User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WikBack

It'd be nice if there were an automatic approval process. Anyway, confirming the account "Random832" is me. —Random832 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There have already been an number of disingenuous registrations which the manual checking has caught. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The WikBack

Seems like I'm not the only one visiting your talk page for this. :) In any case, when you get a chance, GlassCobra is me. Thanks! GlassCobra 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

interview

that's good, Just let me know when you're set. I'm "Wittylama" on Skype too. Best, Witty Lama 07:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WikBack

I signed up under my regular username, "xDanielx". Thanks for setting up and hosting this. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikback

Thank you. I have registered under my usual name. I'd be happy to help, time permitting. >Radiant< 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Small typo on arb page

Regarding your edit here, I believe you meant "to whom", not "who whom". Jouster  (whisper) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed finding

You write Though I would like to point out that Tony's recent participation reflects considerable improvement, even if the problem is not "resolved." [1]

I only recently realised that even what I regarded in all innocence as reasonable comments on the conduct of others involved were a large part of the problem in this case. This really means that I cannot trust myself to state my opinion on Wikipedia matters (I have little insight into what will and will not cause offence--I'm sorry if that sounds like a wet excuse). See my discussion of this here. In retrospect, I can see a pattern of similar problems going back to some of my earliest interactions on Wikipedia, mainly from my lack of insight into the effects of what I say. You may laugh, but this comes as a shock to me. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another project

Hello UninvitedCompany,

I think its a wonderful idea, and I wish I could be of help, but unfortunately there is nothing I can help with. I don't know how to use LilyPond and I live in a country where anything organ other than JS Bach is impossible to find (and so nearly all my sources, including articles and books used for Wikipedia articles, are found, one way or another, on the Internet).

I'm sorry I can't help, but best of luck with the project! I hope it makes pre-Bach composers a little bit more known; at least that - to make them more known, as they most definitely deserve - is one of my reasons for editing Wikipedia.

Regards,

--Jashiin (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this deletion ok?

[2] Please answer. Abridged talk 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) all set Abridged talk 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman case

Since you invited comment on your talk page, I did have a few questions about the Matthew Hoffman case. I have pretty strong opinions about it, but I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something important here.

  1. You mentioned that you voted to accept the case straightaway, without an RfC, because most of the affected users were "new and occasional editors" and unlikely to participate in an RfC. But the goal of the RfC would be to get feedback from the community as a whole about Vanished user's actions. At the eventual RfC, not only did every active user Vanished user had ever crossed paths with show up, but all of Vanished user's actions (including those involving new and occasional editors) were scrutinized in depth. I'm still not entirely clear on why the case was accepted without a preceding RfC - this was a major departure from both prescription and common practice, there was no emergency, and this decision handicapped the case from the start. Is there something I'm missing?
  2. You describe RfC participation as "sparse". I'm sure you've seen well more user-conduct RfC's than I, but I think this is way off base. Some specific views (Durova's and B's) were endorsed by as many as thirty-six other users, including many established editors and admins who had not been active in the ArbCom case. Even a relatively harsh view, that of Professor Marginalia, was endorsed by 20 users, with (at a quick glance) no overlap. There was significant participation from well more than these 56 users. If this is "sparse" participation, then what would have been adequate?
  3. The case opened at 17:34 on 2 December 2007. By 06:20 on 3 December, you had voted to desysop Vanished user and bar him from ever standing for RfA again. Also within about 12 hours of the opening of the case, you proposed a finding of fact censuring User:Chaser for lack of due diligence. This was the state of evidence page at the time. Chaser had provided no evidence when you proposed the finding; once he had the chance to do so, it became apparent that the finding was erroneously phrased. This haste seems unusual to me for any ArbCom case, particularly for one involving desysopping an established user and admin with extreme prejudice. As evidenced by the community feedback and the apparent divisions within the Committee itself, this was hardly an open-and-shut case. The resulting impression, at least to me, was that in the haste to sanction Vanished user, careful discussion and consideration of the situation and evidence was lacking. I won't speculate on the reasons for the haste with which this case was accepted and sanctions proposed, but am I off-base in feeling that things proceeded with atypical speed?

