Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 4 February 2008

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)

The IPs that were reverting you are likely Orchis29=Azukimonaka=KoreanShoriSenyou. Those IPs had similar interests on that day to Amazonfire (Manga, Imperial House, Timeline) but there is not enough technical evidence connecting Amazonfire to the others. It could be one person who just hasn't slipped up yet (Amazonfire only has 57 edits, more would help). It could be two people who work together, or just two people who have independently decided to target your edits. Have you filed a report at suspected sock puppets? Sockpuppets can be blocked and tagged based on behavior even without technical evidence; you need to get some uninvolved admins looking into this. You can also ask to have disputed pages semi-protected at Requests for page protection which will block IP edits and force editors to log in when reverting. Thatcher 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, that's it. I wish Misplaced Pages only allows user with account to access. But I thought the checkuser is the last and conclusive way to confirm sockpupptry. If once sockpupptry case are not clear, admins suggest to file a RFCU report. With this report, I think I'm being a target of the other party. --Appletrees (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Thatcher, I'm sorry to bother you again, but this is all about technical check. I looked through their whole contribution history and not surprisingly they didn't appear same day except a few occasion. If Azukimoanka appeared one day and the next day KoreanShoriSenyou appeared and then Azukimonaka showed up. The table shows closet time ranges between them, especially violet box are closet I can see. Tey all live in the same metropolitan city, Tokyo and odn users with same writing pattern, interest and degree of incivility. They might live closely to each other or craftily switch their ip address with some method, or one person uses several computer in an internet cafe or any other place. But if you look at these, I may get any proof of whether Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou are the same person or not. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser is not magic, nor does it allow me to look through the wires and see who it editing at the other end of the pipe. The best I can say is that there are certain technical similarities that make it likely that Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou and Orchi29 are the same editor. Thatcher 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I thought the violet-colored information especially 4 minutes overlapped one could be conclusive evidence to differentiate whether these 4 accounts are the same person or individual just like I cleared up the allegation of sockpuppetry between me and etch..83 with the time comparison. As of now, I have to compare each wording of them at WP:SSP. Thank you for your help again.--Appletrees (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinilpa

I'm so sorry to drag you into this silly quarrels. But Jjok made a false link regarding chinilpa. So I added it for him to change the comment at the RFCU page and his talk page. After Endroit's accusation on me, I thought I had to explain why I "fix" his hidden link. The chinlipa is only used for some Koreans who betray their country to aid Japanese Imperialism during Japanese occupation. But Jjok mistakes the notion with pro-Japanese side. The historical term is only exclusively used for Koreans not foreigners. --Appletrees (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term to refer to any Misplaced Pages editor constitutes a personal attack and should be avoided. You can agree or disagree with a person's editing behavior or content changes without commenting on their character. Thatcher 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't used the term to call the party because it is only used for Koreans born before 1920s. But Jjok did call himself and his party chinilpa by his misunderstanding of the concept. That's why I tried to inform him not to use it. I don't have anything to disagree with his editing behaviors as long as he keeps sticking to reliable sources. In fact, he is a few people editing as such unlike the odn users's disruptive behaviors. But I had some suspicion ever him because whenever edit warring between Korean and Japanese users occurs over inclusion of Korean relation, he was always there. However, the editor even pointed out that he thinks I made edit warring with only one editor not with several editors. And I agree with his opinion on that.--Appletrees (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, Do not you apologize to Jjok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.133.167 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The same sock ip appears again at very weird timing. Hmm.. please visit my page if you want to say to me. The admin Deiz once said you strikingly resemble to KoreanShoriSenyou, so blocked you for your apparent sockpuppet and disruptive edits. Of course you have grudge to me for my report on you. WP:ANI#User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)

Please clarify your urge for matter, why I should apologize to User:Jjok. I haven't called him as chinilpa but if you insist, I might say sorry to him for "fixing" wrong information on that. Please stop your sockpuppetry. --Appletrees (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tajik

, , - same old. Do I have to file a checkuser again? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There already is a case open, you can make a short comment or add evidence there. Thatcher 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Decision

cross-posted from User_talk:Giano II:

