User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Quieting the Israel Palestine battleground

Hi again. I liked your previous critique and wanted to ask if you would look at an idea. Thanks to suggestions at ArbCom, I started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. (Your thoughts on that would be welcome, too.) Now I have a specific idea about how uninvolved parties might be able to better read disputed situations -- i.e., by helping tell the players apart. However, I'm wondering whether this idea (1) can keep within AGF bounds, or (2) would condone taking sides. Would you mind commenting on what I've drafted? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think listing people by sides is probably a bad idea; even asking people to sign themselves up under column A or column B is tricky, and picking sides for them even more so. It's not so much that there are sides, but that some people on each side find it difficult to work well with others in this system. Thatcher 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I'm sideswiped by a creative idea and need a reality check. Take care, HG | Talk 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about people simply noting their community, if any, next to their names? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky. Disclosure of one's bias is probably a good thing when entering into a discussion. Grouping people by advocacy seems like a bad thing. Are they really two ways of saying the same thing? Plus both the Israeli and Palestinian sides of the dispute encompass a wide range of views, making simple categorization difficult. Once you have people listing themselves as members of group A or group B, you run the risk of group A saying, "well, we don;t have to listen to any of you B's anymore." Not that it isn;'t already happening of course. All I can really say is use caution. Thatcher 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, aside from giving me an experienced consult here, any chance you be willing to sign on as a member? It could just be a gesture of support and, as here, some readiness to consult/advise us on what looks like a fairly challenging undertaking. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but not at this time. I am likely to be involved in evaluating request for enforcement. Thatcher 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your work has begun. I wouldn't think that the roles would conflict, indeed, I'd think they converge and we'd be glad to have you on board. In any case, good luck! HG | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SA / AE

Upon reflection, I guess my statements at WP:AE came across as more brusque than I intended them. Please accept my apologies for this unwarranted gruffness.

I still have severe reservations about the situation with Science Apologist, as there seem to be a number of users encouraging him to continue his "battle", and -- I'm sure you didn't mean it this way -- the reasons cited in your block reduction might have been misconstrued as tacitly condoning this position.

I look forward to working with you in the future.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

You now have CheckUser access on this wiki. Please send a mail to checkuser-l-owner at lists dot wikimedia dot org with your standard mail account to get access to the Checkuser-l. Welcome! --Thogo (Talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay, another one to help ease the backlogs, and no there's finer choice of user to do it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet... I saw you close an WP:RFCU which had been open for awhile now, so I realized you'd been granted the Keys To The Kingdom. I'm glad that the Committee is expanding the number of checkusers, and you're a great choice and will do a great job in the role. MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoriagirl1 et al

I note that you've determined Victoriagirl1, Victoriagirl2, Victoriagirl3, Sunray10, Sunray20, Sunray30, Homeboy99, Sockpuppet99, Backtalk, Hotgirl99, Firebrand99 and Climateguy are all related to Overeditor (talk · contribs), a user who has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Arthur Ellis. Not knowing the procedure, is it possible to block these accounts, or is it necessary for me to bring the case and evidence to WP:SSP? I ask because after your finding were posted Victoriagirl1 (talk · contribs) returned to Wikipedia with two posts [1][2]. Funny, in a way as I've never touched another's post... and had made no edit to the page since the day before Victoriagirl1 sang my praises. I note also Victoriagirl1's earlier post charges others with sockpuppetry, the very accusation she directs towards myself. Sorry, I am going on. It's just that I find the whole things so amusing. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly they can be blocked. Any admin can block from those results. Sometimes the checkuser clerks will do it, sometimes you have to leave a message at WP:ANI. Checkusers sometimes do not make the blocks themselves as it can look like a conflict, and as I am new at this I am taking it easy for a while. Thatcher 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've posted my request at WP:ANI. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxies

So is it OK for me to use a proxy before logging into my account? I'll take my chances and if that proxy get's blocked I'll just use another proxy. My concern is what happened with video professor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) In case your not aware of video professor. See this.

We don't normally target editors known to use proxies, but editors will somtimes get caught when proxies are blocked. There is also a proposal to allow trusted editor to edit from blocked proxies, see WP:IPBLOCK. I don't know the VP case, will look into it. Thatcher 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that thread was vastly overblown. As I understand it, WMF has a more difficult time resisting a subpoena than an ISP due to Federal law covering internet privacy. In that case, even if WMF releases the IP addresses from which certain edits came, the the party requesting can not match them to a subscriber without a further subpoena to the ISP which is easier for the ISP to resist. Anyway, you are free to use open proxies if you can find them, and you might want to comment on the IP exemption proposal. Thatcher 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

For what it's worth, I also apologised for making comments that were received as provocative. This doesn't alter the fact that I made the comments in the first place, or (worryingly) the fact that I did not foresee them being at all controversial. --Tony Sidaway 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thatcher 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed final decision

