User talk:Thatcher/Archive15

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds is open. You know the drill. :-) Picaroon (t) 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Morgellons

Thatcher, it was suggested I take issues I wish to discuss with you to your talk page. I think that is a good idea. First, you can believe what you want, but please don't publish on the talk page your opinion of what my desires are concerning my edits of the Morgellons article. Thank you. There were some factual errors of what was written I said, and what I actually did say. I discussed these on the talk page. I also tried to address the issues of NPOV and original research we disagree on. I would appreciate some input from you, as these were issues you brought up concerning the text I wrote wrote principally to the talk page and not in the article.Ward20 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tajik-Professor (talk · contribs)

You blocked Tajik-Professor (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Tajik (talk · contribs) based on checkuser information, but a recent checkuser suggests otherwise. Do you still stand by your assertion based on other information? -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly any technical evidence is too stale to check. I obviously don't have any basis to dispute whatever private evidence Deskana has seen. I would probably like to see Deskana and Dmcdevit get in touch with each other to see if Dmcdevit will change his opinion. At this point I don't have any basis to either rescind to confirm the block. Thatcher131 11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, can you please, look into this [1]. I am tired of these attacks and open insults by socks of User:Tajik. Thanks. Atabek 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week. In future cases like this you should be able to get the individual IP addresses blocked by making a complaint to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Some admins are quicker than others to dismiss apparent content disputes so it will be important to note in your complaint that the IP is from the same ISP and geographic area that was previously confirmed, that the IP focuses on this one issue (and is therefore probably not an unrelated person with a coincidental interest in the topic) and that the user is banned. Hopefully this will work for you. Thatcher131 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher, I will take a note of that. Atabek 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaghankatvatsi

Hi Thatcher. I have another request for your comment with regard to historical dispute we have about ancient historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi. Hetoum and VartanM persistently delete any alternative opinions about the ethnic origin of this person. Latest example: [2] Could you please look into this issue, this could help to put an end to another edit war? Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley

He believes that you OKd this edit. I think that is not what you intended and that it is an obvious false light libel caption. I don't believe that caption was there when you unlocked his user page. --DHeyward 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Close call. If it was a rumor, or an arrest and innocence plea with a trial pending, it would clearly be unacceptable. But Craig did plead guilty. I wish he wouldn't deliberately push so many buttons. You might want to ask a couple more admins for an opinion if you are really concerned. Thatcher131 19:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. He denies anything to do with "cottaging" and he wasn't convicted of that. Smedley is gay and we certainly wouldn't tolerate anyone calling him Bmedley "Wide Stance/Cottaging" Sutler. Why would we tolerate it for other living people? My ocncern is the caption he added. I don't care about the picture or lyrics. --DHeyward 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable viewpoint. Thatcher131 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement question

After reading this, I wonder: if a user involved in my Arb Com has recently been behaving very unfriendly, violating WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA and turning talk discussions into flames, where can I ask others to review his behavior? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that the issue of civility blocks (in the absence of an arbitration ruling) are controversial. Your problem is that there is no enforceable remedy in the arbitration case. You can pursue action in the same way any user would, by contacting an admin or posting to the noticeboard. You can also post to the "Requests for clarification" section of WP:RFAR and ask the arbitrators to deal with this issue which they did not effectively deal with before. Thatcher131 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy kindsoul

Daddy Kindsoul should be blocked for a year per his ArbCom decision under the name Deathrocker; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Enforcement_by_block_Deathrocker.

Should Deathrocker, using any user account or ip, violate his revert parole he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

He has been blocked 7 times before your block, with the last one being a block for a month. A week is letting him off mildly easy. — Moe ε 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He may be blocked for up to a year. I generally think that blocks of a month or longer are the same as banning since the user will become so discouraged as to quit entirely or so frustrated that he comes back as a sockpuppet, leading to more blocks and extensions, etc. I'm not ready to determine that Deathrocker is such an impediment to Wikipedia that he should be driven off entirely. If some other admin feels differently he can change the block. (Also relevant that Hoponpop69 was also a bit of a jerk.) Thatcher131 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CuddlyAble3

Hi there. I'm not sure if there's something underhanded going on, but it looks as though there might be, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. CuddlyAble3, immediately after the expiry of his latest block for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, seems to have deleted his user page while leaving his talk page up (such as it is; he continues to delete warnings and behavioural reminders). Is this kosher? It looks to me as if he's trying to conceal his behavioural problems, and the warnings he's received for them, from those who encounter his name in signed comments, etc. --Scheinwerfermann 14:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest wrinkle

I am unfamiliar with the procedure and etiquette at WP:RfAR. Did User:Picaroon act properly in deleting my statement? --Marvin Diode 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issues are similar but the case will be about THF, not about such conflicts in general. Thatcher131 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence pages

I would rather discuss this individually rather than on that guideline talk page. Could you give me some examples of the sorts of disputes in which you have developed evidence pages in your user space? I want to get a better feel for the nuance here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also talk to Tony, he shared a relevant personal experience in IRC when he made his comment there. As for me, see this potential RFAR, which I later dropped. Also see this draft evidence for a case that opened soon after. The deleted pages of User:Thatcher131/temp such as [3] have other cases that were later filed. This version contains a checkuser request and a comment in another RFAR case. Here is a statementI was considering for another case. Evidence for yet another RFAR case. Tracking a banned user. Possible sockpuppet. You are welcome to troll through my sandboxes, both current and deleted edits. Thatcher131 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea?

RE: I'm sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about. I have not appealed to administrators for help regarding the issues and I think presenting personal political opinions in a controversial subject to be trolling. and last but not least, I'm not frustrated in any way. Please restore the trolling tag This since having political debates on the talk pages can not and will not be tolerated. Thanks--Termer 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Accusing long-term contributors of being trolls is hardly civil. Even if I or another administrator determines that Irpen and Grafikm may be banned from the article under the terms of the article probation, they will not be labeled trolls.

I'm sorry why would you suggest that anybody has labeled Irpen and Grafikm trolls? The tag was there to remind everybody not to get into political debates. Therefore it should be up to every editor themselves either they wish to go on with political debates not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That’s something I cannot control. Therefore, please restore the tag since such political debates cannot be tolerated. thanks!--Termer 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:You added the tag immediately after making a sarcastic remark... I personally think all the political discussions up there are trolling. In case you insist, I can admit labeling the actions of Irpen trolling (even though I didn't have anybody personally in mind) on the related article's discussion page since he/she has not presented any evidence to support the opinions and keeps just dragging the discussion into useless political debate. And I'm not saying that he/she has been the only one. The opposing editors have not been better either. Therefore, to put a stop to this, please restore the tag. Thanks--Termer 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS.but then again, never mind. But in case this political debate starts to go on again like it seems it might, I hope you‘ll step in and help to get things back on track again. Take care.--Termer 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dfitzgerald

Hi. Could you please check the contribs of Dfitzgerald (talk · contribs)? His contribs are nothing but rvs on controversial articles. I think the admin intervention is necessary, especially in the light of remedies imposed by the recent arbcom. Grandmaster 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Thatcher, if you don't know which side Atabek is on, then I think you are in no position to say he was less disruptive than some other users. Atabek has been more disruptive than most other users including Tajik. He is by far the one single user who's been able to create so much conflict with Iranian and Armenian users, as of right now he probably beats AdilBaguirov in this. Also I'm very disappointed that you choose to ignore the report about him in the Arbitrations enforcement notice board. Not a single word was added about the incident, while you removed the anon IP's comment, who knew so much about Tajik. I was actually waiting for him to tell us what Tajik ate for breakfast. And while were talking about the anon IP and his comments. I'd like to clarify that none of the current active Armenian users is a teenager. --VartanM 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? Not all Armenian users declare their age on their user pages. And I see that some users seem to have started a campaign against Atabek, but no real proof any violation has been provided. --Grandmaster 05:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The same way I know that you're not a teenager, by communicating with them. Atabeks violations were reported to ArbCom noticeboard. Welcome back by the way. VartanM 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made lists of "He's pro-Armenian" or "He's pro-Azeri" or "He's a Turkish nationalist." When (or if) I respond to a complaint, I look at the behavior cited, and try to make a fair response. Thatcher131 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, your neutral view is appreciated, but your statement that his less disruptive then some others is totally wrong. My I remind you that he barely survived a 1yr block in the A-A1 and the A-A2 was initially opened because of his disruptive behavior. VartanM 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thatcher, in my absense for last 2 days, I and my edits came under an attack of editors VartanM, Pocopocopocopoco, Fedayee, TigranTheGreat, Hetoum I on various pages, just checking the history of one of them, Khojaly Massacre page is sufficient to see what's going on [4]. In addition, User:Chaser placed me under civility ban without any prior warning (i.e. I was absent between his warning and ban). Also, Hajji Piruz is back reverting my edits on bunch of other pages. May I know, why I am being banned for 4 days, while all these editors involved in ArbCom in their clearly coordinated effort are not less disruptive, continue warring in an unrestricted manner, clearly along ethnic and national lines. Moreover, in prior case, User:VartanM was kindly warned, while I am being placed immediately under ban, without any warning. Atabek 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be warned. Any administrator may ban you from articles or even the broad topic for disruption; you are well aware of this part of the arbitration enforcement case. It seems reasonable to me. Complaints about other users can be made on the various noticeboards. Due to the extremely broad nature of this dispute and the nature of volunteer admins, perfectly even-handed enforcement is a goal that is unlikely to be perfectly achieved. Thatcher131 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this may need clarification, which I also asked User:Chaser for [5]. The wording for second remedy here clearly says that the remedies including civility supervision and supervised editing shall be applied after placing a warning. User:Chaser placed the warning first, and then afterwards enacted a ban, when I never signed in between the warning and the ban. In similar case of User:Hetoum I, only the warning was placed without a ban. Thanks. Atabek 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• In remedy 1, all users from the first case were placed on supervised editing (probation) and may be banned from articles for disruption. Remedy 2, requiring notice, applies to new editors not previously informed of the dispute. Thatcher131 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DHeyward Trolling