You're welcome to respond to some, all, or none of these questions as you see fit. I realize they come across a bit aggressive, perhaps, but I'm really just trying to see a different perspective here, and figure out what I'm missing in looking at the case. I do appreciate your comments on the case talk page, and your willingness to discuss the case. MastCell Talk 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. The case is not entirely unique in having no predecessor RFC, and we accepted despite one because there was evidence of serious misconduct and because we thought there were important principles at work.
  2. My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Vanished user but did not wish to so state publicly.
  3. The Chaser finding was a mistake and I later withdrew it. The haste was in part because there had been considerable internal deliberations since the RFAR was made, and in part because we had just completed an internal discussion where we had emphasized the importance of wrapping up as many pending matters as possible prior to January 1 to allow the newly elected arbs to start with a clean slate. I note that during the subsequent delays, Vanished user did not provide any substantive evidence or reasoning to us despite repeated promises to do so.
I note your disappointment in our handling of this case and in my leadership on it. For my part I have found the extent to which the community is willing to circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct to be troubling. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you do excellent work on the Committee in general, though obviously this particular case still troubles me. Regarding your first point, it's interesting to compare this case to the handling of another sysop who is famously quick on the trigger with indefinite blocks, often without even the limited WP:AN/I feedback that Vanished user solicited. Despite a much longer track record of concern and much greater potential damage in terms of WP:BITE, this sysop was afforded an RfC as a first step in dispute resolution. In the face of the concerns raised there, the admin in question was willing to change his approach somewhat. A subsequent RfArb based on the same concerns was rejected; you wrote at the time that "the RFC shows that the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing." (The RfC in question had participation as sparse, or sparser, than Vanished user's). That's how the process worked (and it did work) in a case where there was far more theoretical urgency and damage to the encyclopedia.
Obviously I can't weigh privately submitted commentary in regards to the RfC. Certainly "hard-line SPOV proponents" were well-represented among those willing to comment on-wiki. Perhaps you count me among them. Still, the views from B, Heimstern, and Durova drew support from a large number of experienced editors and admins with no irons in the SPOV fire. The views favoring a harsh approach to Vanished user were endorsed largely by partisan editors of a different stripe; discarding the input of such editors on both sides, it seemed there was still some usable feedback there, and it dissented from the path taken by the Committee. The Committee is privy to information submitted privately and perhaps has a better perspective on the problem as a whole. At the same time, it is a bit bothersome to have an RfC convened, to develop some useable feedback, and then to have it disregarded without comment. In that regard, again, I do appreciate your willingness to share your thought processes, and I realize you opposed the mid-case RfC to begin with, so I don't mean to put you in the position of defending something you disagreed with from the start.
I simply cannot let the irony of your final comment, about the willingness of the community to "circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct", go unremarked. A member of your Committee, a person occupying positions of great respect and responsibility, engaged in conduct that ought to be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in front of ArbCom. His comments remain unrefactored and, so far as I know, there has been no apology to those attacked, all of whom are easily identifiable in real life by their usernames incidentally. Yet when this issue was raised, the response was, precisely, to circle the wagons. You said "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this" (despite the fact that he initiated the case). Paul said that "The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him." You added that any evaluation of Charles' behavior would be a "distraction". You and Paul then both suggested that, despite Charles' role as initiator of the case, anyone thinking his conduct during it should be examined would need to bring a separate ArbCom case. This is actually relevant, though: an editor being attacked in the terms used by this Arbitrator, and facing a proposal to desysop him with extreme prejudice within 12 hours of a case opening in the absence of any prior dispute resolution, will be hard-pressed to stay cool and respond constructively. In the end, Vanished user didn't, but that doesn't mean that looking at other aspects of how this case was handled is a "distraction". To me, at least, they send a much stronger message than the fate of Vanished user's sysop bit.
I think there was some wagon-circling going on with regard to Vanished user's defenders. I don't subscribe to that, and I haven't defended his blocks, which were bad ones. But concern about the irregular aspects of this case and the hasty and harsh response to Vanished user's misdeeds is not the same as excusing his actions. And if holding people in positions of responsibility accountable, rather than making excuses for them, is the message behind this case, then it would be more convincing were it applied more evenly and closer to home. MastCell Talk 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More on the MH ArbCom case

