understand and account for dynamic IPs, if such is the case. Until they make me a checkuser, I have to decide whether to believe two highly experienced wikipedians with whom I have worked closely for more than 6 months, or an anonymous (to me) user. If Dmcdevit says you are using the same IP as Cute 1 [22] that closes the case as far as I am concerned. Thatcher131 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Same IP address, same IP range, or same Internet service provider? Which of these is supported by the Checkuser evidence? I have been asking and asking and asking this question because it's very important. As you know, determining whether a user is a sock puppet for a banned user is a subjective task. The Checkuser handbook says this: "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not). ... Most dialup and a lot of DSL and cable IPs are dynamic. They might change every session, every day, every week, every few months or hardly ever. Unless the access times are right next to each other, be cautious in declaring a match." Given this directive, are you saying that the subjective evaluation of evidence by Dncdevit should be accepted without question and without recourse? How do you or anyone else know exactly what evidence was considered before the permanent ban was made? Several people who have looked at this say that the subjective evidence available to them does not support a conclusion that I am a sockpuppet of cute 1 4 U or Tennislover. This is why I was unbanned. Have you looked at the subjective evidence to draw your own conclusions? If not, I respectfully ask that you do. Tennis expert 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My permanent ban case was resolved in my favor: I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 u or Tennislover. My big thanks goes to those who supported me through this ordeal! Tennis expert 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

November 29, 2006 Dear Mr. or Ms. Thatcher:

I would like to vindicate myself in this matter. I am not a "sockpuppet" (nor am I Lambchop, Mortimer Snerd, Punch or Judy, or the demonic ones who took over Anthony Hopkins' and Michael Redgrave's souls in old movies).

I have left messages with Demiurge to which he refuses to respond. Is there no system of checks and balances in Wikipedia, whereby one person's "suspicion" that I "might be" a sockpuppet -- has effectively banned me from editing until I get the green light -- which you indicated is unprovable based on the computer technology. If this person is not impartial and refuses to communicate with me, what am I to do??

Can you please help me, even if it means interceding with someone impartial to hear my case.

Thank you. Mikijaniec 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM

Shadow1 has raised to my awareness that arbcom can use some help. I am normally on hand for anti-spam and anti-vandalism. (Plus random programming bits) I would not mind helping out with ArbCom for something new. Give me an idea of where to start! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this reminds me, I've been dabbling with host checking for VoABot II. Edits by server IPs (ones that have open ports/are hosting) to any non talk page are scanned for vandalism, and those to the watchlist are watched closely.Voice-of-All 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet arbitration case

Hi Thatcher, about the sockpuppet arbitration case, you removed it as there appeared to be no chance of it been accepted. Looking at their contributions [23] [24], I honestly believe some of the users banned as sockpuppets actually weren't socks, and right now they have been unfairly blocked from editing wikipedia. So far the only 2 discussions about the case have been the checkuser process and the rejected arbcom process. So no one has actually gone over this yet to ascertain if the they were actually sockpuppets. Any advice on how I can take this matter forward? Thanks for any help. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded for understanding and implementation of defend one another. Awarded by Addhoc

Arbitration report

My god, you're quick... David Mestel^(Talk) 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just addicted. (Very sad, really.) Thatcher131 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, not at all... By the way, I feel that I should help put something back into the running of the ArbCom, so would it be OK to have a go at lending a hand with clerking duties on an adhoc basis initially? David Mestel^(Talk) 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me clear it with a couple of people and I'll let you know. Thatcher131 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any progress? David Mestel^(Talk) 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have all we need at the moment. Both FloNight and I, the most active "official" clerks, would like to mostly act as coordinators, proofreaders, and backups. We've got one new clerk reader for approval, and have added two others in "training" (for lack of a better word) and we think that's enough for the time being. You're next on my list, though, if someone drops out or decides after handling a couple of cases they aren't interested after all. Thanks for asking. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

surprise, how did that happen?

For me the arbitration between iantresman and scienceapologist was a too lengthy and tiring affair to follow, so I didn't look much at it. Now I see that the two parties are treated differently. However, the allegation of one of the parties, Iantresman, was that:

A small number of editors appear to be excluding or misrepresenting some minority scientific views [..]. This results in (a) some scientific articles giving exclusive coverage of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV), as if it were the only view, while policy notes that the scientific POV should give way to the broader neutral POV.

