User talk:Thatcher131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My admin actions
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions
Admin links
Noticeboard • Incidents • AIV • 3RR
Backlog • Images • Prod • AfD • Autoblocks
Arbitration Clerk
Arbitration • Noticeboard • Enforcement
Checkuser Clerk
Checkuser • Clerks page • Prefix index
Abusive Hosts • VCN proxycheck
Multi-RBL lookup • DNSstuff
Template links
Piggybank • Tor list • Links • Awards
Clutter
Temp • Sandbox1 • Sandbox2 • Sandbox3

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12

Contents 1 Shiny!! 2 Sockpuppet 3 WP:ARBCOM 4 Ref desk cleanup, help needed 5 Sockpuppet arbitration case 6 Award of a Barnstar 7 Arbitration report 8 surprise, how did that happen? 9 User talk:Zacheus 10 Small Question 11 BKWSU - Which talk page? 12 your censorship 13 Importing the drama 14 See my re 15 Iran Iraq war arbitration 16 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed decision 17 Problem with Hearing 18 from avyakt7 19 Thank you 20 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris 21 ArbCom clerking 22 CheckUser request 23 Arbitration clerk 24 Rejected ArbCom cases page 25 My last question ever re Konstable RfAr 26 64.26.170.175 (talk • contribs) 27 Mail 28 Template:ArbComOpenTasks 29 Formatting question 30 Formatting of Workshop 31 Here's peace 32 Naming conventions RFAR 33 Richardmalter and RfArb 34 Question regarding Omura RfArb 35 Planning ahead ... 36 Omura Arb

[edit] Shiny!!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all of your hard work clerking for the ArbComm and WP:RFCU, and for all your other community-related work. You seem to be the only clerk on ArbComm at times, yet still manage to hold it together. You are a true model wikipedian! Martinp23 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] [2], 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3]: "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thank you

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 64.26.170.175 (talk • contribs)

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

[edit] Mail

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

[edit] Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Regarding that template, I did some testing, and was able to make everything fit on one line (the case names). So I went ahead and made the new version of the template (slightly wider) live. Tell me what you think. I checked in my sandbox and found that what I did is not too damaging to the overall appearance of the main arbitration page, or the clerk's noticeboard. I also confirmed that it looked ok to Srikeit. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting question

Thanks for cleaning up at the Workshop page. I'm very new at this ArbCom stuff, so I apologize for any missteps!

My next question is how to continue. I noticed that Anthony posted a comment, which I feel misrepresents the situation. Should I reply directly to his comment, add to my own, post in the "comment by parties" section, or just leave it alone? --Elonka 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally your comments would go in the "comments from parties" section, although you can reply under Anthony's comment if you think that would be easier to follow. The workshop page is not especially formal although we do like it to be readable. Editors may make proposals and comment on them but extended discussion, especially that drifts off topic, is better on the workshop talk page. Thatcher131 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, what's the best format to provide a "diff" of multiple page moves? Some of the parties have engaged in literally hundreds of moves throughout this dispute. Is there a recommended way to say, "Without consensus, moved 85 pages on November 10", and link to the appropriate spot in the Move log? Or should I just use a {{user5}} template and leave it at that? Thanks, Elonka 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how to specify a specific place in the move log, but if you click on the log links you ge the first page, of 50 or 100 or whatever your preferences is set to. If you click "next 100" that will move you down in the log and you can copy that url to get back to that page. Or you could just link to the whole log--I'd give the arbs a count though if you do that (25 on Dec 11, 100 on Nov 6, 50 on Nov 4, or whatever). I'm not sure how to specify a specific date or page in the log, you may have to play around a little. Thatcher131 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of Workshop

I looked at [4] the workshop and found it to be a bit hard to find each of the sections for comment. (by Arbitrators, Parties, and Others), as seen here. so I thought it would be best to bold the line Comments by Arbitrators\Parties\Others:. I did this sheerly for readability purposes... and if you think they need to be changed back to the original state, feel free to do so or ask me. I also went ahead and made the same changes to the template for the workshop. Feel free to revert or undo it as needed! Here is the diff of my changes. [5]. Hope that helps! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's peace

Hi Thatcher131; I've had enough of being second-guessed and threatened with sanctions. If you are going to characterize my editing as edit warring, I have a simple solution: I won't edit the page. That should end the war, and best wishes to all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I simply see no way to sanction only one person in a wider edit war. If you had attempted some form of dispute resolution demonstrating a broader consensus for your view, and Nuclear continued to edit war, I would certainly impose an article ban per his arbitration, and I still think you should take that route. You can also repost to WP:AE or WP:AN for a review by another outside admin. Thatcher131 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions RFAR

Hi. I notice you've gotten a bit quiet at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Is that because we're somewhat on the right track? ...or because we're a bunch of hopeless fools that will probably be banned for eternity?!  ;D —Wknight94 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally you seem to be using the page for what it's meant for. I think the arbitrators (Fred, mostly) will focus a bit more on user behavior and less on the small details of the poll etc., but it doesn't hurt to lay out your views of the situation. Thatcher131 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richardmalter and RfArb

You told Richardmalter that he needed to put a statement up on the Omura RfArb within 24 hours, but he is currently under a 48 hour block for repeated 3RR violations on Yoshiaki Omura, so doing so will be very difficult for him. --Philosophus ^T 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thatcher131 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding Omura RfArb

Hi Thatcher131, I have been named as a party to that case. I have prepared my draft statement here. Since it is indented/structured, already fairly long, and may soon grow even longer, I have a procedural question. Should I just post a link to my Sandbox? or should I add a cover sentence with a link? or should I paste the whole thing into the ArbCom page (with appropriate fixing of the section levels)? Or can a sub-page be created under the ArbCom area for my statement? I can do whatever you suggest, I prefer to do the correct thing upfront, instead of needing others to fix up a wrong method on my part. Thanks, Crum375 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle for your help, great job! I've started work on the diffs, hope to finish within the next 24 hours, then I'll copy it over myself. Thanks again, Crum375 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Omura Arb

Thanks for pasting my comments. Cheers.Richardmalter 11:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)