UninvitedCompany, I have some questions about the MH ArbCom case and your comments on the talk page. I have posted them here, and would appreciate a response. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your post there to be more of a piece of criticism than a list of questions, and I'll decline to respond to most of it. There are two factual points however which I would like to clarify:
  1. There were at least three requests for delay from Vanished user in addition to the request for an RFC. These were emailed to us.
  2. The committee negotiated a voluntary settlement with Vanished user which he ultimately declined to accept even after we modified the wording several times to address his objections.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
UninvitedCompany, in point two (above) you refer to negotiations between the now-vanished user and ArbCom. Are you referring solely to off-wiki interactions (email or otherwise), or does this negotiation also take in on-wiki communications through the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages? EdChem (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this point is covered here: Following discussion, Vanished user has requested the case be suspended indefinitely, with his adminship being waived pending resumption.". See also FT2's comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems that the committee took this as an invitation to close the case with a 6-month desysopping (instead of suspending the case) - in addition, the vanished user objected to the wording of one (or more) of the Finding of Facts, and things went downhill from there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, Carcharoth. I would, however, still like an answer from UninvitedCompany. He has not posted since before I posed my question, and so probably has yet to see it, and I am content to await his return. We do, after all, all have to work in RL as well, and UC has ArbCom email etc too, so I am sure he is busy and will be back here when he gets the chance. Best, EdChem (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to off-wiki discussions that led to the posting of the remedy Carcharoth identifies. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

You should be aware of my post on User talk:Jimbo Wales, as it arises in part from your actions as an arbitrator. —Random832 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Minnesota

Portal:Minnesota is at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates if you can find a minute to vote. From memory, you have both knowledge of Wikipedia and of Minnesota. The most recent portal promotions had only a few more votes than Minnesota has now. Thank you kindly. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • P.S. Sorry to have bothered your talk page last winter if I did. Hope to meet you someday. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia holds its critics hostage

hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi UC. I already posed this question to Newyorkbrad,[3] but if you have reviewed the oversighted edits, perhaps you can clarify whether WB readded his allegation to GW at 21:49 on July 7, 2006. This is important to the basic chronology of what he did to get blocked, and is something I'd like to resolve. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The log shows WordBomb edit warring with others over edits that purport to identify the Wikipedia identity of the article's subject. I think I'll decline to comment on the particular dates and times. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand; I only ask because SV stated in evidence that WB added the allegation at 21:49. This is important, because it would be after the time he had conceded not to add it again. I discussed this with SV on our talk pages before she put up the evidence, in trying to straighten out the chronology that led to his block. That is why I am asking just for that particular edit it to be confirmed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could simply clarify whether WordBomb repeated allegations about the editor's identity to the article after he conceded not to at 20:28.[4] Considering this was raised and addressed in evidence, and discussed in other places, I'd have to think that point could be confirmed. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll decline to provide this information because I do not believe the line of reasoning to which it relates is important to the committee at this juncture. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And if it's relevant to the community? There wouldn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep the information secret, since the timestamp _itself_ has already been publicly stated, and all you're being asked for is to confirm the truth of that statement. (It's not that we don't trust SV, it's just - first, she's involved, and second, since she doesn't have direct access to check it for herself, she's relying on her own personal recollection of events of over a year and a half ago) —Random832 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re MM case

Hi, UC. I don't want to make more noise at the Proposed Decision page for the Mantanmoreland case, but I'd like to inquire a bit more into your view of the evidence. First, thanks for stepping up and explaining your position; I appreciate your willingness to do that in the face of obvious unhappiness over the direction Arbcom is taking.