Thatcher, being the clerk on that arbcom case, I know it is your job to ask Giano nicely not to edit a page he should not be editing. However, color me surprised when I went to Fred's talk page to see what nice message you sent him and saw nothing from you. Surely you don't approve of this edit whereby Fred calls Giano a "bull in the china closet," a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple"? If Giano cannot edit that page to defend himself, surely Fred shouldn't be baiting Giano on the proposed decision page. It is your job to ensure we have decorum on those pages, how about leaving Fred a nice message asking him not to call people names? SGT Tex (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern but it is not my place to publicly disapprove of the members of Arbcom. Also, I think you will find similar frank comments in some pasts cases, as well as in numerous discussions on the admins' noticeboards concerning proposed actions to be taken against allegedly disruptive editors. If you feel that the Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum then you should open a discussion at WT:RFAR or WT:AC. Thatcher 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Allowing Fred to bait Giano is completely unacceptable behavior. If you're choosing sides, which in leaving THIS untouched is telling us, you shouldn't have your position any further. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please link to the diff in which you told Giano that his comment suggesting that the Committee could not emasculate him (using an off-color metaphor) was unacceptable behavior. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum. I do expect them to be somewhat dispassionate about their deliberations, however. Calling someone names in such a public place that will be there from now to eternity is not right. My contention is that he is baiting Giano, hoping for another flare up so that he can get Giano banned as he has been trying to do for some time. I thought the clerk of the case was supposed to try to keep peace. I thought a polite suggestion to keep things civil from the clerk on the case would be justified. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, then I guess there's nothing that can be done. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not "similar frank comments" were acceptable in the past, I think we should be working to make things better in the future. SGT Tex (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When you see law clerk publicly criticize the judge he or she is working for, you let me know. In the mean time, it is the Arbitrators prerogative to edit the proposed decision and make such comments as they see fit. You also are making assumptions about Fred's motives that are perhaps coloring your reaction. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I feel you are becoming defensive, so I will just let it go. I will say; however, that if you are refusing to ask Fred nicely not to call people names because you "work" for him, then something is wrong. I will boldly ask him myself. Happy editing. SGT Tex (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not feeling particularly defensive here because I have no personal stake in the matter. I noted that I will not (or at least, I generally avoid) publicly criticizing Arbcom. After all, it would be rather silly for me to make a frequent habit of venting at things I disapproved of and then ask them to continue to trust me to speak on their behalf in certain circumstances. I am not above private criticism, when the situation calls for it. Thatcher 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Thatcher. I respect the position in which you find yourself (having been in similar situations in real life), and also respect you for, in this particular case, your decisions on what actions to take (or not take), either publicly or privately. I realise that sometimes the message is in what is *not* said. Risker (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yipeee. Thatcher 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation or review

Hello. You ruled on an Arbitration enforcement complaint at WP:AE, and sanctioned me by placing me on a revert limitation for a period of 30 days.

Your statement on my Talk page caught me completely by surprise. I was unaware that my name was being discussed in connection with that action, since no one left me any indication of it until you left your ruling on my page after it had been completed. I was therefore unable to comment on it at the time.

Because I did not have a chance to participate then, I would really appreciate it if you would read my statement about the edits that got me sanctioned when you get the time. As I describe in detail, I never exceeded 1RR, and I always left a detailed description and justification for my edits in Talk for every one of my edits to the article.

I would also appreciate an indication of why I was sanctioned. I have always tried very hard to uphold WP's guidelines, and I do not see any way in which I failed to do so in my edits to that article. Nor do I see that I failed to uphold any of the additional guidelines dictated by the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. I would appreciate it if you could review the facts I present and tell me what it is that I should have done that I did not do, or visa versa. Please feel free to reply either here or on my Talk page, whichever you prefer. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The report and discussion is here. After reviewing the history and the diffs, I tried to identify editors who reverted without making constructive attempts to discuss, and who had reverted other related articles recently. Thatcher 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check out the page I prepared that discusses my edits , you will see that in fact I always left a relevant and detailed description in Talk of my edits to the article (links are supplied). Nor will you find examples of me reverting other articles - I like to write, I do not like to delete or revert. I know that neither you nor any other editor has massive amounts of time to devote to these conflicts, but I also think it is important that the wrong people are not punished due to inadequate time being applied to analyze the facts. I do hope that you will read my discussion and reply when you get the chance. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless all editors of these topics are simultaneously placed on all remedies, application is likely to be somewhat arbitrary, based on who complains at WP:AE, who answers, how good the evidence is, and whether the admin in question can pick up on whether the report is being made by someone who is the real troublemaker (so to speak). That is one of the reasons I put a 30 day expiration, because at this stage it is much too early for permanent remedies. Reverting is never a good way to edit so my feeling is that 1RR/week is almost the least restrictive remedy that could be applied; certainly much less intrusive than a page ban. I will review the situation if I can, and you can list a request for appeal at WP:AE per the Arbitration case. Thatcher 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Delete this too?

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Jehochman 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Thatcher 13:31, 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. 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. 　--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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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"

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 Misplaced Pages matters, and has been most useful for that purpose. In retrospect perhaps it's surprising that it has survived so long, almost unique in Misplaced Pages 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." 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 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, Misplaced Pages-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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. While the mailing list could bear a Misplaced Pages name, it puts us right back here, with an unofficial official and a sort-of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages that I saw in AzaToth's wp:mfd comment. That dirty, nasty "mob" is Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. . 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 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 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)

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)

Could you mediate?

The controversy of this photograph continues.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)