User talk:Thatcher/Archive8

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Formatting question

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

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

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

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

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

Formatting of Workshop

I looked at [1] the workshop and found it to be a bit hard to find each of the sections for comment. (by Arbitrators, Parties, and Others), as seen here. so I thought it would be best to bold the line Comments by Arbitrators\Parties\Others:. I did this sheerly for readability purposes... and if you think they need to be changed back to the original state, feel free to do so or ask me. I also went ahead and made the same changes to the template for the workshop. Feel free to revert or undo it as needed! Here is the diff of my changes. [2]. Hope that helps! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's peace

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

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

Naming conventions RFAR

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

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

Richardmalter and RfArb

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

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

Question regarding Omura RfArb

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

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

I posted my 'preliminary' (i.e. short) statement as promised. Can I assume that once/if the case is accepted, I can post my fuller statement into a sub-page? Also, if you need to re-order my statement sequence feel free to do so. Crum375 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura Arb

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

I formally withdrew from the mediation

I formally withdrew from the mediation here when the new mediator took over. I agreed not to edit the links in question, and I have kept that agreement. Please remove me from the arbitration. I will not participate in any way. —Hanuman Das 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You may also note that [this] is the current mediation page, and I have posted no comments whatsoever since I withdrew. The first mediation page is a complete red herring as the mediator never appeared or did any mediation. The only mediation which has occurred is on the page I have just given. —Hanuman Das

Re, Mattisse. She is obviously the favorite of somebody. 18 sockpuppets used and abused, three sockpuppet created AFTER she agreed with an admin not to use socks anymore, and if I mention this, I am "harassing" her. No thanks. Leaving Wikiepedia. I expect nothing more than a kangaroo court that implicitly condones Mattisse's behavior. I made a single joke post with a non-disruptive alternate user and nearly got indef blocked for it. Please introduce the RfC created by user 999 and added to by myself which documents her sockpuppetry, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. Apparently, it's ok to use abusive sockpuppets manipulatively if you are Mattisse, or such was ultimately the conclusion of the RfC. Again, no thanks. —Hanuman Das 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Starwood links

I've added myself to the list but you seem to have already gotten most of the others. As this is my first RFAR (may it be my last), I'm not sure I included all the necessary information. Please ask if you need any additional links or information. Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:XP block review

Thanks for looking into this. Abe Froman 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

upset

I listened to you when you said this; "To Canuckster I suggest sitting out the rest of the week without editing from IP addresses to evade the block, which was well deserved. When the block expires, hopefully you can be a productive and cooperative editor." Thatcher131 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did exactly as you suggested. I really do not understand why you would now want to ban me. Have you even looked at the article edits I did today? Are they not good,meaty edits? Ewart just came at me with a vicious and unprovoked attack. I just don't understand what in the hell is going on. Canuckster 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

If this case devolves down to my name and/or the RFC/Mattisse (and every complaint about Starwood so far has) then:

1. Hunamun Das's talk pages are essential has he was my main stalker, person the who hararred me most consistantly, and person who filed the RFC against me when he was blocked for an uncivil comment to me. Therefore, his talk pages would need to be undeleted for me to have any way of stating my complaints.
2. The correct version of RFC/Mattisse would need to be restored, as Hunamun Das his removed his name as a filer and his evidence of attempts at resolution of conflict from the RFC. The current version is not the one used when the RFC was active.

Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think Hanuman Das's edit history, block log and talk pages are relevant to the situation, whether in arbitration, mediation or RfC. While Hanuman Das appears to have abandoned that user account, his edit history, block log and talk pages show evidence of the degree of intense opposition that was faced by editors who attempted to remove the spam. This is especially relevant now that some in the RfAr are either attempting to misrepresent the situation, or are mistakenly stating that the issue is somehow being dealt with "on the local level" when that is not the case. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this now, two layers of arbitration? The issue should be dealt with by local editors, but exactly why this conversation is going on here is beyond me, when there is an open case. Wjhonson 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, the RfAr page is not a discussion page, though some are trying to use it as such. Thatcher131 said that if anyone wanted Hanuman Das's info visible, they should contact a clerk. Thatcher131 is the clerk that posted that comment, so I made the request here on Thatcher's talk page. What are you doing here? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert Parole

I don't understand why I was placed on revert parole for all pages, this seems to only affect me because the other two users focus only on the Midnight Syndicate article whereas I have an interest in a wide range of articles. Dionyseus 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The injunction was proposed by Dmcdevit. You will have to ask him for clarification on whether the parole is meant to refer only to Midnight Syndicate or to all articles. Thatcher131 03:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly why Dionyseus is included, and I agree. One thing I don't understand: Am I permitted to remove unverifiable statements or those that are in violation of copyright? And, am I permitted to replace the citations of mine which were moved/removed by the other editors? Am I permitted to do this in one editing session? GuardianZ 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Sathya Sai Baba article from editing

Thatcher131, why did you protect the Sathya Sai Baba article from editing? 15:25 (UTC+1) 19 December 2006 Kkrystian

Because there are complaints outstanding here and at WP:AE and until I can investigate them tonight after work, protection is better than letting an edit war continue. Thatcher131 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thatcher, thanks for stepping in to call a halt to the edit-warring on Sathya Sai Baba. I trust that you are familiar with my position? If not, please let me know and I will be more than willing to provide clarification. In the meantime I have just one question; I noticed that my name has been dragged into a current RFA enquiry initiated by yourself and I thoroughly disagree with the representation made of myself there. I also noticed that this current RFA is connected to the ArbCom decision of the Sathya Sai Baba article so I am unsure of my stand; am I expected or required to participate in this RFA or might I be permitted to explain my case elsewhere? In any case, I believe that an adequate summary of the current controversy can be found here. A complaint/advice request about personal attacks as registered on Admin Zscout's talk page here. Please let me know if I am required to provide any more information. Kind regards, Ekantik ^talk 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to help sort this out in response to my request for help, as well as for a remarkable post on the talk there. Best, BanyanTree 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shall I remove the link to Michael Moore's homepage

The link to Michael Moore's homepage in the article Michael Moore contains original research that may be defamatory of a living person i.e. George W. Bush. Can see how absurd this way of reasoning is? The same applies to linking to the homepage of Robert Priddy regarding Sathya Sai Baba. I request that my request for clarification regarding this issue that I submitted months ago is finally treated. Andries 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore's article is not subject to an arbitration case, Sai Baba and related articles are. Thatcher131 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning is identical. Linking to the homepage of the subject in question even it contains original research is generally accepted Wikipedia practices. Andries 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another similarity is of course that both Moore and Priddy are mainly notable because of their criticism of another person. Removing Moore's homepage clearly is absurd, just as absurd as removing Priddy's homepage. Andries 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your second point is just silly as Moore was a notable filmmaker long before he made F911. If you wish you may file a case agains the editors of the Michael Moore article, or remove the link yourself. The ruling in this case stands unless modified by the committee. I agree, however, that further action on this case may be necessary, and I am reformatting the request you just re-filed. It will be up in a few minutes. Thatcher131 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy Debate