You said (forgive the paraphrasing) that the statistical analysis needed to be sufficiently well-controlled that it could reliably identify sockpuppets out of a large sample of editors. My question is, how well do Checkuser and the goof-up test meet your standards for well-controlled tests? (Do any known tests for sockpuppetry meet your standard?) What do you see as the distinction between those methods, which you seem to trust, and the ones I and others employed in the analysis of MM-SH (VSM, timestamp patterns, shared terms)? And, do you feel that the evidence we have compiled leaves room for a credible alternate explanation of the two accounts' seeming similarity? If you had to put odds on it, what do you think the likelihood is of MM and SH being independent accounts? Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think those are insightful questions. Your line of reasoning is substantially more useful to the community than the overall discussion has been.
There have been cases where the checkuser evidence has been conclusive in showing abusive use of multiple accounts, though they are not as common as they once were. Examples have included matters involving NSLE, Poetlister, Privatemusings, Henrygb, Eyrian, and several cases handled privately. These cases have not involved statistical data but rather specific edits that are indicative of abuse and for which no plausible alternate explanation can be found. There have also been cases where someone has clearly made inadvertent edits with the wrong user name, as when replying to messages left for their alter ego or refering to their alter ego's prior actions as their own. I consider such edits to be quite conclusive.
In contrast, it is not possible to point to a specific edit or handful of edits for MM-SH that demonstrate shared identity. Rather, you and others have pointed to a lengthy, ongoing pattern which you believe offers no other plausible explanation. I've fooled myself in the past with essentially similar analysis, particularly when looking at word choice, areas of interest, and so on. I consider such analysis to be inherently unreliable and prone to false positives for a variety of reasons that I can share if you're interested. That leaves the editing times analysis, and I don't consider it rigorous, although again it certainly raises suspicions.
Odds? I would answer that the odds are probably less than 95%, which isn't enough for me under the circumstances. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for the response. So, if I interpret your answer correctly, you're saying that you'd expect greater than one out of any twenty randomly chosen pairs of accounts to show the same (or greater) degree of similarity in word choice, article interest, median time of editing, and scarcity of simultaneous editing? alanyst /talk/ 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I realized that my restatement of your response was in error. Here's what I really want to confirm you're saying: For all pairs of accounts that show the same or greater degree of similarity in word choice, article interest, median time of editing, and scarcity of simultaneous editing, you'd expect greater than one in twenty to be legitimately independent accounts? alanyst /talk/ 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I think that in the particular case in question, one might become convinced that there is as little as a 5% chance of error in the conclusion that MM=SH given the totality of the evidence and data thus far presented. That's a guess, based mainly on the number of times I've been proven wrong when seeing a similar preponderance of evidence. Part of the problem with your analysis of word choice, editing times, and so on is that the criteria you're using were chosen to fit the facts of the case, which rules out statistically defensible results -- for a result to be statistically valid, the test criteria have to be determined prior to examining the data. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what criteria you're referring to. My choice of what data to study was not based on any known facts about the editors at the time, but rather on a general hypothesis of what features might be more prominent in sockpuppets than in independent editors, given only what can be known from on-wiki activity and without checkuser insight. Those features are the timing of edits (overlap) and the verbal styles of the editors (document similarity). I could not easily examine verbal styles of the actual contributions, but edit summaries seemed to offer sufficient data (and, not being editable after the fact, are perhaps more reflective of an editor's raw style). I did not state at any time what threshold of similarity would be required to bring the margin of error below a particular level; perhaps this is what you mean by criteria. But I was ready and willing to publish findings that would likely have exonerated MM and SH, such as a low degree of word choice similarity or an average or high number of simultaneous edits.
It strikes me that your trusted standards are equally unproven, except by personal experience (which is not a controlled experiment). That's not to say they aren't reliable; I think they make a lot of sense. But, for example, you say "These cases have not involved statistical data but rather specific edits that are indicative of abuse and for which no plausible alternate explanation can be found." What are your criteria of plausibility? What is the standard for "indicative of abuse"? How statistically significant is a finding of x abusive edits over the total number of edits that the editor (or all editors) made?
Is it fair to state that your trust in the traditional tests for sockpuppetry stems not from their having been proven scientifically, but rather that you feel you have a good intuitive sense for when they give conclusive results and when they might be unreliable? And, conversely, your mistrust of these new approaches is due to not having a similar sense for their threshold of conclusiveness?
Finally (and I apologize for belaboring the point), it seems like you are treating each of the tests individually, mentally discarding every one that does not give conclusive results. I submit that even if the best that one can conclude from any one of these tests is "suggestive but not conclusive", the totality of the tests would strengthen the conclusion, if the tests are truly independent of each other. What cinches the conclusion for me personally is no single one of the tests either, but rather the overall implausibility of independent accounts managing to be so similar under several independent metrics (median editing time, editing simultaneity, topic of interest, non-topical word choice). You use a "no plausible alternate explanation" test for specific edits that suggest abuse; can you imagine a plausible alternate explanation for the accounts' overall similarity under these independent metrics? alanyst /talk/ 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking past each other because you don't have any theoretical training in statistics. If you do, I apologize, but my basic approach to the evidence is rooted in the science of statistics as it is typically taught, and it appears to me that yours may not be.