I consider that to be a factual statement; it has been corroborated by ample evidence. I provided a few examples myself but didn't bother to do an exhaustive dig. Nevertheless apparently no corrective action has been undertaken to guard against WP:NPOV and WP:V violations in articles about popular theories.

Could you please explain what happened? Harald88 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, there are signs that such will be really needed, see for example [25]: "just about ready to remove the Wolf Effect mentioned in the redshift article due to undue weight"

In contrast, the real scientific point of view is a sceptical one that takes into account all possibilities and requires fair presentation of theories - very much like Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Harald88 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to figure out what happened is to read the workshop and proposed decision pages. There was a lot of back and forth between the arbitrators. Generally, I think they felt that Ian, tommy and ELerner were trying to give fringe, non-notable and original research ideas too much prominence, so they did not object too much to ScienceApologist's activities. There is no way to enforce a "Caution". If ScienceApologist continues to be (in your view) uncivil, you would make a report on the main RFAR page under Requests for clarification in prior cases. The arbitrators could provide more specific guidance or even vote an enforceable remedy if they don't SA has gotten the first message. Thatcher131 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the precision. If needed, I may do so and uncivility is not really the problem. Also I have difficulty following all those pages, it looks like a (too large) collection of suggestions to me -your summaries are much clearer!

However, I am much less concerned with the actions of individuals as the question as to where this encyclopdia is heading to. I take note of an unbalance in the arbitration rule, which seems to oppose Wikipedia's philopsophy of fairly informing the readers. The arbitrators were officially requested to safeguard this foundation principle but apparently failed to do so and instead selectivly criticized some editors for their violation of rules while overlooking just as severe violations by other editors. IOW, my criticism here concerns the arbitrators: this could set a wrong precedent in opposition to Jimbo Wales' "unnegotiable" NPOV policy. Is the RFAR page also for that? Would you know where I can address this concern?

As it was the NPOV policy of Wikipedia that made me decide to participate in the project, I will consider to abandon it and hand it over to the wolves if it is sabotaged from above; and I prefer to have this clarified before investing/wasting more of my time in Wikipedia.

Thanks, Harald88 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of overlapping issues in the Pseudoscience case. One was editing of Aneutronic fusion by Elerner and Art LaPella that consisted almost entirely of competing original research rather than reports of reliable sources. Plus the problem that Elerner is actively soliciting investors in the ideas he was writing about here. Another is the issue of the Undue weight section of NPOV; not only should fringe topics be covered but how much. So for example if you want to write about "tired light" being responsible for red shift rather than the expansion of the universe (an idea which almost no one believes) you can right about if there are reliable sources describing the theory, but you should also say that almost no one believes it.

You should look at the principles that passed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles; that's the final decision anyway. If you believe those principles are too restrictive, then I suppose you won't be interested in editing any more. If you would like clarification, you could ask at the RFAR talk page, or for a more general discussion on editing policy try the Village pump. The other thing to do is to keep editing articles the way you want, keeping in mind the need for cooperation, collegiality and consensus, and you may be able to work things out with individual editors as you go along. I'm not sure that is a specific enough answer to help you, sorry. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Zacheus

Re: your translation request on my cs:talk (you can contact me here, I'm online on en: as much as on cs:). Sure, if you consider it important, I can translate it trying to be literary, in a few days. I'm a bit hesitant to write a quick summary - let me exaplain why: As you can read at meta:Requests for permissions#deCheckUser Wikimol, Zacheus considers also me one of his personal enemies, claims I violated his privacy as a checkuser, and probably acuses me of some other wrongs. This relation is not mutual and I don't take it personaly, but anyway, if I write a summary and you make some opinion based on it it's quite probable my summary will be attacked by Zacheus as somhow biased and misleading and your opinion as unfounded as it was based on such a wrong summary, and so on... So I'd reccomend to ask someone else, for example User:Pavel Vozenilek --Wikimol 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least give me an idea if User:-jkb-'s characterization "But today you publshed here a very harrasing and attacking pamphlet" is close to correct? Thanks. Thatcher131 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of it consists of Zachauses replies to some discussion posts from cs:Wikipedie:Nástěnka správců (cs: admin noticeboard), where Zachaus can't participate. Most of the replies are of personal nature - rather than giving opinions, I'll translate two, I hope representative examples:

"K eggovi"

Je podle mě marné očekávat, že VZ projeví dobrou vůli, očekávat bychom to neměli. Ano, s trollingem dobrou vůli nemám. Stejně jako k Vaší nekollegialitě k -jkb-, kdy jste mu hodil na hrb všechno porušování soukromí.

translation

"To egg"

In my opion, it's futile to expect VZ will exhibit some good will - we can't expect that. (eggs words)

Yes, I have no good will for trolling. The same goes for your disloyalty to -jkb- - on whom you've dumped all the privacy violations.