Thatcher131, although you warned Andries about not including links to Priddy's Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Sites [3], now Andries is attempting to circumvent the ArbCom ruling and your warning by citing content taken directly from Priddy's Anti-Sai Site, except without providing a link. See For Yourself. As I said before, there appears to be no end in sight to Andries POV pushing and systematic attempts to push his Anti-Sai agenda on Wikipedia. If the Anti-Sai link cannot be cited, how can content from these defamatory Anti-Sai links be cited? this would make these types of citations poorly sourced. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A subject can be used as source for his own article, as per Wikipedia generally accepted practices. By the way, I was only responding to user:Jossi's request for sources in this case. [4] Andries 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources to support the inclusion of that sentence. You are taking information from poorly sourced references composed of original research in violation of the ArbCom ruling and general Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

socks

it is fine if account names are listed, but calling them socks is inappropriate. sock puppets are for vote stacking. just call them "other accounts with the same IP"

why is this outside the bounds of requests for arbitration? Justforasecond 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why its outside of the realm of arbitration committee discussion. Isn't this the purpose of the arbitration? Why would it be better to email? Are they more likely to respond to email than the request for arbitration page? I'm just trying to edit in peace but this fellow is going and digging through private records and I don't know of another way to address this. I would guess he probably does this regularly. If he had a good reason to do it I'd be happy to hear it but he only responds with snide remarks. Any advice welcome.

Thanks again. Justforasecond 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned by the same post Carcharoth is referring to, and have sent an e-mail to the arbitrators asking them to give priority attention to wrapping up this case, as the current situation should not continue for much longer. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

I would like to apologize to the participants for not being able to give this issue more attention recently; holidays, of course, and other forms of stress. I am going out of town for a few days and will have limited internet access. I will try and address some of your points before I go. In the meantime, I have consolidated all the SSB-related posts at User talk:Thatcher131/SSB. You may continue to use that as neutral ground, if you like, but I probably will nto be able to comment extensively for a few more days. Thatcher131 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have some understanding for your lack of response. More or less in correspondence with what user:Pjacobi wrote, disputes about cults (I prefer this term because it is better defined than NRM) in Wikipedia and elsewhere, tend to be complicated, intense, and endless. Andries 12:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

there is some reluctance to deal with a complex and tendentious situation; mostly I'm just busy and tired. Thatcher131 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yaksha

Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing with moves.  :/ I am tempted to take it to ANI again, but if it's being handled at the ArbCom level, I'll hold off. Do you have any recommendations on how I should proceed? --Elonka 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You could always ask for help at ANI, but as there is an open arbitration case the admins there will probably pass the buck. Fred is working on Brahma Kumaris now so you are probably next. Thatcher131 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I am seeing that the attacks on me are increasing, to the point of dragging up pretty much any dispute I've been involved with on Wikipedia, ever. There are also dozens of really blatantly false charges and claims of things I said or did. A big game of "Elonka said," with few if any diffs. For example, I'm now charged with "tendentious editing of articles," even though to my knowledge, I have made no controversial edits to any articles -- all the disputes have been talkpage-related.

Mostly I've just been ignoring the really rabid stuff as not worthy of my time to even respond to, but as this is my first ArbCom case I'm really unsure on the procedure here. In your opinion, should I spend any time rebutting the peripheral stuff, or providing defenses for these charges about disputes which happened over a year ago? Or in other words, when an arbitrator starts looking at things, if they are interested in one of these bizarre claims, will they possibly say, "Elonka, what do you have to say about the following XYZ charges?" Or does all my evidence have to be in place ahead of time? :/ --Elonka 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay very close attention to any comments the arbitrators make on the workshop page; comments on other peoples' proposals and especially any proposals they write themselves. (Well, "they" usually means Fred Bauder, but not always.) If Fred writes a proposal "The moon is made of green cheese." there is a good chance he thinks this is relevant to deciding the case, and may appear in the final decision. So at that point, if you have evidence to the contrary, you can comment in the comments section of that proposal. To make a more concrete example, if Fred posted Elonka has been uncivil with some diffs, you might want to make a comment, depending on the situation, such as, That was a long time ago and I have learned to be more civil, or I was provoked [diff] [diff]" or "Yes, but I apologized the next day [diff] [diff]." Thatcher131 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Woes

You told the group on the 9/11 page to seek mediation if the link was gonig to continue to be an issue. Well someone brought the issue back up and I told them to start a mediation. Someone went and started a request for mediation and then Tom Harrison doesnt want to participate. Does that remove him from later being able to argue over the legitmacy of the link? He keeps attempting to get the link passed without arguement, just numbers. Turns out Abe Froman who gave the third party view was actually looking at the page wrong, he was unaware that you highlight the newspaper names to get the full citation. Anyway back to those who do not wish to participate in any mediation, what happens, can they just keep returning to the arguement if mediation goes my way? --NuclearZer0 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, mediation is voluntary and the outcome is not enforceable. MedCab might take a case in which a significant party refuses to participate, but MedCom won't. If the participants agree with you, and represent a significant fraction of the active editors on that article, you would have a good argument that consensus is behind you, and the mediation participnats should be willing to share the load of adding or removing the link if Tom decides to edit war over it. I personally don't like the site, it has a very strong editorial point of view, which should be avoided in controversial situations. Sort of like the Case for impeachment against George W. Bush article of a while back, it uses links to reliable sources in a very biased way. I suspect it does not link to all, or the best, sources, and I'll bet that when one of its sources is later debunked, that doesn't get a link. By picking and choosing, it can build a stronger case than could otherwise be supported if editors with multiple points of view were involved. As I said on the talk page, the issue is really not whether the site meets WP:EL, the issue is, assuming it does meet EL, should it be included? That's a matter of editorial judgement. If a mediation proceeding involves most of the significant editors on an article (from both sides) and there is an amicable settlement either way, I would hope that an experienced editor, much less an admin, would respect that, even if he didn't participate. Thatcher131 08:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerking

Wrt our earlier conversation, FloNight's election to the committee doesn't mean that there's a vacancy for another trainee, does it? David Mestel^(Talk) 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Will be addressed after the holidays are over. Thatcher131 08:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Righto. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am John Bambenek

