User talk:Nathan/Archive 10

Dates for diffs at Geogre request

Hi Nathan. Would you be able to add dates (and times if needed) to the diffs you posted at the Geogre request. Would help to see how far back and how recent some of the diffs are. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Most are from 2007 - I think that is partly because most of the overlap came in 2007 and 2008, and partly because of how I pulled example edits from the report. The user talk overlap in particular continues into 2009. Nathan ^T 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose it would be too much to ask for the original background diffs at the motions to be dated the same way? I know some of those are from 2009, but am not sure how many. One tool I'd love to see is one where you put in a list of diffs, with descriptions you have entered, and have it put in the dates for you... I suppose some things you have to do by hand. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are some of the same situations/links. It'd make sense to put a timeframe before the descriptions/diffs in the background section [(March 2008) Description.... diff...)], but is it appropriate for me to edit that section? I'm also curious, and perhaps you've seen this already, whether the CU results on the Geogre account turned up Disinfoboxman - looking through the intersect report, I had noticed discussions with both Geogre and Utgard Loki criticising infoboxes. Nathan ^T 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fishing, hmm? -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"

There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I've been traveling on business since midweek. Nathan ^T 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Greenock125

Replied.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirming edit

cloak: /wikimedia/Nathan Nathan ^T 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

is there something i missed here?

as a non-admin, non checkuser, should you really be closing checkuser reports as 'insufficient evidence'? [[1]] is this for real? even after the user semi admitted sockpuppetry but then recanted[[2]]? what exactly is your role here and why are you involving yourself, incompetently, in checkuser reports? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did he semi-admit socking? The case has no evidence, and his behavior now doesn't match the behavior of the blocked accounts. I'm a clerk at SPI, clearing out old cases where a checkuser is not requested and admin action is unlikely. Were you planning on adding substantial evidence? Nathan ^T 21:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see (on the admission). Given that you and Sarah have both agreed that he should remain unblocked, what use would there be in keeping the case open? Nathan ^T 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, I think Nathan's action was correct. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

his action may have been correct, but he came to the conclusion based on what i'd call negligence. and i'm still not sure why a non-admin, non-checkuser is closing cases as 'insufficient evidence' when the user is blatantly socking. here was the evidence: there were 4 SPAs listed which only edited one article, and the new sock was another on the list. the previous SPAs were blocked, so if he were one of the socks, he'd be evading a block. then, the accused admitted he was 'some' of the socks, but not all... and this is insufficient evidence? clearly this guy could have multiple socks that he is not admitting to, and he's also currently supposed to be blocked, but nathan, a non-admin, still closed it as 'insufficient evidence.' really? i call that incompetence or negligence in the matter, based on teh evidence, but whatever. the sock claims he is going to act better now, and so that is good enough for me. i hope the non-checkusers who close blatant sock reports will act better also. done. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is moot since its resolved to your satisfaction, but I'll note that you not only did not provide the diff of the admission linked above... When asked for additional evidence, you stated that you had nothing further than was posted on the case (which was almost none). A cursory review demonstrated that Tommy814's behavior didn't match that of the other SPAs. Given his admission that is a sign of reform; in the absence of other evidence posted to the case, and without reviewing all contribs, it was reason to believe he was not a sock. If you provide all the diff evidence available to you when you post future cases, you likely will not experience this problem again. Nathan ^T 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, this is a wiki. Non-admins are allowed to be trustworthy people, and the rest of us are allowed to trust them to be helpful and reasonable when they are. Please stop using the terms "non-admin" and "non-checkuser" as terms of derision and limit your comments to just discussing the actual disagreement you have. Dominic·t 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