"K Hippopotamovi"

Takový příklad právního formalismu se jen tak nevidí. Sice jsem rovněž právník, ale pevně doufám, že jiného druhu. Jak může někdo vydávat změnu pouhého doporučení za vandalismus? Jak někdo může vydávat technické omezení za dogma? Měl byste se Li-sungovi a Mormegilovi okamžitě omluvit.

"To Hippopotamus"

Such example of legal formalism is really exceptional. Yes, I'm a lawer as well, but I really hope I'm a lawer of some other kind! How anynone could claim a change of mere Guideline to be a vandalism? How anyone could claim a technical limitation to be a doctine? You should apologize to Li-sung and Mormegil - immediately.

I hope it helps --Wikimol 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Small Question

Hi again, I found a personal user award you made at the Kindness campaign that's perfect for someone. It's called the "Ray of Sunshine" Award. I can't figure out how to get the template or code or what-have-you.

I would appreciate it very much if I could get a copy from you, or if you could point me in the right direction of where I can find it. This user is has given me comfort in what she/he is doing, and I would like to let her know. Thanks, Thatcher. NinaEliza 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher! The person in question turned out to be one of multiple sockpuppets, so there you go. NinaEliza 03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU - Which talk page?

Hi

you removed comments and stated they were answered on talk page.

Which talk page?

Thanks 195.82.106.244 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Thatcher131 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, found it. 195.82.106.244 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

your censorship

Your wholly unjustified and blatant censorship of me is yet another indication of why Wikipedia is rapidly becoming such a laughingstock. Fortunately in the real world, science still exits.Elerner 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You were writng to me on behalf of the arbitration comittee. I am replying to you in the same way, as a representative of that committee. If you are part of it, you take responsibility for its actions. Your quick block is an indication of where you are coming fromElerner 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Importing the drama

OK, you are right. Problem was that my petition to change my username on Meta was neglected and on cs: it was conditioned by unknown prerequisites. I acknowledge that my problem with cs: has nothing to do with en: and I will no longer use en: as a medium for it. -- Zacheus 08:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See my re

Please see my response on User talk:-jkb- and tell me, when you have read it, the pages are to be archived. -jkb- 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran Iraq war arbitration

Hello. I am very busy right now, but it has come to my attention that the arbitration may have severe consequences. May I propose a compromise? I hope I do not get banned, and in return for not getting banned, I will promise not to get invovled in recent political related articles, such as the Iran Iraq war. I am more interested in history anyways and will be perfectly content in sticking to historical articles. Does that seem as a reasonable compromise? I will no longer edit on pages related to modern politics. I should never have gotten involved in the first place since I did not have enough time to explain my position, and that was my mistake for being too hasty. Please, I think this can work for all parties involved, thanks.Khosrow II 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed decision

I was working out how to word my response; thanks for reminding me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Hearing

I do not understand the fairness or openess in this procedure. The workshop page is entirely done by Fred, which people have a problem with him not recusing himself, its done before Seabhcan presents his evidence, and on Fred goes to the proposed decision page while items are still being discussed on the workshop age and still seabhcan has not presented his evidence. Where is the fairness in all of this? Why is Fred the only one who handles workshop and only considered Travb's evidence in doing so? It was noted that Seabhcan was not going to be back for a week, why did we end up on Proposed Decision before Seabhcan even got back? Is it proper for a main party to be ignored completely? --NuclearZer0 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First, the initial proposals were placed on the proposed decision page by Dmcdevit, who also placed the case into voting at {{ArbComOpenTasks}}. Fred voted and then moved the case back into the evidence phase.

Second, if you do not follow arb cases you may not be aware that Fred writes nearly all the workshop and proposed decision pages. I believe a related discussion is still at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or perhaps Wikipedia talk:Arbitration committee or in the most recent archive. Basically, he says he is retired and has the most free time. Sometimes another arbitrator will write up a proposed decision page, and sometimes there is considerable give and take and alternate proposals. Review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision for example. The workshop page is a tool for analyzing cases and getting the perspective of the parties. There is no requirement that the arbitrators adopt any of the proposals there.