- crz crztalk 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this an "I am SPARTACUS" moment or are you trying to tell me something important? E-mail me if the latter. Thatcher131 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NVM... This was a joke. I loved your edit summary about recycling the RfAr, which accused me of being John Bambenek from UIUC, into a lovely article about tree frogs. This was another awkward attempt at crazy russian humor. Forgive it. - crz crztalk 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I should probably not be posting at 2:40 AM local time anyway. Thatcher131 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tree frogs

... are not accustomed to wearing socks, and do not have hands large enough to use socks for puppetry; in addition to which, the fabric interferes with their grip on the trees, resulting in some falls. Perhaps some impoverished children would have been happier recipients. I appreciate your efforts at recycling, but please spend a little more time thinking about the appropriate location and the environmental impact. Thank you. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 12:58, 27 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'm not as sure that tree frogs were a bad choice. That particular arbitration submission needed an injection of frogginess, as in its original state it was not exactly ribbit-ing. Newyorkbrad 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh... that was painful. I may be scarred for life, which must mean it was a good pun. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're not so naive as not to recognise the Global Wikipedia Conspiracy toward keeping this article, in which Jimbo, Brad and Angela are all socks (metaphorically speaking) of Bambanek? Ah, but of course, this surely means that you're in on it too! You must be instantly banned/desysopped/drummed out of Wikipedia as a meatpuppet! David Mestel^(Talk) 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Query about check user

Hi Thatcher, I've put up a check user request regarding User:Lotuslander, [5] and it hasn't gone onto the page, but instead into a category of requests not yet added to the main page. See Category:Checkuser requests to be listed. This always happens when I do create a check user request. Can you see whether I've something wrong, or is it just that there's a delay? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Essjay runs a bot that adds new cases to the Checkuser/Pending section based on that category. It usually takes just a few minutes. (This prevents orphan cases when the user forgets to list it themself.) I see that Daniel has moved the case to a IP check--I guess it depends on the outcome and what is disclosed as to how it should ultimately be dealt with. Thatcher131 13:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Thatcher. I thought I'd messed it up in some way. That was an excellent comment you left on Talk:Rachel Marsden by the way. You really hit the nail on the head. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Adjudication rejection

Thanks, Thatcher-adjudication seemed pretty inappropriate to me too. I just have never been near the proceedure before and thought I might have missed something.Felix-felix 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

checkuser Redstone357

Hi Thatcher, I've added Redstone357 to the Yarillastremenog-checkuser, which I'm hoping is the correct procedure rather than opening a new case. As clerk, can you make sure that this doesn't fall through the cracks? (Or tell me to open a new case if that's the appropriate venue.) Bucketsofg 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Objection!

While I won't revert your edit, I respectfully disagree with your gramatical corrections to my post in the Deltabeignet case. One would say "in September" rather than "on September," so "in or about September to December 2006" strikes me as correct. And "differently from" is certainly preferred to "differently than," particularly what follows is a simple noun phrase and there is no pile of words that a "than" could cut through. See e.g. [6] [7].

I appreciate your attention to detail on matters such as this, as you know, but even Homer nods. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want. Fred will rewrite it anyway and has his own unique grammatical constructions, sometimes. Thatcher131 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a righteous observation. Feel free to tree-frog archive this thread. Newyorkbrad 03:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of tree frogs everywhere, thank you for the strikeout. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:05, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Arbcom cases & Google

19th century railroad monopoly or Microsoft in the 21st century?

Hello. For obvious reasons, would it be OK to courtesy-blank the Evidence and Workshop pages of the R.M. BLP ArbCom case? They're showing up quite prominently on Google. Kla'quot 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me think about it tomorrow when I get back home. I'm on a 5 year old Dell running Win98 and IE6 right now, as opposed to my normal G5 widescreen iMac and tabbed browsing. Thatcher131 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Firefox on a Mac, ain't it the best? Thanks, Kla'quot 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Thatcher, which do you prefer? The PC or the Mac? And is the Mac a laptop? Ekantik ^talk 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mac, although I can troubleshoot windows problems better than most windows users. This exemplifies my feelings about Microsoft products in general, although even I am forced to use the ubiquitious MS Office.

Pages like this should be excluded from google search using a robots tag. 67.117.130.181 15:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be an issue for the developers or the Village Pump. Thatcher131 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You?

Is it you who left the message here, or an impersonator? Prodego ^talk 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"None yet"?

You might want to revise the header Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Final_decision_.28none_yet.29 – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:57, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Edit warring at Anthroposophy

The edit warring continues worse than ever, in my opinion. I wish it weren't so, but Pete K is completely interfering with my own efforts toward progress so far. He may not be the only guilty one, but Pete K is reverting my own contributions as if the article belongs to him personally. And he has kept me so busy by undoing what I've fixed that I haven't had time to see what other editors are changing. His latest with me is an edit war to preserve confirmed plagiarized language, including removing my good faith change to keep the message intact but to rewrite it so it isn't copied word for word. (It's ungrammatical also.) He has turned a deaf ear to all my explanations on talk pages. It is like talking to a wall. He only cooperates with administrators it looks like, but not other editors involved in the articles. Besides, he changes things like his own opinion is good enough to alter in the article what independent sources referenced have said. (See edit war over book Philosophy of Freedom.) Does the arbitration decision and policies at wikipedia apply to other people but not to him? It's a fair estimate that about two thirds of his edits to articles made since this went to arbitration, including most of those made since the decision, have been reverts. So far he's either rewritten a statement so its wrong, or just took out each of the independent source materials I've found for fact tages he put there. He has also restored the mistakes he's made that I've tried to fix (including that plagiarized sentence, which after telling him 3 times he can't do, added a sneered comment "boring" and put it back). And ignored my telling him of sources that he claims say something that they don't say at all. I mean, at all. After pointing one example of it to him over and over again, first he defended it in several messages, then he admitted I was correct, but I see the bad reference is still there.

His revert wars with me would be completely avoidable with good faith consultation between us on talk pages, but he has made little attempt I can see to work cooperatively, and won't take my concerns seriously and at least checking them out before arguing with me. With PEte K, it's revert first, talk only if he's got no more reverts coming. He's so bold, he reverted a source I found to replace a fact tag, saying "text doesn't say that" but he hadn't even read the text. When I quoted it to him, he pretended it means something altogether different than what it says--so now that he reads it, he distorts it and edits the passage in the article to new words that are the opposite of what the source said. So if he disagrees with something, he first pretended the source doesn't say it, then insisted the source is wrong if it did, and finally, that the source says something other than the words written in it clearly indicate. It's a crazy waste of time--5 or 6 edits back and forth over something that was obviously fine in the first place once an independent source was found.