User:DHeyward is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for months Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he had never edited, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him advicing him not to troll the article. [6] The facts that he won't communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacks good faith intentions on this article. There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am going to stay away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me. Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is this still an ongoing concern? For what it's worth, I am generally suspicious of "Controversy" sections in articles, especially when the controvsery section is as long as the main section (not to mention linking to two expanded articles). It should be possible to describe the history of a thing without having to label a section of the article as a "Controversy" which obviously sets a certain tone. Thatcher131 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum I

FYI, User:Hetoum's first edit after the expiration of his 24hr block [7]. Atabek 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again for 1RR violation. Thatcher131

Collection of material proposed language

There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Have done. Thatcher131 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Socks

[8] - take a look, both User:Drosophilawhodoestnotfly and User:Hu1lee admitted to being socks, first one of User:Fadix and the other of banned sock User:Azizbekov. I reported this to Dmcdevit, though he seems to be away. So just to note, both users continue editing as of now. Atabek 23:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• They're blocked now. Thatcher131 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. An administrator forgot to long Atabeks block here: [9] (or is it being logged somewhere else now?).Hajji Piruz 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji they're now being logged in the AA2 page and it wasn't a block it was a topic ban, thats why he reverted himself.

Thatcher whats your opinion on User:Flavius_Belisarius because his the self admitted sockpuppet of User:Shuppiluliuma [10], and is yet to be banned, apparently two other administrators know about it and yet he is still here. VartanM 04:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the information.Hajji Piruz 04:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? Thatcher131 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talkpage, he never responded back. Also he knew that he was being disruptive but he did nothing again. I personally believe that if Flavious gets blocked right now, hes gonna create a sock and comeback, since he got away with it. He's been using that account for almost 6 months now. VartanM 06:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't edited for two weeks. If he comes back and is disruptive to articles relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan-Iran-Turkey you can ask at WP:AE that he be noticed in to the remedies there. Assuming Future Perfect is right in his assessment, being "generally a competent editor but with a temper" describes a lot of people here. Thatcher131 11:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do I stand now?

Thatcher, what's the deal exactly on my editing permissions? I have held off on creating anything new in regards to the other Nox Arcana CDs? I started a partial article before all the stuff with Skinny McGee happened, but I only stuck it in a sandbox with the hopes that I could one day use it, or that someone else might. See what I started here and let me know if I am allowed to post it as a stub or something. I also started some of the articles for MS, just summaries, but I don't even want to touch any of that at this point. I'm still waiting for someone to look into Skinny McGee's false report against me, but I have a feeling nobody cares enough to bother. Anyway, let me know if I will be blocked for editing or what. I've been sticking to talk pages but it's not exactly productive. Thanks. Ebonyskye 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Ban_for_disruption_2. "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. It is acceptable to make suggestions on the talk page." Thatcher131 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But I am not a past or present employee or associate. That is what I have been trying to tell you. You even admitted that my IP was not a match and if you would only LOOK before my edits you would see that I did not start the mentions of Vargo... that stuff was already in the articles. I either dated the entries or added to them a bit. That was all. Your ONLY reason is based on editing I did not initially do. Ebonyskye 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You edit in the same or similar manner as GuardianZ; you and SKinny McGee can not seem to stop arguing about Midnight Syndicate and Joseph Vargo so you are both banned from those and related articles. You may contact any other admin or the arbitration commitee. Thatcher131 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had NO arguements with Skinny McGee. He never even said anything to me about any of the edits. And again, with the exception of ONE sentence that I re-wrote completely, all the other mentions of Vargo were already on the board. I am not the person who added his name to the articles. Why are you being so stubborn? Do you want me to post links to all the previous edits here so you can see them? I already posted them at WP:AN, which you know already. Did you bother to look at them? Can I not post the article I started on the Winter's Knight album? That does not mention anything about Midnight Syndicate at all, plus only the MS page was banned in that decision. At that time there was nothing on NA, and I sure as heck did not start the NA pages. Are you like some friend of McGee? Is that why I am being singled out like this and why you are fighting so bad to keep people from editing the NA pages? Ebonyskye 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Caucasus Germans

Hello. Can you place a semi-protection tag on the Caucasus Germans article? Some anon has been removing the word Azeri from there since May 2007 claiming the term was pejorative: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. All my attempts to reason with this person have been in vain; they keep switching IP-addresses, hence my messages on their talk page probably remain unread. Parishan 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a frequent enough problem to warrant protection. Thatcher131 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's more, just in the past two days: [17] and [18]. Parishan 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put a 14 day semi on it. In the future you can post to WP:RFPP where they are a better judge of this sort of thing. Thatcher131 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Movses Kaghankatvatsi

Hi. I would appreciate if you could review the sources that I provided here: [19] They are being constantly deleted from the article by certain users, which I beleive is not justified. Grandmaster 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, can you please give your two cents on David Bek --VartanM 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shushi Massacres

This page was created [20] by a banned sock User:Hu1lee of User:Azizbekov, who vandalized over a dozen Wiki pages, including several user pages, yesterday before his ban. This sock-created POV/OR page qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria. While User:Grandmaster is trying to insert the relevant tag on the page, User:Andranikpasha is reverting and removing the tag without sufficient reasons. Also, he is claiming that he created the page [21], [22], which was actually created by User:Hu1lee. Could you take a look, please? Thanks. Atabek 17:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are exceptions to every rule, and an article with over 30 references is not going to be deleted because it was started by a banned user. It is also true that there used to be two articles, Shushi Pogroms and Shushi Massacres, which were merged. Because of the history merge and page move, all edits are attributed to the resulting article and it is impossible to tell who contributed to which original article before the merge. Assuming this is a real and important historical event, please work together to present it according to Wikipedia policies. Thatcher131 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deutschie

Hi. Could you please check contribs of Deutschie (talk · contribs)? This is a very suspicious account, that made his very first contribution by reverting quite an obscure article Shushi Massacres‎, previously edited by another sock of banned user Azizbekov. I suspect that it could be another sock. Grandmaster 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another 2: Urmenihte (talk · contribs) and Lobefan24 (talk · contribs). Looks like coordinated action. I suspect that it is banned user Azizbekov. Grandmaster 05:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All 3 accounts turned out to be socks of banned User:Artaxiad and were blocked. The issue is resolved, sorry for disturbance. Grandmaster 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And two more User:Armenian2 and User:Benzinsoyqirm. Could you please, update the ArbCom page block log, if necessary. Thanks. Atabek 12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another one: Gazifikator (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicely written

I just looked at the "how to present a case" guide for the arbcom, and saw that you'd added the "Mooning the jury" section. Very nicely done - you hit the style of the rest of it so well that, for a moment, I couldn't figure out why I'd forgotten the assault joke after writing it. Eventually I realized it was because I didn't write that section, but still. Well done. :) Phil Sandifer 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thatcher131 02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Latvia

Despite (not because) you protected the article at "my" version, so to speak (with the tag), I thank you for doing so. To certify my good faith, I am asking you to protect it on a random version (with or without the tag.)

Now, I request that you continue to monitor the discussion at the talk page, provide some feedback and, finally, monitor the various boards where one side's calls for actions continue to pop up. Lately, two Wikipedia-space boards have been used as a workaround to the WP:DR by a side who habitually resorts to such tricks to "win" content disputes. Since, as a clerk and an admin, you monitor them anyway, please consider making a note at the article's talk whenever someone goes block-shopping again. I hate monitoring those noticeboards and religiously avoid clicking on the contribution logs of disruptive editors (to minimize stress.)

I am not here to sway you in any way. Just please maintain your involvement in the issue.

TIA, --Irpen 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a random version. I happened to check my watchlist, saw your summary of "insulting edit summary" or some such, and checked the history. I'm not sure how to handle the dispute at this point. I suggest you make a statement on the RFC; hopefully some outside editors will drop by. Thatcher131 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will make a statement. All I am asking you, since you monitor these boards anyway, is to leave a note every time block-shoppers take resort to some board again and to monitor the discussion for disruptive comments (from all sides.) If you, or anyone, would drop a comment on the content disputes itself (like you did), those would certainly be appreciated. --Irpen 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I say about the content, the less I can do as far as enforcement is concerned. I'm trying to stick to correcting misunderstandings of policy. Thatcher131 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's claim: "Lately, two Wikipedia-space boards have been used as a workaround to the WP:DR by a side who habitually resorts to such tricks to "win" content disputes" is untrue. While he says he is not here to sway you in any way, his statement clearly intends to introduce the idea that one side resorts to tricks, hence sway you. Why would one side, who can produce tomes of references to support their case, need to resort to "tricks" to "win"? If you are going to stick to correcting misundestandings of policy, fundamental ones like WP:RS and WP:V are a good places to start. Martintg 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. The moment I saw the familiar usernames-additional editors, who have shown the pattern of misusing tags on related articles elsewhere, suddenly coming on tagging the article after Irpen and the other guy, what’s his name, had done it twice and run out of the "revert limit". I went on and listed the article at the RFC-s and several notice boards asking for a third opinion. I intend to do that in the future in case I see additional editors suddenly getting active when it's only about tagging it after not caring about the article for months. Thanks--Termer 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC and third opinion are good things to try. Unfortunately not as many people participate as probably should, but it is always good to try and get additional eyes on a subject and additional viewpoints. Thatcher131 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

As per the RFC I consider Ned Scott's presence on the discussion "Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes#motion to close" to be a breach of his claim to disengage. What do you think? -- Cat ^chi? 12:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your block on me was false. See admin decision.