I like it. Is your name Solomon? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well proposed. I worry about the punitive 5 day bans though, I thought "preventative not punitive" was fairly well established. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Several are similar to what I planned to add. I'm not sure about bans though...maybe I'm living in denial...but I'm still hoping that the parties will resolve their difference and return to editing with minimal sanctions. FloNight (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to both Flo and AnonEMouse, the reason for the bans is to let the editors and the community know that there has been a serious problem with their conduct. True, they are not preventative in the sense that any of them are likely to cause more drama in the next 5 days. However we all know that no block on Giano ever sticks, and he is unrepentant that his way of approaching disputes is correct, or at least that the ends justify the means. David and Phil are probably also perceived by some as being untouchable. I was struck by bainer's evidence showing that there was a moment on WT:WEA where David could have said, "I'm sorry to keep reverting you but Arbcom asked me to maintain this page; if you have a dispute on IRC that was not handled properly please email me, don;t make pointy edits to the page" he chose a different route. And Phil's edit warring added spice to a case that needed no further seasoning. Similar reasons for the others. Banning is out of the question as a practical manner, as is desysopping. Something needs to tell the participants and anyone else who cares that Arbcom is really pissed and takes this seriously; and a hung jury or some weak-tea cautions won't do that. Thatcher 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pulled in front of Arbcom"

You write: "The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can."

I would like to point out that I have never "been pulled in front of ArbCom". I've made statements in arbitrations to which I added myself. Implying otherwise is a bit much. An apology would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was generally directed not only toward the 4 parties I placed on revert limitation but anyone else who was watching and might feel compelled to object. Certainly the area of dispute was brought to arbcom. Thatcher 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		DurovaCharge! 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few years ago I worked in a summer camp and while I was on break some of the children there ran around outside my cabin calling each other the n-word. I hoped some other adult would deal with it, but nobody else was around, so I went out and spoke to them myself. I could have pulled rank but I didn't. Instead - and imagine yourself as a blonde white woman to get the awkwardness of this - I asked them to stop using the word. The four African-American boys were about 11 years old and they tried to get me to repeat it, but instead I just explained that it wasn't respectful. A strange thing happened then: all three girls from that group walked up and shook my hand. "We don't like it either," they said, and thanked me for intervening because they weren't in a position to stop it. The boys looked on quietly and were never a problem again. I hope your effort is equally successful. Regardless of the outcome, you deserve a barnstar for stepping up and doing the right thing. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconclusive

I'm sorry but can you clarify why the case is inconclusive? The case is related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou and I believe the ip users are infinitely blocked user User:Kamosuke or User:Azukimonaka because the same IP network host, writing style and behavioral patterns on the same interests.

Due to the reason, I strongly believe that Amazonfire = Amazonjoke = Kamosuke =Blue011011 =Orchis29 =Jsenkyoguid =KoreanShoriSenyou = Azukimonaka =Mfugue and other odn ip users. The evidences I provided as evidences includes the revelation of the ip user. --Appletrees (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of ip address which Kamosuke used was odn.ad.jp and Azukimonaka is also using the same network host

211.3.118.170, 218.218.129.134, [3][4][5][6]

211.3.112.132 [7][8][9] 219.66.45.26 [10][11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Double check AE closure

Hi. Since we appear to be, pretty much, the only admins actively handling AE requests: I would like you to review my latest closure, with my permission to amend it as you see fit. The reason for this being that I have already argued elsewhere that the individual submitting the notice has claimed another arbitration-restricted user breached civility supervision but fell short of directly proving this. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Given the point of view that Eupator is approaching the article from, as evidenced from his evidence subpage it might not be unreasonable to include it in AA2, and you certainly could ask him to remove references to the dispute or to depersonalize it; "here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." Your response was certainly within the realm of discretion. I often leave off the report archive tags for a while after commenting to see what other discussion turns up, though. (Although I haven;t kept count of how many good discussions versus pointless discussions this leads to.) Thatcher 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, relieved to hear that. I think we need to become more strict with reports and discussions, so largely, that has been the basis for my modus operandi there as of late (that includes closing reports immediately; although leaving em open to future amendment otherwise). El_C 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I press on you to add [what] your own closing assessment [would have been] under my closing notes? That'd be appreciated. El_C 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, again! El_C 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent ArbCom

In relation of the recent ArbCom issue, I bring this to your attention : [12] - [13] Ceedjee (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

KoreanShoriSenyou case

Are you closing it just like "inconclusive" without looking the evidences? The amazon fire report is a side report from KoreanShoriSenyou due to my long waiting (it's over 19 days). The amozonfire file just hold the recent activities of the suspected user after I filed the KoreanShoriSenyou case. Are you saying that KoranShoriSenyou is not the same person of Azukimonaka whom I strongly believe as a sockpuppetmaster? I feel aghast at the result because I've been patiently waiting by this time. --Appletrees (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're active now, so could you take a look at a possible 3RR violation with sock ip which occured today? Or do I need to file another report at RFCU or add this to my completed previous report? You didn't tell me Amazonfire is unrelated to anybody, and the user is active now. And one more question. In the Amazonefire file, I made a lot of differs on their possible 3RR (violations, Amazonfire, Jusenkoguide, Kusunose, and Blue011011, and ips) But you didn't say whether they're related to each other. The 3rr reports were all in the very short period of time. But was it also not helpful for you to confirm their possible sockpuppetry? --Appletrees (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am going out right now but will look later. Sorry. Thatcher 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to know where I have to report it. --Appletrees (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi...about recent issue you handled

Hello Thatcher,

I wanted to let you know that in this discussion, I think you were somewhat off base when you said:

"There have been multiple complaints filed against **USER**, mostly groundless or incredibly minor, by editors seemingly more interested in getting rid of him than editing collaboratively, and **USER** has unfortunately taken the bait more than once and responded in an inappropriate manner."