I'm trying to remain civil threw this, but it is hard to accept this disruptive activity is done in good faith. But I'm finding it impossible to edit there without edit warring with Pete K. What little progress has been made has been achieved only after Pete K has reverted me more than once. I have tried to avoid reverting mistakes he has made, but he leaves little choice when he won't be persuaded to correct them himself. Venado 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it got through

There's been a little discussion of it too - but I thought I should put my opinion of it on-wiki. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerks

Good evening (GMT time); I am formally expressing my interest in becoming an ArbCom Clerk; I have already contacted User:MacGyverMagic and he referred me to you, informing me that although the clerk staff list is full, I can ask to be put on a backup list. I am currently looking to donate a large portion of my time on Wikipedia to a Dispute Resolution organisation, and I have decided that the Arbitration Committee is the best option. I understand the function of a clerk, and I am one of the current Checkuser standby clerks. Therefore, I am going to ask you to place me on the waiting list - so long as you do not doubt my abilities.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection

Hi Thatcher131, I have not been following the article for a long while, but I noticed that Kosovo has been protected for over a month. Is this part of the article probation? Thanks, Asterion^talk 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected it due to edit warring, it seemed more reasonable than trying to figure out which editors to block or ban. There haven't been any other requests to unprotect or {{edit protected}} requests, so I've left it alone. I'll be happy to unprotect it if you think the parties have settled down. Thatcher131 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am as puzzled as you are that no one has even bothered to request unprotection. I will check the talk page and test the water. Cheers, Asterion^talk 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If possible, would it be possible to downgrade the protection to semi-protection as an intermediate step? Thanks, Asterion^talk 11:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DOne. Thatcher131 12:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

bibliography link at SSB comment page

Could you look at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Comments and tell me if you're ok with what I put there? I will spare you the longwinded policy justification for it if you think the url is ok based on its contents. If necessary I can defend it at more length. I think the link is valuable and will be helpful to anyone seriously trying to improve the SSB article, which is pretty weak right now. See also this comment. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bedtime

Please excuse delays in my responses to comments on the AN/Enforcement page, as it's bedtime. Good night, and be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd ge happier with a third opinion, at this point. Thatcher131 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I would, but I wish you well nonetheless - and similarly, I hope you bear me no ill will among our long-standing disagreements. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No colored hats

I don't wear a hat, don't work for the feds, and don't belong to any organized group of editors who are ganging up on NuclearUmpf. If action is unwarranted, don't take action. But I'm increasingly annoyed by these accusations that I edit on anyone's account but my own. I get enough of that with Cplot, and I don't really care to have more of it from respected members of the community. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said or endorsed that view. White hat/black hat is a dramatic metaphor. There are certainly editors who tend to agree with Nuclear and editors who tend to disagree, and you don't get drama unless you have at least two sides. I don't know or care who is right on the content issue; I certainly don't accuse anyone of editing in concert inappropriately, despite the "admission" above, which I take with a grain of salt. (When a bunch of people share similar views on a topic isn't that called "consensus"?) I just think in this case that probation was not meant to be enforced in the way you want. I could be wrong. I have asked for clarification once and was ignored, I plan to ask again. Thatcher131 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 'people who share a similar view' is much better than 'cast of characters.' I don't care so much about the enforcement issue - if you think it does not 'rise to the level' or whatever, fine. I'm a little touchy I guess about accusations that I conspire behind the scenes to suppress the Truth, and that led me to read your comments in a way you didn't mean. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, my concerns are echoed and dealt with by this response also. Thanks, T131. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

retake of "Surprise, how did that happen"

Hi I was on vacation and your reply was already in the archives...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive7#surprise.2C_how_did_that_happen.3F

I still like to clarify something. You wrote:

1. [...] Another is the issue of the Undue weight section of NPOV; not only should fringe topics be covered but how much. So for example if you want to write about "tired light" being responsible for red shift rather than the expansion of the universe (an idea which almost no one believes) you can right about if there are reliable sources describing the theory, but you should also say that almost no one believes it.
2. You should look at the principles that passed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles; that's the final decision anyway. If you believe those principles are too restrictive, then I suppose you won't be interested in editing any more. If you would like clarification, you could ask at the RFAR talk page, or for a more general discussion on editing policy try the Village pump. The other thing to do is to keep editing articles the way you want, keeping in mind the need for cooperation, collegiality and consensus, and you may be able to work things out with individual editors as you go along. I'm not sure that is a specific enough answer to help you, sorry. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: I fully agree.

Point 2: I had not seen that, thanks! I also fully agree.

The problem is that, IMO, the editor in question has clearly shown (both with words and with actions) to disagree, and that was what I thought that the case was about. For example, for some time he edit warred with me in an attempt to delete modern peer-reviewed tired light theories from the article "Tired light", while proper reference to a few of such fringe theories should be included, especially in an article about the subject. It was only after a long struggle that he agreed to include a minimal reference to such ideas.

He doesn't seem to have changed much so that IMO general articles are at risk of being made more tunnelvision (single POV) by suppression of scientific minority opinions by all possible means (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression ). I also provided one or two more recent examples in the arbitration discussion. It's a bit like a court case in which one person accuses another of stealing and other witnesses confirm it, but the accuser is jailed for fraud and the accused walks out free. Harald88 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I would suggest (at least) semiprotecting the arbitration pages you courtesy-blanked. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted them. We'll see. Thatcher131 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marsden

Thatcher, was it the article you intended to sprotect? There hasn't been any recent anon editing to it, but there has to the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected Rachel Marsden last week but forgot to tag it. I think Marsden, Kinsella, and Bourrie should all be permanently s-protected based on Jimbo's view quoted at WP:SEMI "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, [or] Vandalism." They always end up that way anyway, some admin checking the protection list but with no background in the articles unprotects as "long enough" or some such, and sooner or later one or the other "side" will discover that they can edit anonymously again, and it has to be re-protected. Protecting the talk pages should be more limited but seems to be required from time to time as well, unfortunately. Thatcher131 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good to me. I've sprotected Talk:Rachel Marsden because an anon kept adding a legal threat. I also archived the page, because people were reposting links that aren't in the article, in what looked like an effort to have them published via talk. I'll leave talk sprotected for a day or so; I'm happy for the article to stay sprotected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

True, but no one likes personal attacks either, hence the discussion generated by JzG's various posts. You calling me a "smartass," and Grace Note now referring to the user as a "twat" can hardly be construed as helpful. KazakhPol 07:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?