This statement by GRBerry tells me that you made an illegal block of my account. GRBerry says: Your statement as to the ban scope is false. He (speaking of Skinny McGee) is banned from the page Midnight Syndicate, not from all related content; the ArbComm knows how to say what it means in this regard. Feel free to use the processes described at Wikipedia:Dipsute resolution for solving the dispute. That being said, Skinny McGee was making a false report on me AND you made the block on me without considering the decision AND based on totally bogus reports by Skinny. According to this, I am free to edit. I don't completely blame you for the first count, but then you refused to look at my history to find out that I did not do what Skinny McGee reported, and further skewed the meaning of the decision to fit your own needs--that being a refusal to even contemplate you were wrong in blocking me in the first place. Ebonyskye 08:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please note remedy 2, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Ban_for_disruption_2. It is my judgement, based on their edits and the evidence in the case, that both Skinny McGee and Ebonyskye are a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics" and as such are banned from editing Midnight Syndicate and related articles, which would include articles about Nox Arcana, a band founded by former MS memeber Joseph Vargo. (The dispute which resulted in the filing of the arbitration case was over Vargo's role in the band and its various projects.) Skinny McGee did in fact make two edits on an article from which he is banned; enforcement is not required in my judgement because he apologized and promised not to do it again. Ebonyskye, on the other hand, has denied having any relationship with the band (despite checkuser findings that he is on the same ISP in the same town as GuardianZ (talk · contribs) and that his edits involve original research and personal knowledge not contained in the references cited) and has also engaged in forum shopping. See the archived AE report on Ebonyskye and my talk page achives for more conversation. Thatcher131 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • It is also worth noting that Skinny McGee is still using the same account he used when the Arbitration case was filed, while Ebonyskye is, in my judgement, a sock or meat puppet account created to evade the editing restrictions imposed on GuardianZ. Thatcher131 12:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your deal? Again, I made one single edit that you have damned me for, and it was cited from the band's website and from Amazon and from IMDB. Nothing was original research! And some other editor went and posted the info again and even elaborated on it. All I did was write a very short sentence. You are totally blaming other edits on me when I did not make them. WHY? Also, you told me that my IP was NOT in the same town but that the numbers were close, now you are changing your story. I am done. I will take this to arbcom or whatever, as instructed. I had hoped to avoid that but you are acting really weird and it's creeping me out. I even gave you my home address, which I totally regret. And what the heck is forum shopping? You told me I was not allowed to edit, but I could make suggestions on talk pages, so if that is forum shopping, I was only doing what you told me to do!!! Ebonyskye 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Thatcher, on second thought, I am really sorry for misunderstanding you, and very sorry again for citing one sentence using a reference that was personally distainful to you. I really did not know it would offend you so much. I am also sorry for not asking Skinny McGee what I should write for his band before adding that sentence about his former producer. I guess if I had known it was actually Edward Douglas himself who had first aksed me about posting a cd cover on my talk page I might have tried harder to write something pleasing or flattering. I really am sorry for not being a better Wikipedian, but I am beginning to learn how things work around here. By the way, I noticed a really new user (only joined 2 days ago) who uploaded an MS cd cover on his very first edit! Special:Contributions/Lynchardo Wow. It took me like 4 weeks to figure that out, and I still screwed it up. Do you think it would be wise to do a checkuser on this guy. I mean what if it's like Skinny McGee or someone related to the band? Sure looks fishy to me, being that it's the only thing the user has ever worked on. Hmm. I wonder what city his IP is in? Since you have to power to look up IPs, can you maybe take a peek and see what's up there? Ebonyskye 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sock

We have another sock account, Artrama (talk · contribs), who made its very first edit by reverting very obscure article Church of Kish. There have been too many socks recently, something needs to be done to stop disruption. Grandmaster 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And again we have problems with a revert machine called Dfitzgerald (talk · contribs). This user appears to be a meatpuppet, who turns up only to rv articles to certain POV. I think something needs to be done to stop it. --Grandmaster 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AE

Hi. Please see this: [23] --Grandmaster 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock IP address 213.41.242.132

Hi, it appears that you decided to block the above IP address for the reason that is was a "tor exit node, anon only". While this IP does indeed correspond to a Tor node (Tor is a Good Thing™ IMHO), it is *not* an exit node, at least not for HTTP, hence it cannot be used to vandalize the Wikipedia. Consequently, I'd be very grateful if you would lift the ban on this IP. Thanks in advance, Laurent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.242.111 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That address was listed as an exit node when I blocked it but it is not listed as such now, so I have unblocked. Thatcher131 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblocking :-) I can guarantee that it has never been an HTTP exit node, and very likely it will never be (I want to stay out of trouble...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.242.111 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The craziest thing

The crazy thing is that we ban problem contributors yet continue to publish their problem contributions. That's so backwards it's not even funny.Proabivouac 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's the GFDL. Contributions be people who are banned can be reverted, but not their edits from before they were banned (mostly). A good place to discuss this would be the Wikien-L mailing list. It is apparently the official off-site place for discussing policy, and a lot of highly regarded admins, arbitrators, and Jimbo participate there. See WP:ML. There is probably a fair case to be made that we should be more aggressive in removing or oversighting at least some kinds of attacks by users on other users. I'm sure there is a case against it, too. You could try and start a discussion. (You probably should include a couple of examples that are not about you.) Thatcher131 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

99% of the examples I've contested are not about me. My philosophy has always been, if it doesn't belong here, blank it on sight (since I can't delete.) You can see this on display with Merkey, Islam-related talk pages and many other situations. Hoarding and treasuring what we could have just deleted is bad faith, actually, and sadly typical WP behavior. We hate these diffs, yet here we are collecting them, and still publishing them. Take civility. When a wikiopponent is "uncivil," the typical WP response is, "Hallelujah, he slipped up!" That's totally perverse. If we're even halfway sincere, we're supposed to regret this kind of thing. If it's bad enough to take a contributor to task, we shouldn't be publishing it, in mainspace, on talk, in history, or anywhere. Why do we hoard and treasure our very worst diffs? It's a total disgrace.Proabivouac 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think probably 51% of the sentiment to keep the Merkey article is "he can't push us around"; much of the BADSITES crap is a reflection of the same attitude, "we will punish sites that attack us by not linking to them" (in article space, anyway; policies should be different in talk and article spaces). It has been suggested many times by many people that Wikipedia has not scaled well. Behavior that could be effectively addressed in a 100-member user group sometimes can not be dealt with as well in a 10,000 member user group. One either makes the best of the system as it is, tries to change it from within, stands outside the walls throwing stink bombs, or just gives up. If you want to suggest a change in attitude and policy regarding attacks and such, the mailing list is probably the place to go first. Thatcher131 14:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Thatcher131. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the parole of Daddy Kindsoul

A week ago User: Daddy Kindsoul was blocked by you for continuingly reverting the NOFX page, violating his revert parole.[24]

Yesterday the block expired and he went to the NOFX page to make the same revert again.[25]

After this was reverted again, he went back and did it again.[26]

I'm not sure what his revert parole conditions are, but he may well have violated them again.

Also he has falsley accused me of being a vandal and a sockpuppet, with no evidence that supports his claim.[27] Is this type of libel considered a personal attack?

Hoponpop69 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker he is limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. This appears to be within this guideline so far, although it is very bad manners to refer to a content dispute as vandalism. You should think about using the talk page more, and possibly seeking outside comment on the dispute such as a third opinion or a request for comment. And please try to avoid baiting or being nasty to him in return. It makes enforcement easier when there is a clear "good guy". Thatcher131 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I did use the talk page, as you can see I was the one who started the conversation.[28] He made one post there, but after that just bypassed it, despite being told to use it. Hoponpop69 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I was again falsley accused of being a troll by him.[29] I'm getting sick of this verbal abuse, what should I do? Hoponpop69 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker User: Daddy Kindsoul was limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. In the past week (September 10-17) he has reverted the NOFX page three times.[30][31][32] Hoponpop69 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Are numbers really that important? Here are somethings users Grandmaster, Atabek, Dacy69, etc... have been removing, notice that the information being removed is extensive and heavily sourced (lots of articles are having information removed, here are a few, and for an example, I have posted several diffs from the ADR article): [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc...

One page in particular, where behavior like this was going on, continuously had information removed from it until El C came and protected it: [39], [40], [41], etc...

Not to mention the violation of several Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

It seems as though many of the users have missed the point of the arbcom, and now, these restrictions seem to be doing absolutely nothing because some are using the numerical advantage and gaming the system by trading reverts. Also, its ridiculous how so many other users suddenly popped up out of nowhere to also join such controversial issues... Each one of us gets one revert, but now it seems that these articles are being reverted just as much as before any restrictions were placed in the first place.