In regards to this specific case, some Arbcom dynamics come into play. This is my unofficial oberservations, but to me it looks like Dmcdevit is much quicker to propose desysopping when he feels an admin has misused the admin tools, and is much less interested in content issues. I imagine that Dmcdevit figures that since there is good evidence that both MONGO and Seabhcan have misused their admin tools in various ways, they should be desysopped, and the underlying content issues will be handled outside the arbitration process by the general population. I hesitate to guess at Fred's motives for voting to desysop Seabhcan but not MONGO. I expect this will eventually become clear if and when Fred adds new proposals to the proposed decision that lay a foundation for his votes. Fred may also want to lay a foundation for content-based remedies like revert parole or probation. Thatcher131 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you support blanking the Proposed Decision page since we are back to reviewing evidence? Certaintly any proposals not based on the full picture cannot be completely fair. --NuclearZer0 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a give and take process, and whatever new proposals Fred comes up with will be considered by the other arbitrators along with Dmcdevit's proposals. Fred might even get outvoted. Thatcher131 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So its fine for an Arbitrator to propose items withuot reviewing all the evidence because we hope they will be outvoted? That makes little sense Thatcher131 and I have a hard time believing you actually believe it makes sense. I believe its called prejudice, when you prejudge someone. --NuclearZer0 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf, other arbitrators vote on the proposals - Fred's proposals aren't final by any means unless they get a net five support votes, so you are definitely overreacting. If evidence shows that such proposals are inappropriate, then other arbitrators will oppose the given motion. Cowman109^Talk 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cman, for final votes it is a straight majority of the active arbitrators. (For 9 arbs, a vote of 5-4 would pass. Cases often close at 5-0 or 6-0 because there's not much point in waiting for a busy arb to come around and vote when it can't change the outcome.) The majority changes when arbitrators become inactive or active again. Thatcher131 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Sorry, I sillifully (I decided to invent that word) decided to edit Wikipedia in the middle of the night when what I say does not quite come out right, for you see that is my plight. (But at least I can rhyme, alright?). Cowman109^Talk 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

from avyakt7

Dear Thatche131, Thank you for replying to me. I was wondering if it could be possible to add that statement: " bk.info and user .244 come from the same place." in your statement in the arbitration. After all, you did mentioned about my account, searchin man and appledell as coming from different places. As you mentioned, an account could be logging in from an internet cafe.. however, the IP address can tell where that IP is located (in this case England). That just adds more evidence to the fact that bk.info and user .244 are one and the same. What you mentioned: "None found. The BKWS and ex-BK members could be coordinating their efforts but they are not traditional sockpuppets." in reference of sockpuppets it is not accurate, then. I have presented differentials which clearly show a pattern and proof from the internet of those accounts as being sockpuppets.Moreover, the fact that the IP addresses from bk.info are coming from the same location as .244 adds credibility to this assumption. Best Wishes, avyakt7 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5It's the closest thing I could find to a plate of cookies.NinaEliza 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom clerking

Hi - I've been watching a few ArbCom cases recently (Hkelkar as an obvious one!) and would be interested in doing some clerking, helping opening and closing cases and the like (as described here). Would this be possible? Thanks, Martinp23 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have all we need at the moment. Of the "official clerks" only two are active, but we've been "training" (for lack of a better word) two more, and have just added a third. 4 or 5 full time clerks is about all we need, I think, although I will let you know if we need more. Thanks for asking. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks :). Feel free to get in touch is you ever need another clerk :D Martinp23 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request

(cross-posted from Daniel B.'s page as I don't know who will get to it first) I have filed a CheckUser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.119.236.93 which has not yet appeared on the RfCU main page. I'm not sure whether these are supposed to transclude automatically or whether a CheckUser or Clerk sees them in the category and moves them to the page, but I wanted to make sure that I have properly teed the request up for consideration. I realize that this request does not fall squarely within one of the six "code letters" and may be declined, but I thought it should at least be submitted for consideration under all the circumstances. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be there now. I guess I don't quite understand the mechanics of how that page works. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Essjay runs a bot that automatically lists new pages, after experiencing a modest but still significant error rate in asking people to list their own. I don't know how often it runs but your case was listed after a few minutes, it seems. As to the merits, it's tough to say, the checkusers have different threshholds and it kind of depends on who picks it up. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had only known of the Essjaybot that does archiving. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to mention that it takes a few minutes for cases to show up in the instructions so others don't worry as I did. Right now the page says to refresh your cache, which didn't help.