I thnik I am going to drop the username soon, I have a million proxies I can use instead. Wouldnt that sucks to lose another contributor. --NuclearZer0 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that. You got off easy on the sock thing the first time, but not again. In my opinion, the two images have technical copyright problems. I'm sure that having them nominated by your regular opponents contributes to a feeling of persecution. It would be best to ask for a review by a neutral admin who knows a lot about images, rather than bickering among yourselves. I can help a little, or I would recommend Durin, to start with. I also don't think that your probation was meant to endorse complaints to WP:AE as the first attempt at communication, with no attempt to engage you on your talk or the noticeboard talk page first. But stubborness on your part does not help. You might approach User:UninvitedCompany about this. He is newly elected to Arbcom on a platform that included, among other things, resistance to the overuse of probation. You can reference me if you like, as well as the various comments I have made in past disputes. I would say that some kind of arbitration remedy is still needed in your case as you continue to get into conflicts, but maybe he has some creative ideas that would be less susceptible to abuse. Thatcher131 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am gonig to horribly violate WP:AGF but in the hope of explaining to you what happened. I was part of a clique that included Morton, Tbeatty, Mongo, Tom etc. we used to communicate off wiki for deletions, using the noticeboard basically. I would get emails telling me how I should vote and what guidelines etc. Kinda whats on the noticeboard now. Anyway I recently exposed the truth since its really not against any guidelines to tell people how they should vote and what policies, as long as you do it off wiki or in your own user space, meaning not posting to each persons. I cited this as a flaw and exposed how it worked etc, the admin protection we had under an understanding kinda thing, we were doing MONGO's dirty work and all. So Morton posts on my page basically saying he wont be my friend anymore, then removing me from his friends list all together on his own user page. Then in came the workers, I say workers because certain people play certain roles, like Morton removes sources from articles to prep them for WP:RS complains during the AfD, I pose as neutral to give the board a good image and play passive agressive, Tbeatty kinda does as Morton does. Arthur Rubin plays far neutral, not seeming like a member at all, Hipocrite does a lot of the agitating on talk pages and "snitching" and we all work together to preserve our versions. Tom reverts, the Morton, then Tbeatty, then Arthur, then Hipocrite etc. Since the article is on the noticeboard we know what to watch. We know what limits to push, what talk infuriates people. Just keep callnig the opposing party "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" and they will get annoyed, and usually say something stupid enough to be cited for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. The thing is Thatcher is the system works on 1 to 1 editing, 3RR stops revert wars when its 1 to 1, but when its 3-1, it just helps maintain a particular view. Its why Travb, FAAFA, Nescio, Seabhcan, Stone Put To Sky, etc ended up on the losing end or gone or de-sysop'd, they worked alone and didnt form up to make their own boards etc. Their own "teams". You can see usually from the AfD's, one person makes an arguement and everyone just rephrases it or says, "per morton", yet they appear to be a concensus because 7 editors on one AfD is higher then normal for such a little known topic, and they all vote the same ... Anyway happy new year, I am gonig to log my trends offline most likely for voting habits of people on that noticeboard as well as admin actions by some etc. Feel free to remove or keep, I mean, what happens when the truth is that people operate in bad faith? --NuclearZer0 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"I pose as neutral to give the board a good image and play passive agressive"? Irrespective of off-wiki organization, your admission of deceit (posing as neutral) describes gaming Wikipedia at its worst and in my humble view, is unacceptably tendentious conduct - saying nothing of your prior ban. I'm grateful for your honesty, but I think you've disrupted the community under your latest name long enough. I hope for WP's sake that the ArbCom agrees. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a "cabal" dreamed-up in Nuclear's head. I don't communicate with NuclearUmpf off-wiki -- he does not now, and as far as I know, has never had Wiki-enabled e-mail. I have not sent Nuclear a single e-mail. If Nuclear has sided with edits, it's because he independently chose to do so, not because of any secret "directive" from me. There is no cabal (unless of course, you're talking about the enlightened ones). Morton devonshire 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt certain parts of his story. But clearly you, Morton, have a habit of soliciting like-minders for off-wiki conversation. I noted this to MONGO some time ago, with links, in the context of your repeated vote-stacking attempts. [8] To the extent that Nuclear is fibbing, he is simply exploiting a culture of secrecy and distrust that you have promoted by your actions. Derex 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand - and I'm intentionally limiting the scope of my observation to Nuclear, since his allegations about the conduct of others is essentially hearsay - but his view of his behavior (and his alone) as well as his described intentions is egregious and unacceptable in my opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One would wonder why I was included in this insidious cabal - I have not edited any of this conspiracy cruft, or talk pages thereof for months, untill I stepped on NU's new adopted savior of all that is nonsense. Could he just *gasp* be making things up? Say it isn't so! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor is that everyone is willing to say Nuclear is lying completely, except for his own involvement in the non existent cabal. So silly, you can't have it both ways, I could not operate for a non-existent cabal. --NuclearZer0 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Zer0, The reality is that if you're telling the truth, your conduct has been egregious and disruptive. If you're lying, your lies and accusations against others are egregious and disruptive. Do you understand? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You accused me on this very page of being a sockpuppet, if you stand by your words and find accusations to be disruptive, then accept a 2 day block and I will do the same. Both would be forms of punishment and preventative, but if you believe what you are saying truely then you will accept the punishment for disrupting Wikipedia by accusing your fellow editors of violations of policy. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ludicrous and illogical, so please just cut it out, since I won't take your bait. I stand by my previous actions and no block is warranted for what you claim I have done (which I have not). Do you stand by your actions (those you describe in your admission/lie)? It would appear not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This "off wiki" accusation is new to me. I don't think I ever contacted NU off wiki. I certainly don't recruit voters or send out alerts that an article is up for deletion. Nor do I revert editors in any coordinated effort. There is certainly no coordinated effort off wiki that involves me and I would appreciate it if you removed my name from the above accusation. --Tbeatty 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So any email addy I have, I can post, since it clearly would not be Tims email? --NuclearZer0 11:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could let some admins decide this, in confidentiatly, kind of like what happened with User:XP being booted indefinetly. The evidence was given to an agreeing admin in confidentiality.