Interesting observation huh? Where do we all go from here?Hajji Piruz 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple. You made those edits without agreement with other involved parties, and they represent your misinterpetation of the sources. Even third party users told you that on talk of Azerbaijani people, and EI C moved Caucasian Albania from the title created by you saying that it is a nonesence. I welcome Thatcher to discuss the content dispute on those articles, and I would also like to remind him that we expect his comment on talk of Movses Kaghankatvatsi, as the page is unprotected now. If you are too busy, please, let me know, I'll try to get someone else to provide third party opinion.‎ Thanks. --Grandmaster 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Which third parties. Everything I add is disputed by you, and everytime a third party has come in and my changes were finally implemented (both times, for example, on history of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people, the changes that I had proposed were implemented after the involvement of a third party, changes which you simply reverted).Hajji Piruz 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My question is why do we need so many articles on the same subject of Caucasian Albania, i.e. Caucasian Albanians, Arranis, Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan), etc. There isn't even sufficient material on these comparing to the main article? Atabek 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Caucasus Albania/Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) and Caucasian Albanians/Arranis are two articles about two different things, just as Republic of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people are two different things, thats why they have their own separate articles. Furthermore, do you know how many stubs there are on Wikipedia? Thousands. Articles are created so that they can be improved on. Things take time. Compare articles written 2 or 3 years ago with what they are now.Hajji Piruz 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the opinion of a third party on Azerbaijani people, provided by User:Tombseye, who actually rewrote this article up to the FA status. [42] [43] As one can see, the changes made by you have no consensus, but they are still there in the article because of revert warring by some people. Check the article’s history for more details about how Piruz's edits are being kept in the article by revert warring despite there being no consensus for them. Also, there was no such ethnicity called Arranis, in ancient times Iranians called Albanians Arranis, but after that Arrani never existed as an ethnonym. So far you provided no sources to support your claims. It is time that you stop duplicating the same claims and the same quotes in various articles about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 10:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Swietochowski uses the term Arrani, as well as the term Shirvani. Arabic scholars also used the term Arrani. You forget to mention that Caucasus ALbanian is only the latin name of an entity that is also referred to as Arran.

The ethnonyn Arrani did exist, as it was an ethnic group.

I have provided sources. WHere are your sources? Please, do us the honor of letting us see them, because you speak so confidently, you must have sources. You have yet to show any sources, I'm the only one bringing sources and if Thatcher131 wants to see my sources, I will gladly show them to him also (please contact me via e-mail if you do Thatcher, as I do not access Wiki much during the week).Hajji Piruz 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Swietochowski does not use Arrani as ethnonym, he used it as a regional denomination. Albanians/Arranians stopped existing somewhere in the middle of the second millenium, and the ethnonym of Arranis was never used to refer to Azerbaijanis. Shirvani was not an ethnonym either, you cited no sources that used Shirvani as an ethnonym, it's always been a reference to people of Shirvan regardless of ethnicity. And why don't you provide your sources in the open, so that we could all be able to read the opinion of Thatcher? And what's up with your edits to Azerbaijani people that have no consensus but keep being inserted in the article every time someone restores the FA version? Grandmaster 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well lets see, by your logic: Azerbaijani was not an ethnonym until the the 1930's yet, we still see you inserting the term Azerbaijani in almost every article you have come across relating to Arran, Shirvan, Albania, etc... Would you like to explain that?Hajji Piruz 00:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the way it is done in scholarly literature. Check Iranica, they call Nasimi, Khatai and Fuzuli Azerbaijani poets. Aren't you tired of this name war? Grandmaster 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani in terms of the language they used, not ethnicity. The Ottoman sultans were also Persian poets, but not actually of the Persian ethnicity.

Is it supposed to be some type of competition that I should be tired of? I thought we were all here to present the historical facts, at least thats what I'm here for. I'm not "tired" of anything (the only thing I'm tired of is the continuous assumptions of bad faith, removal of sourced information, violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, etc...). Thatcher, please take note of Grandmasters above comment, and his comments on El C's talk page, this user continuously fails to assume good faith.Hajji Piruz 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just that we have the same argument over the name on every page about Azerbaijan that you edit. We discussed this in much detail with Thatcher, who kindly provided his opinion, and back in 2006 there was a discussion about this same topic on talk of EI C [44], and it’s not like there's a consensus on your vision of this issue that you duplicate across the multiple articles. I believe there should be an end to this dispute sometime. And how about reaching a consensus before making such controversial edits? [45] Grandmaster 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How about reaching a consensus before removing sourced information? Doesnt that make sense. You simply removed heavily sourced information using western neutral reliable sources. Violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are every where and in almost every discussion. The facts and are what matter, and how many sources, how many scholars, how many maps, etc... will I have to bring to counter your single source? How many times would I have to cite undue-weight, which clearly address your source (notice that there is no s at the end)? Its really ridiculous.

Theres no consensus on the versions you want also, so how does that work, have everything just be the version you want until you say its ok? No one owns any part of Wikipedia, and yes, edits should be discussed, but the removal of sourced information based on OR is truly unacceptable.

You have made claims, for example, on the Azerbaijani people article, that you have not backed up with any sources, and you have removed an entire sourced statement, including one source that completely and utterly disproved your argument.

How long with this continue, I ask? Is it really a competition, is it really a war? No, please calm down, please assume good faith, and please abide by Wikipedia's rules and policies and follow the arbcom requirements. This is now the third or fourth time I have had to remind of this.Hajji Piruz 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On Azerbaijani people you had no consensus, Tombseye also opposed your edits. Reach a consensus first, as EI C recomended you. There's a good reason why the admin EI C also reverted you on that article. And this is someone's talk page, let's stop abusing it and continue discussion at talks of respective articles. Grandmaster 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye, whenever he knows all the facts, has always made the correct decision. Tombseye is a smart guy and he has my respect, same with EL C. These two guys are not experts on the region Grandmaster, and you are making it as if they made a decision based on there expertise. Not at all, they're are learning just as we are. Once they know all of the facts (of which I am the only one presenting so far), I'm confident they will make the proper decision.

Tombseye has several times supported the implementations of changes I had proposed but you had objected to after he saw the facts. Please do not drop their names as if they are they have the final say on such matters and as if they are professional historians and know all the facts already.

I agree, lets end this discussion here. Oh and speaking of getting consensus before making changes, is that the doctrine you follow yourself? Please dont make accusations when you yourself often edit without getting consensus first. Dont make it look like its everyone elses fault. We were all in the arbcom for a reason, right? You keep throwing around accusations for no good reason. Its simply ridiculous how you can just throw around accusations. For the fifth time, please assume good faith, and follow the requirements of the arbcom, as I am trying to. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am interested to learn what Ali doostzadeh has to say about this Arranianininging. El_C 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy

I have a question with regard to the use of open proxies. A recent checkuser showed that AlexanderPar (talk · contribs) is using an open proxy [46]. Isn't it against the rules, for instance WP:NOP (which is still being developed, but still)? Grandmaster 09:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OPs are blocked when theyt are found but editors who use them are not blocked unless there is other evidence of disruption. Thatcher131 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. --Grandmaster 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Arash the Bowman

Hi Thatcher. You said the last time at AE board that editors need to provide diffs for every report, but I think this case might be an exception. Could you please have a look at contributions of Arash the Bowman (talk · contribs)? The contributions of this editor consist exclusively of reverts, and he turned up after a very long absence just to make a massive rv to Azerbaijan without any edit summary whatsoever. [47] This account made only 5 edits since January 2007, of them 3 rvs and 1 vote for deletion. Isn't this strange? And aren’t there too many accounts that only turn up to rv articles without any useful contribution? --Grandmaster 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The decision is not meant to interfere with normal editing by reasonable editors, but to restrict editors who make aggreessive biased edits marked by incivility. It would be helpful to whoever reviews the request to show at least some examples of this so the admin doesn't have to go digging through the person's history. Thatcher131 14:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the latest example. After a long absence Arash returned only to make an rv of all Atabek's edit without any explanation whatsoever. [48] Is this an acceptable behavior? Grandmaster 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Skip Ellison

Dear Thatcher,

Haven't contacted you in a long time; hope everything is going well with you.