I discard the word choice analysis in its entirety because I do not believe that such tests have any accuracy to speak of. I'm born and raised in the rural Midwestern U.S., and have the sort of Swedish American accent that comes with that, but if I talk on the phone for an hour to someone in London, I'll start imitating their accent and adopting British word choices and idioms. It's automatic. We do it unconsciously in text as well, though the accent doesn't come through. And there are oftentimes similarities in word choice among people with similar backgrounds, even if they don't know each other. There's a whole field of forensic linguistics out there that tries to make hay out of this sort of analysis, and the only area where they have any real accuracy is in proving plagiarism. So I give no weight to that analysis, at all.

That leaves the analysis of editing times and near total lack of overlap, contrasted with the notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation, a relatively uncompelling motive, and the unlikely possibility that SH may be a third party construct built in a deliberate attempt to discredit MM. And it is the analysis of editing times, in particular, that I find to lack statistical rigor.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here Uninvited, but my question follows directly out of your exchange with Alanyst. In your penultimate paragraph, you say you give no weight at all to similarities yielded by word choice analysis; but then in your final paragraph, you indicate that you do give weight to "notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation." Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean that you do give weight to stylistic analysis, but that word choice cannot be a valid part of that analysis? I would have thought that word choice was a fairly important component of style; do you agree with that, but maintain that other components of style (cadence, tone, syntax, sentence architecture, etc.) can be reliably analyzed in a way that word choice cannot be? That seems odd to me; the factors you list for why word-choice analysis is unreliable (unconscious imitation between acquaintances, shared backgrounds between strangers) would seem to apply equally to the other components of style. Or are you not making that distinction at all, but rather saying that apparent stylistic contrasts should be given weight, while documented stylistic similarities should not be?--G-Dett (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
UC, I wasn't aware that MM and/or SH participated in an off-wiki mailing list. Which one(s)? alanyst /talk/ 13:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked a few times without answer, but what exactly is their difference in writing styles? Cool Hand Luke 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed it appears that Tomstoner affected his style in the opposite direction,[5][6], while it appears that Lastexit did not, or used the same manner claimed of SH.[7][8] If they seem more relevant, please see also a couple of additional points here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really not very difficult for a professional author to change styles, but I'm still curious about what their supposed stylistic differences are. Word choice for routine expressions, on the other hand, are more subconscious. Alanyst did some work to show that these word choice traits were probably not learned from each other. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for these stylistic differences. Mantanmoreland claimed some differences, but they don't seem to hold up and/or are flatly incorrect. No third party has ever articulated how they differ. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

as when replying to messages left for their alter ego - do you NOT remember what gave the claim enough credibility to convince a checkuser to run it in the first place? —Random832 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion - Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A wikback.com Question