User:NuclearUmpf: Do not post anyone's e-mail address though, because this will lead you to be booted immediatly. You could e-mail me the chatboard address if you like Nuclear, I would be interested. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt actually do it, I know the tears that would flow. But Since Tbeatty knows they emailed me and wouldnt show up here to state I can post the email, I think the point is proven. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, you are just blowing my mind Nuclear. :) I don't know if I should embrace this change or be weary of it. I just love wikipedia...Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do it to let this drop. I certainly can't see how posting e-mail addresses or messages to prove a point will help any of you edit more collegially with each other. I'm not even sure the alleged contact is wrong. If editors get together on-wiki its called noticeboard or a wikiproject, and if a bunch of people feel the same way about a topic, it's usually called "consensus." There's nothing wrong with editors having strong points of view as long as it can't be detected by a third party reading the article, and as long as the editors follow the rules, play nice, and respect each other. I'm certainly not wise enough to decide this conduct was good or bad and take steps about it. Anyone who really wants to take steps will probably have to go to arbitration. Public disclosure of (alleged) e-mail addresses in an RFC would be a bad breach of privacy and ethics, and the arbcom has a closed mailing list for considering such things. I'd like to think that you can all put this behind you, though. Thatcher131 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages

Thanks for your response to this issue. It does seem problematic that users may delete notices, such as this [9]. Now that I have read through your response, I realize that I may have been in error in protecting that page temporarily from further blanking. Should I go back and fix that now? Thanks for your patience, I am still in my first year as an admin, so the learning curve remains. Best, --Kukini 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you protected someone talk page to stop them from removing warnings there I would definitely unprotect it. Cheers. Thatcher131 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm much less concerned about IPs, and particularly blatant IP vandals. I have also s-protected the talk page he was vandalizing, and deleted some revisions with libelous edit summaries. Thatcher131 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be sure I do what is right...in the above IP case, should I unprotect the page now? --Kukini 01:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Incident(s)

Sorry to bother you, I don't know if this is the correct institutional route, but TDC reverted today my edits on Depleted Uranium on the grounds of me being a "James sockpuppet", without first discussing them on the relevant talk page, (and even after being invited to do so). Besides being extremely rude (I obviously am no sockpuppet), I believe he violated his revert parole sentence in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium which I found trying to understand why the talk page on Depleted Uranium looked so paranoid. Thanks in advance for your attention! Massimamanno 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I found the administrator noticeboard right now, I will edit there. Massimamanno 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Evidence}}

Heh, thanks for fixing that! (I'm not quite sure why the spaced links don't work, as they do on {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}. There must be something different about having them included through a meta-template, but I have no idea what that might be.) Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I rolled over the template and the spaced links were there but they were very small. I figured as long as the talk page links were going to be there, might as well let people see them. Thatcher131 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the information on WP:RCU. KP Botany 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deiphon

FWIW I am not related to the other "Bourrie" suspects. Just wanted to make a helpful comment with some anonymity. Cause of all the problems this issue has caused people just like the petepeters stuff I was pointing out. I just wanted everyone to think of the problems caused for Bourrie so maybe wiki could do a little cleaning like you did and Ellis could think about the problems he is causing for Bourrie too. I am very sorry for that. --Deiphon 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to apologize for; you anonymously jumped into a very contentious situation involving anonymous users, so some suspicion is to be expected. It was helpful to point out those edits. I didn't think you were Ellis, since one of his IPs came along and deleted your messages quoting the rather vile statements (which was fine with me, too, under the circumstances). I just wish he'd find a new hobby. Thatcher131 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how someone who claims to be semi-literate, such as public-service-minded Deiphon, would have come up with a mongrelization of the Latin for "Voice of God". Mighty nice, Warren! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.79.35 (talk • contribs)

I've got a PhD, too and I didn't pick up on that until you mentioned it. Thatcher131 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

I picked the name and I didn't see that either. Nope just a trilobite genus I like. I'm not that creative. --Deiphon 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Thatcher131 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Golly. I must say, that is funny. Well played, old sport. Got to get me one of those... I'm an Arctinurus [10] man, myself...209.217.79.35 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Too bad"

Would I be failing to assume good faith if I took that to mean that there were other motivations there?
brenneman 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

probably {trout slap} Thatcher131 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slap duly noted, thank you. - brenneman 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I have a question: Pete K repeatedly insists on removing research links I gave in a posting one month ago in one discussion, in answer to a question by someone. Removal 1, 2, 3. He tells he will continue to remove them as I reinsert them again. Please see here. I have not added the links in any Wikipedia article (except by mistake the research overview four months ago), just as a contribution in discussions of research issues at Talks pages. Does the removal of the research links from my posting constitute vandalism, that I can revert as such without 3RR problem? Or can't I? I'd be grateful for an answer. As far as I understand the arbitration decision 30 Dec. on the issue, links to for example Waldorf Answers, where many basic issues regarding WE are described and discussed are OK in discussions, if not in articles. Have I understood this correctly?

Also, I have some questions regarding a number of the edits by Pete K since the arbitration. Fred Bauder seems busy with a new arbitration and does not seem to adress questions that much at his Talks page at present. Can you suggest to whom in the ArbCom I should adress my questions? Thanks, Thebee 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I too have a list of complaints already and would like to address them to the appropriate persons. Pete K 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators do not follow-up or enforce cases once they are closed, they leave that to ordinary admins. You can post a complaint to arbitration enforcement, although, as it happens, I am one of the few who hangs out there. The ruling in your case assumes a great deal of good faith and does not give individual admins much authority to impose coercive solutions. I'm afraid that each of you thinks that if the case were reopened, "the other guy" would get banned. This is a dangerous assumption. Thatcher131 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Un-block user Ahven is a fish, please

Hi, Thatcher131. Please unblock my user account. Thousands of people can use the IP address(es) I've written from. This is the way the system is operated in this part of the world. They have rotating IP addresses over here, and this ought not to be held against us Wikipedia contributors.

Although I've written only from one computer, the IP address can change. In a couple of occasions, the log-in session was dropped, while I surfed in Wikipedia. Then an IP address was left to mark the contribution in the history file. This was not denied. I've not pretended to be two different people.

The user accounts listed with mine, are not mine. I must not be honored for the contributions of Masa62, Huckleberry Hugo, etc., and therefore those people are being unfairly treated as well.