I have a non-controversial request for you, on something I simply don't know how to accomplish. An article was recently re-established for Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, and as far as I can tell it's existence is not contested by anyone. However, months ago it had been deleted and the name Skip Ellison was redirected to Ar nDraiocht Fein, a page about an organization he is the present leader of, but which does not even mention him. Now that Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison is back, I'd just like to see Skip Ellison redirect to it, which seems logical. But I just don't know how to change a re-direct. Could you either take care of this or tell me how to do it? Thanks, Rosencomet 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you click on Skip Ellison you will be taken to Ar nDraiocht Fein, but at the top of the page it will say "redirected from Skip Ellison." You can then click on that link and it will take you to the redirect page. Edit the page to replace the target with the one you want. It should be in the format of #REDIRECT [[Target]]. See how that works. Thatcher131 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi

It appears that Hipi Zhdripi has recently started to violate his Kosovo ban with his main account - see these edits [49] [50] [51] [52]. TML 18:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You win

I love it when people bring out pictures [53]. The best one was the "beating the dead horse" picture posted during the Essjay RfC, though that was later deleted due to probable copyright infringement (people were saying that the man beating the horse looked an awful lot like Michael Bolton from Office Space). hbdragon88 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was very careful to get a picture from commons. :) Thatcher131 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The horse image was from the commons. hbdragon88 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me

For this! --Irpen 02:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem again

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porthos (Star Trek)

Ned Scott nominates the article for deletion right after my edits and gets a belly laugh. Now I am seriously getting annoyed. What was the point of the RfC? Is it time for an RfAr? I do not want a second Davenbelle at my tail. Please assist. This message is also sent to User:Tony Sidaway -- Cat ^chi? 07:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott has no edits whatsoever on Porthos (Star Trek), Jonathan Archer or the talk pages prior to my involvement. -- Cat ^chi? 07:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, maybe it was about your talk page signature. OH SHIT, I FOLLOWED YOU AGAIN. hahahahahaha. --- Ned Scott 09:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. In all seriousness, the article in question is one of the articles Cat seems to feel passes WP:FICT, a page I've been active with for quite some time now. He posted a message on WT:FICT, which is how I found said article. Sorry, but I got this thing about deleting articles about fictional pets.. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have gmail so we can discuss this? -- Cat ^chi? 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion for Stanley Dunin

As a previous contributor to the article, do you have any opinions on this question, or could you provide some sources that establish notability? All the best Tim Vickers 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

I have to say I'm a little disappointed that she's been unblocked so quickly, and without hearing from those involved in her Wikidrama. Please read my comments on her talk page. Precious Roy 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. If this person has learned from her mistakes, then a block is no longer necessary. If not, then she will be quickly reblocked. Thatcher131 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the barnstar. It's much appreciated. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Tweety21 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I appreciate your help! you can imagine my devistation when I saw on "Someones" talk page a reference to where I may work because of tracking down my IP ( at the time there was no block on my account or sock puppet accusation) I thought to myself "What on earth did I get myself into...good greif!" and things just sort of escalated from there. but enough said I know a certain person will be eye-balling this post so I am just going on my merry way (hopefully never to run into that person again!) P.S for what its worth! I am in no way, shape or form conected with Arden Wohl..seriously, the girl wouldnt know me if she fell on me, I wrote her a fan email once or twice but thats about it.. but I have also emailed Brad Pitt, also does not know me! Cheers!Tweety21 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in the future. Try not to take editing or deletion requests too seriously, and remember you can ask for advice at the Helpdesk if you have questions or concerns. Thatcher131 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC):O) thanks! sorry for all the drama, it was just kinda scarey! seriously! I mean I just got into this as a hobby and things just got out of hand! if you check the ip for Darcy Monaco ( I mean its kind of funny she used her name-just shows she did not know policy-but I dont think she deserved "abusive sock puppet" on her page- I mean really! how embarassing! I think she just did one edit from my recollections anyway-did'nt know policy-ie can't edit for friends) it was just that everything got so personal...:O) can you imagine having someone write "edits from the London Public Library" -this could almost be the prefice for a scary movie-haha! have a good one! I am off work and trying to enjoy my Thanksgiving weekend, but thanks to you I really have something to be thankful for- I don't underestime how you've helped me, I am sure that most people on wiki are pretty decent, but you know you always see these news programs where people geted tracked down from the internet-sort of scarey, especially if you are a girl living on your own-cheers!Tweety21 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Hi Thatcher131, can you unblock and removie personal info off the following page? 142.205.212.203 thanks! I dont plan on editing off this page anymore but again its a privacy issue, and since I was unblocked I guess its appropriate...thanks againTweety21 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Tweety21 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)one last thing-regarding the Monaco thing-I think she just made the one edit because something I had wrote was inaccurate (re:people Arden has dated..or something like this-I guess people who work for celebs sometimes throw in an edit or two-but I think its all innocent as they don't know the conflict of interest policy-see this case in point:[54] also note that Yamla also put on his talk page how he received an email from Bebe Buell. Regards, (I am confused as I thought the checkuser would have cleared that two editors are from two different countries-sorry I just hate being accused of unethical behavior-studied Ethics in college!)

User:Tweety21

First let me say that I trust your good faith judgment as an admin in unblocking Tweety21. But I have some concerns. She appears to be removing whois templates from anonymous talk pages, specifically User talk:142.205.212.203. I am assuming it is Tweety21, but there is some uncertainty because she continues to edit anonymously as best I can tell, including from User:142.205.212.203. She also appears to have removed (without admin permission that I know of) content from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21 while editing under User:142.205.212.203. I am trying to figure out whether she has been given permission to do some of these things, or whether she is up to her vandalism tricks again. Thanks. Ward3001 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward

Can you please help me Ward continues to display my work address, I believe he is on a rampage as a result of me not keeping blocked, this display of my address puts my safety at risk...I dont understand why he is harassing me, will email admin as well as this violates wiki privacy policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21, whois information is not a violation of privacy. You are continuing to edit while not signed in. If you want to stop being associated with an IP address, stop editing while not signed in and stop blanking the publicly available whois information from talk pages. You have been told this over and over and over again. --Yamla 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from User:Ward3001

This is what I and admin Yamla put on her talk page:

"You have no right to be displaying work place id

You have no right to remove a whois template that is not on your talk page, if it is you who is doing it. As you have been told over and over again, don't edit anonymously -- sign in as Tweety21. The whois template is perfectly appropriate for the page of an anonymous IP, unless removed by an admin.

"I belive you are just doing this as you are ticked I got unlblocked"

That's your opinion. Your saying it doesn't make it true. I'm following Wikipedia policies. This is not a personal issue toward you, as you are often inclined to conclude without justification.

"will be putting in a wiki-alert"

That's your choice. I have not violated any Wikipedia policies. Just be very careful you don't make any false allegations (something else you have a history of doing) because I will not tolerate it, and I will go straight to the admin who unblocked you with the evidence.

"pick on someone else"

I'm not picking on anyone. I challenge anyone when they violate Wikipedia policy. You're not getting any special attention. Ward3001 17:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21, please note that you have previously been warned about this. This is considered vandalism. If you continue, I will block you again. Stop removing the whois information from IP talk pages. This is your final warning. The whois information is freely available and is under no circumstances a privacy violation. Additionally, if you continue editing while not signed in, you are continuing to disclose your place of business and/or your location. --Yamla 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tired of hearing about her yet?

If you find yourself with some spare time, I compiled an annotated list of Tweety21's edits (including her various IPs and socks). I've included proof of !vote-stacking, vandalism, and so on. I have had it with her baseless accusations and lies, so rather than rant on and on, I'll let her actions be the proof. Precious Roy 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/MONGO

I have nominated WP:RFAR/MONGO (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFAR/MONGO|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request appeal

I would like to submit an appeal. User name at the time Tommysun Thank you.

Tommy Mandel 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you haven't been banned from editing in general, just from some articles, so you are free to post your own appeal; list it as a new case at the top of WP:RFAR titled "Appeal by Tommysun" or some such and make a case for the Arbitrators to consider. Thatcher131 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Well done. WAS 4.250 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeking your advice again

I am contemplating a request for arbitration on the matter of Dking and Cberlet. I have a question about timing -- Cberlet has just announced that he is taking a one month break, at which point Dking, who has been absent, commences a new frenzy of POV pushing. They seem to take turns. Is it necessary or proper to wait to file with the ArbCom until both of them are active at the same time? Also, would it be appropriate to include Will Beback in the case, since he is always involved in some way to defend their activities? Thanks in advance. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet has at least read his talk page today since he has objected to an edit I made to his departure statement. I suspect that he will be aware of a case request. You could note for the benefit of the Arbitrators that he has declared a break and let them decide how to deal with the situation. Also, cases generally take longer than a month to resolve so the break may not be that much of a consideration. Regarding Will, you can include him either on the grounds that he has supported edits which are inappropriate, and/or that he has misused his administrative tools in dealing with complaints. Ultimately of course you will need evidence to support whatever claims you make against anyone, and the Arbs will evaluate it. You should specify whether you are including Will as an editor, an admin, or both. Thatcher131 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, your advice has been very helpful. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: User:Hardindr is Cberlet. His reference to SLAPP at User talk:Hardindr is a very obscure one, but you will find the same reference being made by Cberlet some months ago at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. --Marvin Diode 23:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser says not a sockpuppet. Probably a recruit of some kind, since I agree that making a reversion on user:Cberlet has his first edit is highly unusual. Thatcher131 06:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I now have a question regarding arbcom procedure and/or etiquette. I shortened my initial statement because it looked too long[55]. I see that Will Beback's statement is quite long also. Am I allowed to respond to Will's statement? Would the Arbs find that useful, or annoying? Once again, thanks in advance. --Marvin Diode 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask Newyorkbrad or one of the other clerks. Generally statements should be under 500 words and describe why there is a case that needs Arbitration. It is not necessary to prove the case in the request, and it is often unwise to respond to every other statement, but if you feel there is a serious misrepresentation you may wish to call attention to it. Thatcher131 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

One other new development which strikes me as curious is the sudden appearance of this this editor, who seems to have created a goodly number of bogus accounts. Is there some notice board I should report it too? I don't have any idea who it may actually be. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows no obvious connection with User:Dking. Possibly someone trying to falsely implicate him? If there is a continuation of peculiar behavior you can report it at WP:ANI. Thatcher131 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Morven and JPGordon are both saying that the issues of the case I presented have already been decided by the ArbCom. I am baffled by this. I have read the two LaRouche cases and the Nobs case. Are they talking about a different case entirely? --Marvin Diode 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like my arbcom filing is going to change anything, and as I recall, that is what you had predicted a few months ago. None the less, I thank you for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the issues and express your views. I see that two comments have been left that suggest re-opening the RFCs. Is that an option? --Marvin Diode 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still a bit early, between the vote on the main request and the clarification, there is some disagreement. Certainly if the request is ultimately declined, you could use the comments as justification to reopen the RFCs, or to start new RFCs that are more targeted as to suggesting reasonable goals. Thatcher131 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If, as I suspect, it was Will Beback who just blocked User:Gelsomina, isn't there some provision that admins should not block their opponents in disputes? I have asked Will before about some of the editors he has blocked as "LaRouche sockpuppets," and he is very evasive about the evidence. The blocks appear to be retaliatory, in this case, because of Gelsomina's statement on the ArbCom page. --Marvin Diode 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The block certainly was not retaliatory. Gelsomina's statement didn't mention me, my statement didn't mention him, and we've had little direct interaction. Sock puppets of banned users are not legitimate editors that are entitled to get into disputes. HK is not welcome here under any name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gelsomina doesn't have to mention Will's name to become his perceived ideological opponent. I note that he has placed a banner on her talk page which says "suspected sockpuppet." I'm not privy to the checkuser data, but my hunch is that we are talking about inconclusive shared IP number ranges, which is to say, circumstantial evidence. It's a little too convenient, and the timing, right in the middle of a proposed arbcom case, is troubling.