Arbitration clerk

Yes, I would like to get involved. Thanks for offering. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I attempt to open one on my own, or would you like to guide me through it? I signed up on the clerk's page for one of the cases though. If you don't want me to attempt on my own, then just drop me a note on my talk page or on the clerk's page. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, do I list all the users found at User:Wknight94/Count or just those mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Naming Conventions for TV-episodes articles. Is that the proper way to go about that? Basically I would like to know who I should consider involved per step #5 in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Opening a case. Also I think I am going to name the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. I will get to opening this case in about 4-6 hours. Thanks. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just list as parties to the case the parties listed currently on RFAR. You should post a notice about the opening arbitration case to the naming conventions talk page, though. The people who have commented on the naming conventions talk page may be interested but it is only the disruptive behavior of a couple of people that will be at issue. (Generally, opening statements by the parties go on the main case page while statements by others go on the talk page. When the case is open, additional people may want to come along and add statements; if someone adds their statement to main page you should clarify with them that they want to be listed as a party or else move the statement to the talk page.) Go ahead and open the case, we'll keep an eye out in case you miss something, but I think all the procedures are listed. Good luck. Thatcher131 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected ArbCom cases page

The rejected cases page atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests has fallen behind again. I've found it useful since it was brought somewhat up-to-date, so would like to see it continued, and will try to track down the rejected cases (that had any substance at all) for the past month or so. Going forward, do you think you could ask the Clerks to post diffs to this page when removing rejected cases from RfAr? If it would be a pain, don't bother, of course. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My last question ever re Konstable RfAr

Given Fred's answer to your question about the implementation note in the Konstable case, should the Enforcement paragraph be included in the final decision? Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It passed, so it gets listed, unless the arbitrators want to change it. Fred's note can be copied to the main case talk page, though. Thatcher131 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable editing a completed arbitration page, so I guess it's up to the Clerk's Office whether to do that or not. I left a note on User talk:Konstable II so he doesn't get confused in the unlikely event it still matters to him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

64.26.170.175 (talk · contribs)

is at it again... Gzkn 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mail

Please check your e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Planning ahead ...

The question isn't just what date do the new arbitrators take office, but what happens to all the cases that are in mid-process on that day? Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Hopefully they will let us know. Thatcher131 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I meant you could add that to your pending question on Arbitration Committee talk. In any event, hold on tight if one certain case isn't over by then.... :) Newyorkbrad 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. My own preference would be for cases to be decided by the arbitrators who were sitting as of the date the case went into the voting phase. If all open cases were to be decided by the new committee, the only vote to be struck in the seabhcan case would be The Epopt's, so there would still be 5 to desysop. Assuming 7 new members per Jimbo's hints, and that all seven are active, that would give us 13 active and a majority of 7. Somehow I don't think you're going to get at least 6 of the new arbs to vote against the current committee, talk about starting off on the wrong foot, plus haven't some of the candidates campaigned against admin misconduct? There may be more heat but I doubt it will affect the outcome. If they're seated immediately this should be over by Xmas. Thatcher131 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was teasing about the certain case (I guess my sense of humor is as impervious to humor detection as yours is sometimes per Essjay). I agree with you as to what the best plan would be, assuming the outgoing arbitrators (specifically The Epopt and Jayjg) were willing to sit for a couple of extra weeks to finish deciding the cases then pending. This would also lessen the burden on the incoming arbs. A couple of weeks back I took a look through the talk pages on last year's election to see if this was discussed, but didn't find anything. I'm sure Fred will remember. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it just wasn't funny. :) Actually, I rather suspect the lack of recent arb activity on the main page (accept/decline), Jayjg's non-voting in the Seabhcan case and the lack of votes on the other cases and motions is an indication that they're all waiting to see what happens next. Thatcher131 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I have my own projects, but what can I do to help? I must be able to do something to help out.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but not really. We have several good arbitration clerks, and on the subject of pending cases and what happens when the new arbitrators are chosen, we just have to wait until we are told what to do. Thanks for the kind offer, though. Thatcher131 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks for your hard work (and all the arbitration folks).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)