I can continue using only the one account, Ahven is a fish. Thank you. Ahven is a fish 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I don't really know enough about the Kven-user case to be able to evaluate the evidence. You should try talking to the admins who blocked you, or the checkuser who performed the check. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

That was a mistake there...it won't happen again, I promise :)--SomeStranger^(t) 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy to hit the wrong button. No problem. Thatcher131 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Husnock arbitration

Please tell me how I would go about filing a complaint against Mr. Durin. I do not appreciate being called someone's happy sock and all I did was answer a question that some else posted about how I knew about this website. He is now writing crap about me being someone else because I happened to use the same computer lab and saw a bookmarked page. Total bullshit. Thanks -Pahuskahey 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I would drop the subject and go do whatever it is you want to do here. Sockpuppet (see also the wikipedia sockpuppet policy) is a legitimate term denoting a user account operated by another person. It's really inevtiable that someone from Dubai who has an interest in that particular arbitration case would be suspected of being Husnock. (Arbitration really is an esoteric area of wikipedia; article editors can go for months without ever being aware of the meta side of the project. And Durin was subject to a lot of unfounded attacks from Husnock when he edited in his own name, so he is understandably sensitive. Whether you are or aren't has no bearing on your ability to edit other articles, so long as you are not disruptive and follow the normal rules of conduct expected by any editor. I would simply go about your business and avoid making yourself a further party to the arbitration case, and just let this rather minor incident fade away. Thatcher131 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There is substantial additional evidence other than just that Pahuskahey and Husnock posted from Dubai. I fully recognize that Dubai is home to a very large number of people, and it is hardly reasonable to presume the only person who could be from Dubai is Husnock. There's plenty of other evidence. I do not make accusations lightly. If Pahuskahey wishes to file a complaint against me, I will gladly step him through the process of doing so. --Durin 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever he is, he can either go edit quietly somewhere, or he can continue to make an issue of this, which I would not recommend, for several reasons. Thatcher131 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the image of the man smoking has an embedded string of Copyright 1998 by Hewlett Packard. If you're curious, I can provide you with the evidence that shows Husnock and Pahuskahey to be one and the same. So long as he does not abuse sockpuppets, I don't have any issue with him being whoever he wants to be. He *has* abused sockpuppets before on a number of occasions and at a minimum that behavior must stop. If he wants to edit quietly, within the bounds of policy here, as whoever he wants to be, fine. I have no issue with that. I'll be *quite* happy to leave him alone. --Durin 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the string as well, but I think its meaning is ambiguous. Some of the photos that I have edited with photoshop have Adobe copyright strings even though they are my own photos, and it seems that iPhoto adds a copyright string to any photo it generates. It is possible that the pipe-smoking man was scanned using an HP scanner or edited using HP branded software. That being said, the idea that that an American professor in Dubai would just happen to begin editing editing articles about minor Star Trek topics just at the time Husnock left defies Occam's razor, independent of any other "tells" you might be aware of. I understand your feelings about participating in a "charade" I think you called it, but I don't mind charades, at least provisionally, as long as the situation cools off and Pahuskahey behaves with reasonable decorum (as opposed to being naive, which I may have given the impression of). One thing I am putting a stop to is pot-stirring by "systems admins" in the "computer lab" at AMU. Since there is no danger that all of Dubai will be blocked as a result of the case, there is no need to entertain those threads. Thatcher131 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. I wish I had never answered that question about how I knew about that page. To clear up about my picture, my daughter took that picture and e-mailed it to me. If I have broken rules about posting it, let me know and I will post another. There seems little effort in speaking to some people about who I am, they will apparently not be satisfied unless they come to Dubai and see me, my office, and our computer labs. I do enjoy Star Trek, its how I was drawn to this site because they say it had good Star Trek articles. -Pahuskahey 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the pictures are yours, there's no problem. If they were found somewhere and used here to create a false identity, it might be a copyright problem, depending on where the originals came from. Just have fun editing, whoever you are. Thatcher131 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some of the information that connects Pahuskahey to Husnock. I am holding back some more due to wanting to ensure that Husnock does not learn how to keep his socks hidden if he abuses sockpuppets in the future. Husnock, in the form of Pahuskahey, is expecting us to to believe that despite:

• On the very day that Husnock decided to "leave" Wikipedia ([11], see edit summary), User:Pahuskahey was created [12].
• Pahuskahey sharing a remarkably similar interest in topics regarding Star Trek and military ranks (see editing history of Pahuskahey and Husnock to verify yourself if you like)
• Pahuskahey posts from Dubai, where Husnock is currently located
• Pahuskahey happens to create image montages (see Image:SonsMedals.jpg) just like Husnock does (see Image:AllPharHouses.jpg). Note terrible alignment problems in both images and black background in both images.

...this is supposedly all a massive coincidence? On this information alone, much less the other pieces of data I have, there would be well more than enough proof to have Pahuskahey blocked if Husnock had been banned from the site. Husnock seems to think we are all stupid and incapable of seeing a duck when it quacks, flies, swims, eats, looks and smells like a duck. I find it particularly and utterly despicable that Husnock claims to have a son that died in Afghanistan and was awarded the Silver Star, the fifth highest award a U.S. service member can receive (see medal upper left in Image:SonsMedals.jpg). Real people are dying there, earning real Silver Stars. He despoils their memories and tarnishes the reputations those people have rightfully earned by this outrageous claim. --Durin 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that if a military officer were to make up a son, falsely claim him to be KIA, and falsely allocate to him a silver star, he would reap more scorn and disapproval from his fellows than would ever result from an editing spat over Star Trek articles. My only philosophy is that if someone is driving over a cliff and there is nothing I can do to stop it, at least I won't push. I wish them all well—Husnock, Col. Dan, the computer lab administrator, and the professor—and I hope the case closes soon so we can put this behind us. Thatcher131 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty disgusting how he's using his wikipedia userpage - like most liars (and there is no other word for it), he doesn't know when to stop. Whoever that solider is in the picture on his page it's unconnected to the story he's weaving.

How is this suppose to "close" when Husnock seems to playing a game - one where his actions seem to be designed to drawn attention to himself? he's just taking the piss at this stage. --Charlesknight 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• (responding in general) There's more options than choosing to either watch someone drive off a cliff or helping to push someone off a cliff. We can choose to try to stop them from driving over the cliff. I've been attempting to get him to stop. Yet, the lies continue to mount. Now, he's claiming a PhD in English from the University of Virginia...yet he makes multiple routine errors in spelling. The equivalent would be if he were an ASE certified mechanic, he wouldn't know how to change oil on a car. I don't intend to do anything more about it, in so far as his rampant lies have no effect on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate he's chosen the path that he has, but my efforts to stop his behavior have failed. However, I don't intend on letting this project be harmed by his actions if they tread in ways that have a negative effect on the project.
• One way in which he is doing so now is falsifying the source of images he is uploading. I can not absolutely prove that the supposed image of himself and his supposed granddaughter are source falsified. However, the supposed image of his son with the image being sent to him while his son was in Afghanistan is provably false. Myself and others have investigated all coalition deaths in Afghanistan matching them against the "facts" stated by him and can find no matching candidate casualties. His son dying in Afghanistan is a blatant lie, and thus the source being his son in Afghanistan is also a lie. We do not, therefore, know the source of the image since he has provably lied about it. I intend on placing the image for IfD. --Durin 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Izzy Dot