see the response i wrote before i read dominic's message here [[3]]. i say non-admin and non-checkuser because i would expect admins or checkusers to work on checkuser cases. sarah, another admin, saw that this SPA was clearly a sock, but decided not to block him. Nathan decided there was insufficient evidence. I say it was WP:Duck if anything; hardly insufficient circumstantial evidence. i expected a checkuser to look into it, not a non-checkuser to close it as 'insufficient' when it should have been 'obvious'. the fact that he is not a checkuser is relevant, considering checkusers are the ones who discover sockpuppetry, and he closed the case before a checkuser could look at it. it's not an insult, it's a fact. he is not a checkuser. what exactly are you arguing? is non-admin now a personal attack? Lol. are we going to have non-admins on WP:ANI now closing threads before admins get to view it? or only non admins closing checkuser cases when they personally don't see the evidence? what a strange direction this wiki is taking. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... Obviously I missed the admission, which I would've caught if I'd read his talkpage. If I'd seen it the case would have closed with the same result but a different reason. Even so, I'll repeat that you did not provide any evidence, and that makes it harder for people reviewing the case. I don't know that an admin hat would have prevented that error; I've reviewed more SPI cases than most admins. By the way... Sometimes the case creation can be confusing, but were you aware you did not actually request checkuser attention on that case? (Indicated by the absence of the {{RFCU}} template). Nathan ^T 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• if the behavioral evidence presented, which was the fact that there were 4 SPAs, each blocked, and another created and subsequently blocked, and then this guy showed up -- another SPA editing only this low traffic article -- is 'insufficient evidence' then you should seriously consider resigning your duties as whatever it is you do involving judging 'insufficient evidence'. you made a mistake, flat out, and i don't have faith in your ability to do your volunteer job competently. i am glad that admins and your friends/other users support you, but i know that you acted incompetently in this case. we can beg to differ and drop it now. farewell. Theserialcomma (talk)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chiropractic

Hi Nathan. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chiropractic, there are some requests for CUs buried in the comments. Must they also be formally placed in their own sections at the bottom before action will be taken, or have they been noticed? Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dominic already went through the accounts and IPs originally listed. I think if you'd like an additional checkuser that would return separate results, it'd be best to use a new section to very clearly state what new comparisons you would like made. I wouldn't repost evidence listed elsewhere, though, and you should place a new {{RFCU}} template with your request. Nathan ^T 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: SPI

I'm declining because it's pretty obvious and throwaway. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon

Thank you for trying to clarify things to him, but perhaps you should clarify one of the points that he does not seem to get: namely finding a different subject area to edit. He doesn't quite get it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

G'day Nathan

Thanks. I spend, other than tonight, no more than 5 minutes a day just watching a few things just to keep in minimal touch. I didn't have F12 whoever in mind. Jpgordon's remark got my goat. I honestly feel, as someone who, as Avi knows, has taken to public task a sincere, at times highly informed, but erratic editor or two on my side, that these suspicions about MM are deeply unfair, and betray a residual grievance high up about the Arbcom proceedings over what was a profoundly trivial set of conflicts, and Jayjg's punishment. The way things read tonight, no one else counts, just a fellow administrator, and I'm appalled. I'm a sucker for pitching in for lost causes. Anyway mate, good to hear from you. Choose your glass and here's to you. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner

My bad, I don't know how that happened, I must have pushed a wrong button.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured, no big deal. Nathan ^T 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OR, Lar, etc.

