User talk:Thekohser/2010

It's 2010 now
It is 2010 now, and as has been my habit for the past number of years, I like to archive the previous year's discussion from my Talk page into its own "annual" page. However, I'm unable to do that, thanks to the actions of ArbCom member Risker. Would someone be kind enough to archive my 2009 Talk page content, in the same manner that previous years have been archived? Thank you in advance! Happy new year. -- Thekohser 14:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Happy new year to you as well. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You rule! -- Thekohser 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP test
Hi, I've been referred to you by MZMcBride as I asked him a question about the BLP test which I understand you are conducting.

I believe you have a list of Wikipedia BLPs on which you intend to run some sort of test, would you mind telling me: Is this a retrospective test, checking and fixing a sample of unwatched BLPs and measuring the proportion that are currently vandalised; a passive test watching a group of unwatched BLPs to see if they become vandalised and whether this is fixed, but not fixing the observed vandalism; or an experiment whereby the Bios are to be deliberately vandalised and the response of the Wikipedia community will then be observed?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am having a bit of trouble with the fouling of the test itself by these public discussions of the test. The original sample was intended to be "unwatchlisted, unsourced BLPs".  After McBride was browbeaten by Roger Davies, the entire list (from which only a small sample was released to me) was turned over to the Arbitration Committee.  Lo and behold, suddenly there were no more unwatchlisted, unsourced BLPs.  Someone on the ArbCom put them all -- all 8,000+ -- on a watchlist.  So, my dear Spiel... what sort of assurances might you extend me, that you will not also foul the test, as the ArbCom has already done?  You may wish to interact with me via e-mail.  I don't sign in here often any more.  I'm sure you can find my e-mail address. -- Thekohser 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer and for the invitation, however I would prefer to keep this discussion on Wikipedia. I assume from your answer that your project isn't currently planned as a retrospective test, but may I suggest that since you've got the data, and if you're going to test the accuracy of our BLPs, you reconsider and make it an audit or retrospective test? Checking a bunch of BLPs and informing us here of errors would not be prevented by Arbcom having arranged to have them all watchlisted, and if the errors you spot predate you receiving that data then no-one could dismiss it as "vandalism by persons blocked or unknown found by a blocked editor". As for the other two possibilities that I delineated, MzMcBride is confident that you would not "actively harm biographies of living people" which would rule out the third option and imply that your test is of the nature of  "a passive test watching a group of unwatched BLPs to see if they become vandalised and whether this is fixed, but not fixing the observed vandalism". Or is MzMcBride's confidence in you misplaced?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)