I see that I've been sanctioned for commenting in the 'thought of the day' thread - sincere apologies if my post disgruntled you at all, I know we can discuss wikback related stuff in the wikback thread next week, but if you're minded to consider an 'appeal' at all, I'd love to be able to return to uncontroversial posting - thanks heaps, Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's of interest / would help any - I thought I'd let you know that I did drop a note to Marc / Michael offering apologies if he personally found my posts distracting or disruptive - I'm glad that he replied that everything's fine between us - and I also wondered if any clemency might be possible in the light of other recent posts in an arguably similar vein? I very much appreciate your work in maintaining the wikback, and look forward to re-engaging there when my ban expires - or maybe sooner with your good grace! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(final pester on your talk page! promise!) - I thought I'd just add one more small note that might be of interest - unfortunately the way the banning system seems to work (for me at least) at wikback - when you're banned, you're presented with a much reduced forum screen, with no links etc. - and importantly, no option to 'logout' which would allow you, as an anonymous viewer, to follow any discussions of interest. I figured out how to delete my 'cookie' in the end - but wondered if you might want to take a look and see if there's a way of allowing a regular 'log out'? Also - my initial confusion was sincere, partly because it wasn't immediately clear to me that the message was a personal note, and not a site notice - I wondered if it might be possible to display the ban information as well as the message? Just a couple of thoughts...! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Saw your vote, and just wanted to thank you for at least not letting one of the worst Arbcom decisions in history be unanimous.Kww (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'm all for building consensus, but I still think independently and vote my conscience. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MM close motion

Since FT2 posted a new Finding of Fact for consideration less than an hour before your motion to close, perhaps this close motion is a touch premature? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG

Hi "UninvitedCompany". I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [9]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [10]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [11]. Regards PHG (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Highways talk

I'm sure you haven't missed my recent comments on the Highways Arbcom talk, but I would like to highlight them just in case, as I appreciated your comments in the "Target audience" section of the proposed decision. Geometry guy 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ShamanDhia_portrait.jpg question

I was notified to get someone to verify my picture - I don't have an account in wikimedia, but the permission letter was sent today, and I did cite a license in the page, so I'm not sure why I got the error, or how to find someone to check for me. Thanks for your help, the Hitochi Princess (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

WikBack registration

Dear UninvitedCompany,

I am contacting you to prove that this is my account on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Jennifer Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Owens (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy email

Just letting you know that I sent you one. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikback

Sorry for the ignorant question. I looked through Wikback and I've got an impression that this is basically a rival forum to WR with the notable difference on prohibiting to use the site to out editors and most of the rest being very similar. Would it be the roughly correct crude assessment? Thanks, --Irpen 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that it's a rival forum to wikien-l with better management of threads. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And besides allowing banned editors to participate as well as editors who want to take a public pose of not posting to WP at all (both legit reasons) are there other important reasons to keep this off-wiki. Of course it is open and all, but seems like having it onwiki would be more convenient even though keeping the disgruntled ones engage is an important consideration, I agree. Perhaps the forum's wikification is another option.
Another good reason to keep it within wiki is its more transparent (even if not always upheld) privacy policy as there is no clarity of who has access to the participants' IP's in Wikback and what obligations people who have such access are willing to take upon themselves. Just suggestions.
Disclaimer, I never took part in WR and I don't find it a worthwihle activity, so I invoked it merely as an example. --Irpen 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Could you comment on this requested edit? I don't want to stir up any old animosities. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikback

Please send me an invitation when you have a moment. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear UninvitedCompany/archive22,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for AlBaho Case

Hi. About a year and a half ago, you appeared to have been involved with deleting AlBaho Case. Apparently, it popped up again and I didn't notice it. I have created an AfD for it, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AlBaho_Case. Since some aspects of this appear to involve administrators, I figured you might be able to clear some of it up. Thanks Wrs1864 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy case

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Tango

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill. Would request your vote/comments on it. Please also note that FloNight (and now) Jpgordan are reconsidering their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - it may be eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Y Done

Please note that Flonight and Jpgordan have now changed their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - the discussion there is eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Y Done

Requests page

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)