And on top of that, another admin named User:Georgewilliamherbert has taken it upon himself to unilaterally re-write previous arbcom decisions. Since you work as a clerk for the arbcom, this is one situation where I think it would be appropriate for you to say a few words: WP:ANI#Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected and WP:ANI#Violation of page protection policy. If you don't want to, however, I'll understand, because I am getting a real education here about how editors (and admins) who are committed to POV warfare don't follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules. --Marvin Diode 14:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobs

I saw the addition and your deletion. I blocked the IP for a month, as a school block (it's been warned for vandalism) and as the sock account of a banned user. I see that Nobs has used the IP repeatedly, but openly, for rare comments on cases. I thought of asking for a ban rest, but they were such open-handed efforts that they seem to have been non-disruptive. I'm inclined to let it go at that. But you're handling a lot of thes e ArbCom enfocements. What do you think? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what got Nobs banned in the first place, but lately he seems to have just wanted to get his two cents worth in on Arbitration matters where he felt he was unfairly attacked, and he's been quite open about it, so I'm not inclined to reset the hard ban either. (If he was discovered doing general editing, that would be another story, of course.) Thatcher131 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We agree then. I've placed a note on the page of the IP he's used in the past reminding him of his ban and warning him that he may have the ban reset if he edit again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Removal

Hi Thatcher. I noticed you removed evidence per Melsaran being a sockpuppet. However, comments here by Newyorkbrad and JamesF would suggest that Melsaran's contributions to the case didn't need to be removed. Have I missed another discussion elsewhere? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed that. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure why Melsaran's evidence would be permitted to remain, but if that was the decision then I guess I will fix it. Thatcher131 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you for your appropriate actions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, User:Shutterbug and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
• I made another comment at the Arb enforcement page, per the confirmed Checkuser page, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, it now appears there is some block/ban evasion going on with yet another confirmed sock, Makoshack (talk · contribs). Thanks again for your swift actions. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

I am not surprised about this reaction, but I might point out that injustice is being done here. I am not a "sock puppet" nor am I operating any. You refused to answer on what recourse exists and one of your colleagues blocked my talk page. I will not stop. It is arbitrary, injustice and promoting a lie. Have you ever asked yourself why the checkuser was not enforced for many months? Because it is non-conclusive, because a shared IP is not evidence for anything. Review the subject, thank you. Makoshack 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for putting this back here. Makoshack 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (using the fourth computer by now (Cafe), can you please answer something feasible before this one gets blocked?)

I'm unexpectedly working late and only have a few minutes between procedures to do anything else, such as review this situation. I will deal with it fully when I get home tonight. However, note that when a number of editors have shared access, it becomes very difficult to determine whether there are two people, only one of whom is a problem, or just one person doing a good cop/bad cop strategy with multiple accounts. I need to review this more thoroughly. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (fifth computer now, eight to go)! I won't be the only storming up on you and I hope you'll see the same point Fred Bauder saw when this subject came up earlier. Makoshack 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.222.202 (talk)

• Your actions seem appropriate here. At the very least, per the Arbitration Ruling, they are all "multiple editors with a single voice." But the checkuser and discussion from the Arbitration seem to suggest otherwise. Time will tell, hopefully. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

• • Obviously it is impossible to tell with precision when multiple editors edit from a single IP. However, this is not unusual. All editors at IBM's largest corporate office building appear on the same IP (the corporate firewall), as do all editors from Australia's Ministry of Defense (these are two specific examples I have encountered before). We can give these editors the benefit of the doubt for the time being, with the proviso that they will all be covered by any restrictions applied to any one of them. I would rather extend too much trust and good faith and later be proved wrong, than not extend enough and later be proved wrong. Thatcher131 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sound reasoning. And what of my actions so far, from what you can tell? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC).
• Eh, oh well, thanks for your help. I'm taking this page off my watchlist to concentrate on some WP:GA, WP:FA, and WP:DYK related stuff. Cheers, and thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Hardindr

I have unblocked Hardindr. Cberlet made the same edit and we're not blocking him. Although I guess there was a short block. Fred Bauder 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I remain suspicious of Hardindr's origins and long term goals but time will tell. Thanks for letting me know. Thatcher131 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Probation

Hi, as you were one of the clerks for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education what (if anything) should be done to remove the probation from the article (or articles)? Many of the regulars who created the hostility seem to have moved on from wikipedia for the most part, and the article on Waldorf education has been throughly sanitized for unreliable sources. An Rfc was posted for the last 10 days which generated no comments. No rush or anything just wondering if there was a process. --Rocksanddirt 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You can contact one or more arbitrators by email or talk page or post a request at the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

I would like your permission to undelete the history of User talk:Tweety21. This user has continued setting up sockpuppet accounts and on several occasions since 2007-10-08, has edited articles or uploaded images. The user clearly has no intention of abiding by her ban and has given up the right to vanish, at least at this time. --Yamla 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about her. No matter what she's done, I'm not sure its necessary to tag IP users, as that really seems to freak her out, and referring to her IP addresses and goegraphic locations should be avoided. But if you want the history of the talk page available, I guess it doesn't matter. Thatcher131 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage edits

I was just doing some lurking and noticed this followed by this. I've no background on the situation that makes me think I want to get involved here, just pointing it out.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you are pointing my own edits out to me. This dispute goes back to October 3 when there was a dispute over the content of Deeceevoioce's user page; see the current dispute at WP:AN which has a link to the previous dispute. I feel, and Jpgordon seems to agree, that her user page content is acceptable so long as she does not single out specific editors as racist, as she previously did explicitly [56], and then recently with the more oblique reference, which I just removed. Thatcher131 17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if that wasn't clear; I was a bit rushed for time... you removed (and made the comment in the first diff) and the editor in question apparently reinstated (the second diff). I see you protected the page, which pretty much closes the book on that.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thatcher131 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tajik on Safavids again

Is there any reason, User:Tajik freely rewrites Safavid dynasty article - [57]?. Thanks. Atabek 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, will you look into the report above or should I file another checkuser on this: [58],[59], it's clear as a day that it's the same banned and disruptive contributor, from the same region, repeating the same stuff as before on the same page over and over. Atabek 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I'll have to look at earlier reports but I think I remember that Geman IPs are part of the pattern. Thatcher131 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash

So, can I add the word hogwash and similar borderline incivil words to my daily wikivocabulary? [60] VartanM 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to keep pushing my buttons, sure. You really should complain to Picaroon if you want, who originally warned Andranikpasha in those terms. I can't really issue a block for incivility when Atabek is only quoting another user who is not under restrictions. So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. If I were in your shoes, I would work very hard to maintain that desirable status. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the hogwash comment wasn't the only thing reported. Atebek also said this "If you still don't know the difference between Albania and Caucasian Albania, then perhaps, editing Khachen page is not such a good idea" and "Andranik, I have no interest or time to engage in wasteful discussions about obvious facts and we are not in a kindergarten."[61] You see I wouldn't be knocking on Arbitration's door everyday if this was an once in a while thing. His behavior is not changing, its getting worse. And if I am being reminded of the AA2, then I will kindly request that you read proposed principals of the said arbitration case and then read Atabeks comments again. Also my name isn't on that list, but that doesn't mean that I'm not being supervised. I consider myself under supervision, because so many other users around me are. VartanM 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, Picaroon comment on hogwash came after my comments above, so it's obvious that he came to the same conclusion as I did that Andranikpasha, whom you are supervising, is disrupting the article. As of now, Khachen article is totally POV thanks to yourself, Andranikpasha and MarshallBagramyan, who now reverts even Picaroon's edits [62]. Unfortunately, I don't see about any way how these articles can gain neutrality, while both you and Marshall can unrestrictively revert, remove legitimate sources, pushing POV on pages. And I am not even mentioning the decision to appoint you as supervisor for Andranikpasha, who is actually in worst editing status now than he was at the time of appointment. Of course, it's difficult and annoying for uninvolved administrator to see the fine line of your disruptive edits frivolously removing sources but, as I said, I am trying in good faith to resolve the dispute through mediation, and opened RfC for that purpose. I will follow through all steps, until Khachen article becomes neutral POV. Thanks. Atabek 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Atabek, so you're saying;

• If Picaroon jumped out of the bridge, you would follow.
• You blame Andranikpasha, MarshallBagramyan and me for Khachen article. (see the history of the article to see who's disrupting it)
• You blame Andranikpasha for reverting admin edits,(administrators are regular editors with better tools)
• You lost all hope and want MarshallBagramyan and I on restricted editing.
• You mention the decision that Andranikpasha is under my supervision but say that your not going to mention it. (why are you mentioning it if your not going to mention it)
• You then blame me, for somehow making Andranik worse editor before he was indefinatly blocked. (Picaroons ill worded warning was his first since the unblock)
• You blame me for disruptive editing and frivolous source removal
• Then you say that your acting in good faith

My only reply to you would be AGF --VartanM 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, your attempts on this page don't seem to be anything other than retaliation to my AE report. And what do you mean by: "can I add the word hogwash and similar borderline incivil words to my daily wikivocabulary"? You mean that you want to use incivil words but are restricted by Wikipedia? As I said, "hogwash" (which is not incivil) word was first used by Picaroon to describe the editing behavior of Andranikpasha, and given Andranik's disruption, I don't think it was unreasonable.