Nathan - sure, that's reasonable, but if so, I'd like for Lar to clarify that himself. I kind of feel like I'm under attack here (perhaps because Ottava Rima seems able to make personal attacks against me with impunity), and I don't like the fact that other editors who I've never encountered before seem to be saying things which imply that Ottava's attacks against me have merit. If Lar says that was not his intention, I will accept that, and no hard feelings, but I do think that he certainly implied that he thought that about me, and I'd like him to state on the record that he was not speaking of me personally, if he was not. Maybe I'm too upset about this to see it clearly, but I feel like my integrity is under attack, and that is a very serious matter for me. I've been on wikipedia a long time, and this is really one of the most troubling incidents I've gotten into, and what's especially upsetting is that nobody even seems to give a damn, and Ottava can just continue to casually attack me with no basis whatever and suffer no consequences. john k (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. I haven't observed you make any references to your background or allude to any credentials in discussion, nor make any arguments that implicitly relied on either. My guess is that Ottava understands that comments about your real world credentials and threats to call your academic department went too far. I suggest you give it a few days, and perhaps approach him about it directly. Given his retraction, administrator action is unlikely; as you've seen, such AN/I discussions quickly get heated and are as a result not particularly useful. The folks there closed the thread down quickly because they are used to the natural rhythm it would have followed. I tried to branch it to discussing the Persian Empire talkpage, but was obviously not successful. At any rate, I'm sure Lar will reply to you in the morning. Nathan ^T 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I don't think that there's any evidence as yet that Ottava understands that - he has continued to make the same claims on the AN/I page. He may realize that threatening to call my department was too far, but he certainly seems to think it's okay to continue to say I'm a liar. At any rate, I now know not to go to AN/I about anything in the future. john k (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread... is there still an action item here for me? Please let me know. John, I'm happy to talk to you if you want, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think almost all the trouble on Talk:Persian Empire is because of this. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the prelude to an RfAr or AN/I thread, you'll need more to establish a disruptive pattern of behavior. Nathan ^T 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's plenty. Don't worry. Of course, per the ANI thread, this guy has carte blanche to behave in this fashion. --Folantin (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, I love how you take comments pointing out why people opposed my RfA and the history shared as somehow dealing with you. You think that people will really accept your behavior when you were blatantly edit warring against an Arbitrator in very good standing who said that what you were doing was historically wrong along with being wrong based on policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to put in a proposal that would seem pertinent - why not proposal that there is a straw poll left up for a month like a normal RfC is, that there are to be no edits to the mainpage that makes major changes without consensus from the straw poll, and that anyone who edits to the contrary is subject to immediate 24 hour block. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an unreasonable idea, but I'm not sure you folks could even agree on what the straw poll should offer as options. Do you think you could? Nathan ^T 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I originally suggested to have the options: 45k+ article, 30k+ article, 15k+ article, stub, disambiguation, redirect, and allow for multiple selections. I would go for 30k or 45k+ articles simply because if this page is to be at GAN or FAC, it would have to meet the comprehensiveness requirements. I still feel that this is a notable term and deals with a scope that covers multiple countries, kingdoms, and the rest so it cannot fit into any slot that exists already on Wiki, so it would have to be an article and one that could go to FA rank (except for the constant edit warring, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the poll based on the above idea. I wonder if people will attack it as un-neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all the different size options help. The issue seems to me to be whether it should be redirected, disambiguated or kept as an article page. How long it should be if it's kept is a seperate issue

. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin has claimed that she wanted both a redirect, a disambiguation page, and a stub. Some claimed that they want an article that is much shorter than the current form. Simply saying "restore" would not fit all of the opinions. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

T-loop deletion factor

Nominated for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The "Journal" looked obviously fishy, so I assumed it was a candidate for deletion, but the other references (like from "Nature") gave me pause. Nathan ^T 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A request

Respected Sir/Madam,

Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heliosphere/Archive so please help

I would like to point towards an injustice which happened in the past. 3 editors were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1. I along with some unknown innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 were blocked in this RFC, i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 because no check-user investigation was done at that time. You later documented that User: Gurbinder_singh1 was totally un-related to this case but it appears that no one has cared to unblock him and clear out his blocking history.

Actually, User: Morbid Fairy kept violating Wikipedia policies so he was later caught per ‘’’my’’’ evidences and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well .

User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigationBUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.

Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking historyfor life.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would request the respected admin to look into this request. Why the request of this editor is being ignored. He has presented strong proofs. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While Gurbinder_singh was not related to the other account blocked from that case, it was clear that both the other account and Gurbinder were violating the WP:SOCK policy (Gurbinder by edit-warring with the account and as an IP). If you wish to appeal your block, you can follow the instructions at WP:UNBLOCK and post an unblock template on your user talkpage, or send an e-mail to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. As a non-administrator, I'm not able to unblock you even if I were convinced it was justified. Nathan ^T 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

I've just posted my response to your message at User talk:Mythdon#Amendments. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've responded again. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to myself

Maurice Lenz. Nathan ^T 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrg3105 blocking

I finally decided to see why I was blocked in the first place here [4] and saw that you were also for some reason involved.

it seems to me that Roger is simply persecuting me for my expressed distaste at Buckshot06's involvement in articles I edited, thats all. AT NO TIME DID I USE SOCKPUPPETS ACCORDING TO POLICY, and I quote

This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.

I also make the following points:

• The general rule - does not mean law etched in stone.
• A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. - I had done none of this
• Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: using them to avoid scrutiny, misleading others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another, distorting consensus or artificially stirring up controversy, or otherwise circumventing Wikipedia policies. - I also didn't do any of these things
• Nor did I do any of the things listed under Alternative accounts in Wikipedia:sockpuppetry
• There is a provision for Clean start under a new name - which Buckshot06, Roger Davis and Nick-D have been at pains to deny me.....why?
• Finally, If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence. - I am therefore not obligated to disclose that I had a previous identity, and using checkuser is actually invasion of privacy, and contravenes this very policy!--124.183.146.14 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this block was taken as an arbitration action pursuant to an arbitration decision - enforcement of ArbCom decisions is handled on the WP:AE page or by arbitrators, and appeals of sanctions by either need to return to the same venue. Try speaking to Roger directly, or raise an appeal on WP:AE. Nathan ^T 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357 sock back as user: Aamirshkh