I am an editor who (by choice) decides NOT to pursue or "take the bait" in instances involving disputes with other editors. I continue to try to just walk away and I'm too busy (with the time I can devote to Wikipedia) editing, so I stay out of the fray if I can.

I will therefore (for now) preserve the anonymity of the editor I will call **USER**.

I do devote my time to my goal of making sure controversial topics are encyclopedic in presentation, as I note that such topics on Wikipedia are "dominated" by the polar opposite POV's, leaving no room (IMHO) for "middle" interpretations, and (quite frankly) leaving many such articles in a state that is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Hence I find myself (and see myself) as advocating strongly for the "middle" viewpoint.

I would ask you to consider that for every one editor that has complained about **USER**, there are (I believe) many like me who have just walked away when faced with **USER**'s assaults. In my case, I was repeatedly and extensively attacked by **USER** via (a) deceptive, repeated and (seemingly) intentional Straw_Man mischaracterizations of my edits which were (b) created and used to "paint" me as a "POV pusher", (c) uncivil and personally directed edit summaries, and (d) insults left on my talk page, and the whole array.

All unprovoked and unjustified.

Background...in a discussion with **USER** (in which I expect you would find me to be civil to a fault) about whether or not a source cited by **USER** actually supported the pejorative and unencyclopedic claims made in **USER**'s edit, **USER** became enraged upon discovering in embarassment that the highly respected source (with which I just happened to be very familiar) (s)he cited actually made a case for the OPPOSITE POV. Next, **USER**, having painted him/herself into a corner, created a smoke screen to cover the embarassing mistake by posting a notice about me on the "fringe" noticeboard, canvassing numerous other users to the "crusade" against my "pseudoscience POV pushing", and wound up burning a stunning amount of ArbCom resources, in addition to damaging me.

I did not contribute a single word to the ArbCom discussion...by choice.

Immediately thereafter, **USER** was rebuked by ArbCom following the frivolous complaint **USER** made, and was instructed to apologise to me and remove the personal attacks from my talk page. **USER** failed to comply and instead immediately took up another related crusade for which (s)he was blocked...whereupon **USER** invoked "right to vanish" -- "retiring" from Wikipedia in (what I would call) a cloud of smoke, wiping out all relevant talk page entries (again, consuming administrative resources here) and then "reappeared" immediately following the block and picked up right where (s)he left off, personal attacks, incivility and disingenuous characterizations of others. **USER** continues to attack in such a way as to continue to make even the most centrist or moderate editors appear to be rabid "POV pushers" at the first moment of conflict, driving (I strongly believe) good editors away from Wikipedia.

I'd suggest that what you were seeing...the basis on which you made your initial (and perhaps hasty) assessment of **USER** and the complaints against him/her, is merely the tip of the iceberg, and if you choose to look below the surface (and through **USER**'s smoke screens) as part of your investigation, I strongly believe you will come to a completely different opinion on **USER**'s behavior.

In addition, **USER** has also written recently and unapologetically that (s)he has no "understanding" of, nor any regard for Wikipedia's Pillar of Civility. **User** has outrightly expressed contempt for "civility" in general, has written extensively of this contempt for civility and does not understand or accept or respect the idea that all human progress, including science and indeed "civil-ization" itself is predicated on civility in public discourse. All of this is opinion, my considered opinion, of course.

Me? I am already spending more time than I wish here and I am not inclined to invest this time except to the extent that you are interested in following up and looking into this.

Please, leave a message on my talk page if you want to look into this further. Otherwise I am perfectly happy to "let it go", remain out of the fray and I will not think less of you if you choose to decline. Thanks for your attention. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for Thatcher

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This is for all your hard work at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and for your recent appointment to Checkuser status! May the good work continue!! Solumeiras (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop

Comments like this are completely irresponsible: [14] . THis is incredibly uncivil: "Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait...", your administrator status does NOT give your view any more weight than Bstone'. Viridae^Talk 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it was a little snarky. However, as far as I am concerned, an admin who unblocks an editor under circumstances like this is responsible for any further harassment by the editor in question, and should be prepared to reblock the editor if necessary. Bstone is doing a lot of lecturing for someone who is not in a position to be responsible for the outcome of his opinions. Thatcher 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358

I supplied new evidence pertaining to Appletrees', showing his removal of {{3RR}} and {{sockpuppet}} tags from other users. Clarification of Appletrees' likeliness of sockpuppetry will be appreciated. Thank you very much.--Endroit (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Already did. Removing tags from editors whose edits you like and who were tagged by someone whose edits you don't like isn;t really evidence of anything except failure to get along with people. (And maybe that the JP/KR disputes need to go before Arbcom if things don't improve.) Thatcher 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)