And yes, I "am losing hope" on having any neutrality on these articles due to your and MarshallBagramyan's editing and unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions with references, which is why I will pursue mediation consistently. Any reference that Khachen was Caucasian Albanian (and there are at least handful of those on talk page) is purged out and replaced by purely Armenian POV, sometimes from just non-neutral Armenian sources or frivolous Russian translations of the originally available English source like Minorsky.

Just look at MarshallBagramyan's comment before reverting, I see no response to multitude of reliable references, but just original research and attacks here. Is this supposed to be neutral and constructive editing?

Andranikpasha was unblocked and placed under parole with hopes that he can become a constructive editor, not stonewalling references or joining ethnic edit wars. With Picaroon's discovery of his action, with which I fully agree and that's why I recited it, I don't see how his behavior improved under your supervision. I am sorry, VartanM, with all assumptions of good faith, you are involved in conflicts and participated in ArbCom, I don't see how you could be at all supervising another troubled editor.

Thanks. Atabek 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I asked you to AGF and in turn got more assumption of bad faith. You're saying that I'm retaliating, but on what? I only asked a question to the closing admin., but now I'm discussing things with you. My point was proven by Thatcher, when he warned me about being on supervision. I would certainly be on that list if I started calling other peoples words hogwash. You seem to be getting away with.

"Handfull sources", "Multitude of reliable sources" huh? So far you only provided one source which is questioned. Dowsette talks about geographic Albania, not political. There was no Caucasian Albania during that time period. The kings and princes were Armenian, the language was Armenian and historians were Armenian. As for Andranik I belive I've done a good job on teaching him how Wikipedia works and to follow rules. He seemed to be doing just fine, that is before you came back from your wikibreak. So far you've only provoked and insulted him. VartanM 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, the discussion seems to be moving into content dispute direction. So to make sure that we don't unnecessarily overload Thatcher131's page, I suggest to address your concerns on article talk page in light of the mediation effort. Also I brought not 1 but 3 references, 2 from Dowsett and 1 from Minorsky. There are other references brought by Grandmaster, all of which are being stonewalled by Andranik, yourself, or simply being reverted by MarshallBagramyan. Finally, I don't think you own this article, so whether I was on wikibreak, while you were able to push POV, is irrelevant to the current discussion. We have an issue at hand: there are reliable references on talk page, which can't make it to article text due to disruptive warring of three users which I already mentioned. Unless two of them are supervised the same way as other editors to establish a equally constructive editing environment or mediation addresses this issue, I don't see how NPOV violations can be prevented. As I said to start with, I am trying mediation, so please, post further at Talk:Khachen. Thanks. Atabek 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, my conversation with Thatcher had nothing to do with content, you yourself brought up Khachen and your accusation. You keep contradicting yourself, you say that you don't want to talk about content but you're talking about it. I never claimed to own any article, and the said article was in peace before you came back and starting pushing your POV. You're baseless accusations are starting to get annoying. See you in the talk page of Khachen. VartanM 18:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC please?

Hi, Thatcher, could you drop in at en-admins for a minute, please? I need to ask you something. Wear your clerk hat if you've got it handy. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

The urgency has passed, never mind. Picaroon explained it to me. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

OK. I'm barely around on the weekends lately, I'll hop in tonight just in case I can still be useful. Thatcher131 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling out other editors

Hi Thatcher131,

I saw your comments here and thought you might be interested in User:GHcool's page. I brought this issue up a while ago on WP:AN/I and while several admins agreed that his userpage was out of line, nothing happened and the thread got archived.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 24.10.2007 15:18

No comment? pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:05

I'm not interested in being a user page cop. If you are concerned, you should report this on the admin's noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I had already taken this up on WP:AN/I (see discussion here, the thread used to be called "Calling out other users one one's own user page", but the user in question continuously changed the title to something more innocuous) and a number of admins concurred that the userpage in question was out of line, yet no action was taken except for some minor changes by the user himself. I would not have contacted you directly before having taken this step first.

If you don't have the time to do this, I understand and will go seek help elsewhere.

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 31.10.2007 16:40

Removed my comment?

Hi Thatcher - did you mean to remove this comment from me?: "We're on the page "Requests for Arbitration" - it might be useful if the ArbCom accepted this opportunity to take a look at User:Zeq's editing record. Not in order to iron out content disputes, of course, but to examine general use of sources and pattern of editing. His joking "For all you know I may even wrote some of these sources" might be indicative of his general academic standing and even ability. ex-17:28"///// PR^talk 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is not really appropos for the "Requests for clarification" section. The appropriate place to raise those concerns is either at Arbitration enforcement, to request enforcement of Zeq's probation as to particular articles or topic areas, or if you feel the probation has been ineffective, as a new request for Arbitration. "Requests for clarification" typically get a lower level of Arbitrator attention, especially once they have turned into a content dispute. Thatcher131 12:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm terrified that the concerns I have are genuine but far above my pay-grade. PR^talk 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for removing the content dispute. Zeq 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible personal attack from User:Misou

Misou has called myself and another editor "book burners" here:[63] Could you please look into it with consideration of this :[64]?--Fahrenheit451 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:Giovanni Giove

Please take the time to take another look on the Marco Polo article, the man reverted at least a couple of times, he is quite obviously infringing on the restriction. He buried the reverts in a million other edits, please look carefully. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, please try to be more constructive. Btw I've also read and implemented all your suggestions. Now I discover that you are accusing me, after your proposed "agreements". I find this very sad.--Giovanni Giove 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To Thatcher131, there is actually a problem about the sourcing of Britannica in Polo's article. I've tried different solutions and I've opened a discussion (actually user:Zenanarh deleted a sourced statement with poor pretexts). I do not think that I've done some "reverts", anyway let me know if I've done something wrong. Please, protect the article against unregistered user, the article was vandalized several times in the last days. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I realize searching for the numerous reverts is tedious work, but both User:Kubura and I have provided several diffs to assist you. This matter should be looked into, so I'd like to ask you once more to take the time to "dive into" User:Giovanni Giove's edits and take a look at the quite painfully obvious repeated reverts. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if bother you... Giovanni Giove is functioning to principle: what's last said by him at the talk page (no matter what it is) - that works for the article, no matter what was written by the others before that, including sources, references,... He simply writes no relevant documents at the talk page and then he inserts (revert, edit) his POV into the article. So unfortunately now we have a several destorted articles and huge inarticulate talk pages. I didn't delete any objectiveness. Zenanarh 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seem that the "Greater Croatia Army" (Kubura, Director and Zem.) complots against me:) It shall be noted that the attack against me come from a goup of Croatian users very famous for their nationalism. User Zem. constanly post insults personal attacks against me. (that should be punished)--Giovanni Giove 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I am agianst the continuation of this dispute on Thatcher's talkpage, I must respond to these de-facto personal attacks. I am a staunch anti-nationalist (as is obvious from my edits in the Mostar, Bleiburg massacre, and Jajce articles), and I must say that it is riddicuolus to call us the "greater Croatia army", when we are the "defending party" in the dispute. Dalmatia is within Croatia, and Giovanni is trying to italianize it to the fullest extent possible (i.e. he is the "attacking party"). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I need suggestion

User:Raguseo has started to revert some edits of mine, against the posted evidence. DIREKTOR and Zem. and Kubura are not the only users to impose nationalistic POVs. I do not want to start further edit war, but if an user do reverts, against posted references and established rules, what Shall I do?. Tx for the suggestion.Giovanni Giove 21:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a single rvv against a revet by user:DIREKTOR, see Roger Boscovich, plz. He did a massive reverts, even of sourced statments, such us a correct infobox. I'm open to discuss the P single POV statments, but I can not accept massive reverts. --Giovanni Giove 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:RFAR

I notice you have made accusations[65] concerning my "behavior" at the new arbitration case against User:Eyrian. I also notice you involved yourself in the case beforehand, by repeating the discredited contentious edits of Burntsauce, Neil, and JohnEMcClure, and engaging me in a disagreement over the subject, prior to making your point at WP:RFAR. I am growing weary of being targeted by deletionist administrators, for my very small part in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Kindly retract your comments about me. I do not wish to have to defend myself before the Arbitration committee in case that is not about me.Wikidemo 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you in fact may be part of the problem, which I why I asked that any review of Eryian's socks include a review of the entire situation. I reviewed the complaint at the noticeboard and found that JohnEMcClure's edits were largely edits I would agree with. I don't like trivia and pop cultural reference sections. a) it is impossible to be comprehensive, b) it is almost impossible (and rarely done) to establish cultural significance. The example I just thought of is Milton's Lucifer in Paradise Lost, which was a significant re-imagining of the character that has had a major cultural impact of its own. You make a good case for Eris and the Discordian religion; no such argument can be made for Billy and Mandy, or even the Xena character Eris, which are used only as cultural fossils. I took a brief look at Pan (mythology). Would you say that Machen's The Great God Pan (which was a major influence on HP Lovecraft, among others) has the same importance as an episode of "Duck Tales"?