Looks like Dewnans sock is back again after his indefinate block hes back on the same articles pushing his pov:[5] same old articles same pov I suggest you semiprotect the target pages to deal with his sock accounts thankyou 86.158.232.138 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try contacting User:NuclearWarfare or User:PeterSymonds, administrators active at SPI. I'm a clerk, but not an administrator. Nathan ^T 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Prof Fiendish tag

Hi Nathan, I noticed at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthegreek/Archive that user Professor Fiendish was identified as a sockputtet. Could you put a tag on the user's talk page User_talk:Professor Fiendish please? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually tag user talk pages - I tagged the user page, or someone did, User:Professor Fiendish. Typically a block notice will show up on the userpage, although administrators at SPI sometimes dispense with this step when sockmasters are found with multiple accounts and the admins have to block through a list of them. Nathan ^T 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed. Ok, thanks & cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RSN thread

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard? Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I saw you posted your comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PANONIAN - I answered accusations there and I want to ask you for help. As I already stated on that page, user Hobartimus harasing me for more than 2 years, so whom I should ask for help and protection in this case? I will show you examples of his behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographic_history_of_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=314070190&oldid=314068319 - 1. he deleting 1715 and 1720 census data, which is completely referenced and references are also available online for checking (he simply ignoring references and my comments on the talk page about this and claim that he revert article to "consensus version", while such consensus version does not exist - the only consensus that exist on the talk page is a consensus in which way census results will be presented, i.e. with or without comments that describe ethnic changes in each time period, but there is certainly no any consensus whether 1715 or 1720 census results should be included), 2. Hobatimus deleting introduction description that censuses until 1910 were for entire Bačka, and after that year for Serbian Bačka only (he never elaborated why he deleting this), he also reverting my category change from "Bačka" to "History of Bačka" (he did not elaborated why) and my creation of better table of content (he also did not elaborated why). So, you just check that diff that I showed to you and please tell me your opinion who behave bad here and how this problem could be solved? Thank you. PANONIAN 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to you about this today, but for the time being have you looked at the dispute resolution options available to you? Nathan ^T 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia

Even though you disagree with what I said, I at least take joy that your response is to the point and addresses the issues I am trying to address instead of getting sidetracked elsewhere. Thank you for that. I will pen a response (including the proposed measures) tomorrow. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I find direct communication to be a good strategy when trying to agree on a solution ;-) I'll look for your response tomorrow. Nathan ^T 21:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to the most recent development, my response will not be forthcoming today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Right, overtaken by multiple events. Nathan ^T 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet request

Hi, thanks for fixing my request. Would you please send over some administrators to the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. The sockpuppets keep deleting cited information. Please check the User:Philbox17 talk page, you will see he has a long history of trouble with this article. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like a few administrators are looking over the situation based on the noticeboard thread you left. I'll have a look tonight hopefully, but I'm not an administrator so I would only be able to comment as an editor. Nathan ^T 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Lenz

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Lenz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For ending this dramu ([6]). I presume that if another editor tries to open another public discussion on that issue, it can be speedy closed on the same grounds? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think so, but I would not be the one to make that decision. Nathan ^T 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr90s ArbCom case

Hi, I see your reply at ArbCom, and I understand your position. If the case is rejected, I'll accept it and I won't be filing another one with ArbCom (at least not on this topic). I was wondering, though, what I should do here:

I have a list of suspected Dr90s sockpuppets that I'd like to submit to SPI but I wasn't sure if I should do that or wait to see what ArbCom has to say. If I do make a report at SPI and the suspected socks are banned, will this have any effect on ArbCom should the case be accepted by them? In other words could they reject the case as moot if all the suspects are banned? I'd like to offer them the first crack at the issue but if possible I'd like to expedite the removal of these socks as well. Do you have any advice? Thanks very much for any help you can provide. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Most arbitrators are also checkusers, by the by. I expect that because there is little for the committee to adjudicate, the case will be rejected regardless of the outcome of any SPI case. It might inform their comments, particularly if the case languishes or for some odd reason is declined, but otherwise I'd expect its impact to be limited. Even so, if none of the sockpuppets you suspect are currently editing or currently being disruptive then you can wait until the request has seen a full response. Nathan ^T 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK cool. I guess I'll submit the SPI report then. I want to send a message to Dr90s that people are watching. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block this one too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. Nathan ^T 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi, User:Philbox17 is now using 24.37.21.164 to vandalise the article, would you please block this account. I assume it is User:Philbox17 at work computer. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi, User:Hyraelle is the newest sockpuppet, would you please have the admins close this account. I notice that you are using two categories to store the sockpuppet accounts, you reverted my effort to place them all in one category. We should be using Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Patriote17. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We go by which account is oldest. The other account (Philbox17) began editing earlier, and the case is under that name. I'm not too worried about the category; the case has archives that can be queried by a bot if necessary. Nathan ^T 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New reports

What should I do when there's a report awaiting close and a new sock shows up? Manually put it back in "awaiting clerk review"? The way the tools work now seems very straightforward, simply creating a new report and putting back at "awaiting clerk review" automatically.—Kww(talk) 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All you really need to do is add the new name and evidence beneath your previous evidence, and change the RFCU template param from checked to new. {{RFCU|F|No2ndLetter|New}} puts it back in awaiting clerk approval. Nathan ^T 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No one blocked IJUSTWANNABEHAPPY, despite the confirmation at [7].NuclearWarfare got him.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, would you mind advising the editors User:DGG and User:Frmatt that I am not involved in an edit war. I am trying to stop the recreating sockpuppet from vandalizing the article. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Outside_view_by_Fences_and_windows

I confess that while I have some sympathy with F&W's view, (I always prefer to reform editors when possible rather than ban them) where I think he went in the weeds is there has been no evidence that A N has taken any feedback on board. At all. It's all well and good to suggest ignoring A N in AfD debates, but the problem is not his view, it's that he harangues other editors endlessly for pointing out that he's wrong. Have you actually read some of the examples where he goes on and on arguing about WP:JNN, or his farfetched claim that (lack of) notability isn't a reason to delete something? It's one thing to say "it's my view that X" but if there's disagreement, it's not appropriate to state "X is a fact" and then hound others for pointing out that it's not actually a fact, or even that it is generally agreed that "X is false". ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have, and actually I participated with you and A Nobody in the Pete White AfD (where he's noted as arguing that notability is not a sufficient reason for deletion). His argument is about semantics more than anything, and if he put it another way people would probably agree with him - his point seems to have been that if we have an array of reliable sources, lack of notability should not be used to delete an article. Of course, the notability guideline exists to duplicate and provide a rubric for WP:V - the whole point of notability is that non-notable subjects are unlikely to have significant reliable sources, and in the absence of these sources we won't be able to provide a substantially accurate article. If we do have a significant body of reliance sources (which we did not in the Pete White discussion) then the subject is, de facto, notable. He doesn't articulate this point very well -- simply declaiming that notability isn't a reason to delete just starts an argument with people who regularly see it used to infer problems with WP:V.

Anyway, bit sidetracked there - yes, I'd read the interactions. I don't think he is above criticism, but I won't endorse a statement or outside view that seems aimed at having him banned for conduct that happened a long time ago or for opinions that make him unpopular. For background, I've argued at various times against the banning or restriction of Kmweber and DougsTech (although both went off the deep end and I withdrew from further discussion). I understand that arguments at RfA or AfD can frustrate people, and over the long term that frustration can turn into RfCs and banning discussions and closer scrutiny, an unfortunate cycle that descends until restrictions and bans are considered just to make it stop. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. I've posted a similar statement of my views on the RfC itself. Nathan ^T 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballot process

I recall you responding to comments I made at RFC: ArbCom secret ballot, I have I have prepared a proposal to provide measures to assure voters against the possibility of fraud when using a secret ballot for Wikipedia elections:

• Wikipedia:Secret ballot process

I'd welcome your input. The proposal would involve changes to Special:SecurePoll, if agreed to - but nothing very extensive. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure we really need a policy to codify it, but if your proposal can be adapted to reflect the way secret ballot elections are currently run, which incorporates the majority of your requested safeguards, then I don't see a problem. I've watchlisted it, I'll probably comment as discussion progresses. Nathan ^T 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. "...I'm not sure we really need a policy to codify it..." Probably not, I wasn't sure where to stick it (in my talk space, sub page of the ArbCom RFC, or a project page of its own) and I couldn't think of a better template to tag it with. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RTV evidence

What evidence are you lacking in relation to A Nobody and the RTV issue? I can provide links to pretty much anything you need if you can explain what you aren't clear about.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing any evidence - what I'm missing is its current relevance, since the conduct that prompts dispute these days has nothing to do with RTV, his prior accounts, socking, etc. I've followed the travails of A Nobody since well before he vanished following harassment claims, and I'm familiar with the history, but none of that seems in any way relevant to the stated desired outcome of the RfC. Nathan ^T 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. When he was allowed back, he pledged "I don't plan to edit in any areas in which I ran into conflict in the past. I only wish to be able to add worthwhile mainspace content when I have something worthwhile to add." I don't see that he has made any effort to abide by that, and see no reason to permit him to edit after having vanished.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, agree to disagree. I think the issue of RtV ought to be moot at this point; arguing that he should be rebanned based on an RtV from more than a year ago is procedural formalism run amok. Your statement says that he should be banned, and while obviously more people endorse your view than mine, I still strongly disagree. Nathan ^T 18:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.141.231.74

I just wanted to note that I've added some information to the above page. I strongly suspect (in fact, I'm damn near certain) that the suspected sockpuppets are the same individual as an editor who has been abusive toward me over the course of several years now. Three of the most recent edits by the above IP (over at the page Talk:Feminism) were personal attacks on me that were immediately reverted by other editors. This editor is clearly using sockpuppets in an abusive manner and I would appreciate it if some action was taken. Thanks, Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw, and I agree. I think one or two of the other clerks at SPI who are administrators are taking a look at it and considering the potential for rangeblocks. Note that I didn't close the case or say no remedy was necessary, I just declined the checkuser as not useful to the case. Nathan ^T 18:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were going to close the case prematurely. On the contrary, I left a note here because you seemed to be arguing that there is a real sockpuppetry case here. Cheers, Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Zhang

I apologize if this isn't my place to speak out, but Steven really is an experienced editor; see here. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 01:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know :-P We were trolling eachother in Skype ;-) Nathan ^T 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. :) BTW, have you considered running for adminship? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 01:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting juxstaposition ;-) I've had an RfA in the past, didn't go so well. I might do it at some point in the future, but I'm not in any hurry. Nathan ^T 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said

		The Surreal Barnstar
		"the drama you fear is real, and its you." For describing a strange reality in a cogent fashion I give you the surreal barnstar. Chillum 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Haha, thanks. Nathan ^T 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI and CU Questions

Hi Nathan, you remember we had spoken earlier (see above) about the limits of SPI in relation to the Dr90s case I'd filed at ArbCom. I had 2 quick questions about how CU can be used. I've just filed yet another SPI case for Dr90s due to a heavy dose of vandalism (revenge-oriented reversions, etc.) from a Dr90s sock that has been dormant since Nov 2008. I'd never reported this sock because I had not detected it in my investigations.
In the past I have filed CU-requests with SPI and sometimes the CU-users have been able to identify several more "sleeper socks" that I had not even noticed. For example, in my Feb 2009 Dr90s report, User:Nishkid64 had identified some 8 or 9 sockpuppet sleeper accounts that I had not even reported on.
1st question: I was wondering if the identification of sleeper socks is something that CU can do or if it's just the independent investigations of the CU-users that had discovered these extra socks.
2nd question: If an IP is blocked, then editors who are logged in with a username account via the blocked IP will also be blocked. Is this correct?
Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser tool gives checkusers the data collected by the web server when users make an edit; it includes a number of different types of technical information, and sometimes they can use that information to find sock accounts that weren't initially suspected (usually, if the accounts share an ISP/IP range). If an IP is blocked, users who edit from that IP may be blocked depending on the block settings used; usually, if they try to edit as an IP (without an account) then they will be unable to. Some IP blocks prevent anyone, IPs or accounts, from editing (see wp:autoblock). Hope that helps, let me know if you have more questions. Nathan ^T 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, thanks. One more question if I could: do blocks set up by en.wikipedia admins effect users of other language wikipedias like simple.wikipedia or ja.wikipedia, for example? What about the Wikimedia Commons? So to put it another way, what is the extent or breadth of the block? Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no impact. Blocked from en.wp is blocked from only en.wp. Nathan ^T 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Many thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)