Getting back to the issue at hand, I am curious why you reverted JohnEMcClure's edits to Eris (mythology) but did not revert mine, and instead added sources and re-added one reference with cultural significance. Is it because you agree my edit had merit? If so, then why revert when Burtsauce made the same edit? Or do you still disagree with the entire removal, and only tolerate it because I am obviously not a sockpuppet of any of the previous editors you were involved with? Instead you label me a "deletionist administrator" and state that you are "upholding the integrity of Wikipedia." I shall not dismiss you with a similar epithet; I am willing to accept that we each are trying to "uphold the integrity of Wikipedia" but that we have different ideas about how to do so. If we can work together to forge a compromise, as we appear to on Eris, that is a good thing. If we can not find a compromise, then we should involve additional editors through a content RFC or third opinion.

The Arbitration Committee will decide the scope of any case it hears. Thatcher131 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You may believe popular culture sections should be blanked on sight, but that is a minority position that goes against the various guidelines. ArbCom did not endorse the guidelines but it did clearly say this is a content question, for which administrative tools and disruptive editing are inappropriate. Alkivar is de-sysopped for using his tools here, and Burntsauce is banned for following in JB196's footsteps. I don't think they are ready to use ArbCom's powers to do something they just said administrators and users should not do. Let's get one thing straight here. I am not promoting trivia. I do not make these kinds of lists, and source the content I personally contribute. If I were to rewrite the Eris article I would have done exactly what I did - eliminate much of the content, sourced or not, as irrelevant, and sourced what remained. Frankly, the rest of the article needs that too, not just the popular culture section. However, I was not in the arbcom action either to champion trivia or to edit it out of articles. In the Alkivar case I saw 168 disruptive, out of process content deletions and administrative misbehavior. I was alerted by all the disruption and commotion, beginning with an AN/I report. The truth turned out far worse than expected, a long history of sockpuppets and extensive administrative abuse. In the Eyrian case the participants to the Alkivar arbitration had noticed a new sockpuppet, JohnEMcClure, copycatting BurntSauce's disruption. There too the truth was far worse underneath the surface - an administrator was trolling the parties to the case using a sock puppet. Do not let your position on the content blind you to the misbehavior at hand. The good faith dispute is one over content. This misbehavior involves bullying other users, misusing administrative tools, creating sockpuppets, and disrupting the project to make a point. Do not let your position on the content turn you into an apologist for your side's misbehavior. However much you support their content wishes they are misbehaving; however much you disagree with the others, they are not misbehaving for insisting on consensus and following guidelines. The solution to this is exactly what the guideline says. If you see a messy article fix it - find sources, integrate relevant content, and delete what's irrelevant. If you don't have the time or inclination, you can add a trivia or other maintenance tag. The thing not to do is to delete entire sections and leave it for other editors to do the real work. I could have simply reverted your edits - I do not have to do the bidding of a contentious editor simply to revert the edit as contentious. But I had some time, Eris is an interesting subject, and unlike the others you seemed to be operating in good faith on a one-time edit. However, now that you brought it up, just what were you doing picking up where Alkivar, Neil, and Burntsauce left off, immediately before participating in an arbitration case on the subject? Were you trying to provoke something too? Wikidemo 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to classify Eyrian's edits as trolling, rather than as an attempt to step into a disruptive area. A more thorough examination is needed. I do wonder why he did not use his main account, and I also wonder how you and others would have reacted if he had. I make no statement on the allegations regarding Alkivar and Burntsauce, which I have not studied and which refer to secret evidence that I do not have access to. I do not believe that trivia and pop culture sections should be blanked, but I believe they should be periodically reviewed for real importance and judiciously pruned. As an example, I have removed a number of references from Pan (mythology) on the grounds that if the supposed reference is not important enough for an article, then its mention in the Pan article is not justified as "notable" as described in that article. I am not sure why you believe that the appropriate option is to revert all or nothing. If I believe that an entire section is unencyclopedic and I blank it, I rather expect you to show in each case why an item is encyclopedic. That certainly falls within the expectation that content must be referenced by the person who adds it. It is not my burden to prove that a mention of Pan in Fairly Oddparents is unencyclopedic, rather it is your burden to prove that it is. Of course, this argument is a straw man on both sides; I will not blank entire sections, because I believe in using careful judgement, and you have not argued for the inclusion of Fairly Oddparents or Billy and Mandy. However, your approach of reverting the entire removal, rather than using selective judgement, is just as wrong as the approach of blanking entire sections rather than using selective judgement. Thatcher131 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you are working on the Pan (mythology) article, and generally agree with your choices. What I would do is to keep references that are serious commentaries, legacies, and expansions of the classic myth, and shed light onto the myth and how it affects things. That tends to mean a preference for more serious, notable, and successful or critically acclaimed works - Pan's Labyrinth, for example (though that is not Pan). That means deleting the more throw-away postmodern or cheap Family Guy style, computer game, and sitcom joke instances. Where I don't know a book or film I would follow the links quickly to see just how serious it might be and use some judgment, erring on the side of deference to what might look like a serious edit. Of course that is just a content preference on my part about what makes a good article - others might favor a more more, or less, restrictive standard. I would divide up into sections that made sense, turn into prose, and if necessary leave or create a "popular culture", "contemporary culture", "literature" or similar section that best described why these things are relevant to the myth. And then sourcing, if you have time. Otherwise a trivia tag on the whole thing or better yet a fact tag on each fact that could possibly be questioned. I'm not trying to be pedantic here - you're clearly an experienced editor; just letting you know what my philosophy is. Wikidemo 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I generally agree. What I think is most interesting are references that keep a topic alive, add to its importance, or have independent relevance. Pan as a videogame character is nothing more than a sterile cultural reference; we can not list them all and should list very few if any. The Great God Pan is a significant expansion and continuation of the myth and has independent relevance and importance. (Pan's Labyrinth is acceptable as a useful clarification.) As I noted above, I am concerned that unblanking an entire section without thought is potentially as much a problem as blanking an entire section without thought, and I think a more balanced approach is needed on both sides of the issue. Thatcher131 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From what you say we're probably 90% in agreement on the content, just not the methods. If people are working in good faith to edit articles that they have some desire to improve, then removing inappropriate material is a reasonable edit. That usually stands, but if someone thinks some deleted material is valuable they can restore it and, with the status quo as a baseline, the two parties and others work it out through the normal consensus editing process. That's when both sides behave. But when someone blanks sections of multiple articles at the same time because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, to disrupt, as a sockpuppet or proxy, a deletionist campaign, to make a WP:POINT, etc., we don't owe them that. The Burntsauce sockpuppet made 168 article deletions with administrators trailing behind him to block users who opposed him. The JohnEMcClure sockpuppet re-blanked four of Burntsauce's deleted sections after people had restored them, in the middle of an ArbCom case on the subject. Eyrian admitted he did it as a test to provoke people by going "over the line" - the very definition of trolling. I want to take a strong stand against disruption on Wikipedia, but at the same time I have other things to do. Burntsauce spent all of 90 minutes disrupting 168 articles. For me to clean up all 168 would have taken weeks. Forcing me to do that means he wins; it validates the disruption. A single editor, unconstrained by policy, can force dozens of others to clean up his messes. That's like going to a library, tipping over a bookcase because something is misfiled, and telling everyone they can't put anything back unless it's in the right place. No, we don't work that way. It's best to undo the misbehavior and tell people to do things the right way instead. Wikidemo 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Breaching experiments are definitely a no-no. I'm going to look into this a bit further. Thatcher131 01:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and User:Eyrian

Please can you restore his deleted user/user talk pages for the purposes of the case, if it is accepted??

As it is, I would like to be more involved in Arbitration Committee cases, but am not sure how - is being a commentator in the case a good thing?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone will undelete the pages if they are needed for evidence. Ask whoever gets listed as the clerk for the case. As to participation, everyone is welcome to make suggestions, although it would be unwise to call attention to yourself if you happen to be a bigger troublemaker than the people involved in the case. You can add evidence if you have any and make suggestions on the workshop page. Anyone who can do a thorough and fair job of summarizing the evidence into a set of reasonable principles and findings is very helpful to the arbitrators. Too often the workshop is only used as a new forum for warring parties to take shots at one another. Thatcher131 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you've made some good ideas, Thatcher131. I don't know when/if I'll be able to participate as I'm on the road a fair bit these days. As it is, edit warring and slanging matches aren't good for anyone, in my opinion. I've also copied your advice to my talk page too (using the {{quote}} template) Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke

What would also help diffuse tensions is for Cool Hand Luke to stop harassing me, including reverting my edits to articles that do not violate policies and guidelines. CHL, who filled in for THF in the ArbCom, and I do not care for each other and he is now harassing me. --David Shankbone 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)