In the Naming Conventions case, someone just made the valid point that User:Izzy Dot is proposed to be banned for two weeks, although he is not a party to the case and has apparently not been notified of it. As it happens, Izzy Dot hasn't edited since a 24-hour civility block in mid-November anyway. Under the circumstances, do you think he should be given formal notice of the case, or just let it ride, or ask the arbitrators what to do (I believe it was Uninvited Company who proposed the ban)? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Izzy Dot (talk · contribs) was a pretty obvious "throwaway" account. The first edit was on October 22, 2006, and there were fewer than 100 edits in the entire account history. Many of those edits were antagonistic, and the user exhibited a clear knowledge of Wikipedia procedure. All of which are clear characteristics per WP:SOCK. As for who the main accountholder might be, I could make some guesses, but have no solid proof. --Elonka 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they want to send a signal. Reading between the lines again, I might guess that the arbitrators think that the disruption caused by the other parties was based in a good faith attempt to determine and implement consensus, while Izzy's disruption was to be disruptive. Assuming he ever does return, there would be a procedural argument to reopen the case to consider any evidence he wished to present. (I forget who, but I seem to recall a case this year where an editor was added at the 11th hour and sanctioned, and he successfully appealed for reconsideration.) But probably 99% he's gone, as Elonka says. Thatcher131 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably right, which is why I consulted here rather than just drop a note on his page. It was User:AaronS, in the anarchism-related case, who related that he'd just returned from a Wikibreak and was quite surprised to find himself on probation. I believe the lead Clerk at the time got the case reopened, though the discussion then moved off-Wiki for some reason and I don't know the final result of the reopening. In this instance, with the user not active for 2 months and not necessarily a serious account, it's not as critical, but wanted you to have the choice what to do. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, with all due respect, I don't believe the arbitrators have ever said that the parties trying to implement consensus have caused any disruption. If there's something I missed, please point it out (and if any of them do believe disruption was caused, they should put it in the decision). But I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in the mouths of the arb committee. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the proposed decision on personal attacks (which has not passed, but shows the thinking of at least some of the arbitrators). See also Fred's comment "Dirty pool. Has someone been doing this?" in relation to move fraud by both sides. I suspect that the committee decided that rather than wade into the separate evidence for personal attacks and incivility from both sides, they would issue a ruling that "consensus was achieved, move on" with the assumption that the editors would not have anything more to fight about. Thatcher131 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it questionable to draw conclusions about how the committee feels based on proposals that have not passed, or haven't made it from the workshop page to the proposed decision. I also get the impression that based on the huge amount of incivility evidence, some may be assuming that both sides were uncivil and basically see that part as a wash, which I think is a mistake considering that most of Elonka's accusations are false and unsupported by her diffs. I'd like to think that there's nothing more to fight about, but after seeing Elonka continuing to fight even on the arbcom case talk pages, and particularly making statements completely contrary to what the arbcom decision seems to be heading toward (and still insisting that the consensus actions were and are disruptive and controversial), it seems inevitable that she isn't going to move on. If the case closes with no additions, hopefully the current wording is strong and specific enough that if she continues her disruptive behaviour, there will be grounds to take action to get her to stop. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Omura Arb

I have replied to you on my talk page.Richardmalter 08:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Dear Thatcher131, I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise this, but it follows on from an Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case I think you presided on. (Perhaps you can advise me where to raise the matter if this is not the right place?) User ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science...this applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility", has recently weighed in on the article Immanuel Velikovsky, a biographical article on this controversial pseudoscientist and the notable controversy engendered by his work in the latter half of the 20th century. This article was initially of poor quality but much work has been done on it and it had been stable for most of the past year. ScienceApologist has made some useful suggestions for improving it further (largely to do with gathering & tightening up references) but rather than give editors time to implement these, he has begun deleting and reverting things in a cavelier fashion, and using pejorative language to describe his edits. He has tagged the article as requiring attention from an expert - I do have a lot of in depth knowledge on the history of the velikovsky constrovesy, and would be happy to work further to improve the article, but already I find I go to bed in the evening and when I wake up, ScienceApologist has deleted chunks of the article which yesterday he requested references for, despite my already having made a preliminary enumeration of refs I'd collected on the articles talk page. Not wishing to begin the weekend with an edit war, I would appreciate it if Science Apologist could be advised to calm down and refrain from disruptive editing, allowing the article to be improved. (It may be thought that I am being too quick to complain about him, but given that my own written style can be a little acerbic :) intuition tells me that he and I are unlikely to be able to reach a constructive position between ourselves without outside help...--feline1 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if this was the right place to raise this or not!? But I just wanted to add, being wary of 3RR, and with ScienceApologist persistently reverting back to his preferred material at Immanuel Velikovsky and deleting references I'd spent hours finding, which he himself requested with {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tags, I've no desire to fill me weekend with a silly edit war. It's not really nice to read personal attacks about myself on his talk page either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist#If_you... I do not feel he bahaves in line with the PseduoScience ArbCom's caution to him.--feline1 11:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only a clerk in the case, there is no "presiding" official. The decision was voted on by the arbitrators as indicated on the proposed decision page. I past I have responded to complaints involving past arbitration cases, but this is in my capacity as an admin, not a clerk. Enforcement of arbitration rulings is up to admins in general. I have not reviewed either of Science Apologist's cases or his behavior since, and I'm sorry that I can't do so now. You can inquire at the admin noticeboard, ]]WP:AE|arbitration enforcement]], or try to file an request for comment to have his recent behavior evaluated by other editors. Sorry. Thatcher131 04:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking...

Hey Thatcher, just checking... did you happen to get the email I sent you a couple of days ago (regarding wiki-clerking)? I was just wondering, I *think* I sent it to you through the wiki system, so maybe it got lost somewhere... – Chacor 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Got distracted. Will e-mail you back. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kay, awaiting a (hopefully positive! lol) reply. – Chacor 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry if I seem impatient (heh), I guess you got re-distracted? :P – Chacor 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my real life is definitely a distraction at this point. REgarding checkuser clerks, I'm pretty inactive there right now. Daniel Bryant is in charge, and I believe there is a subpage of WP:RFCU/Clerks where you can list yourself as a standby for when there are openings. Regarding arbitration clerk, we don't have any plans right now to bring up any more clerks appointments. However, many of the tasks can be done by any editor, and there is a note about this at WP:AC/C. (Actually, I've just put this in a few days ago, and the talk page will also be of interest. This may be in flux.) There are several people ahead of you who have expressed interest, and I don't know yet whether we would select new clerks in chronological order or some other method. Certainly it wouldn't hurt to be seen hanging around and performing tasks that seem appropriate. It's better for us to find clerks who are interested in a committment of some sort rather than opening a case and then wandering off somewhere else.

At the moment, Cowman109 and Eagle101 are "in training" more or less, and Daniel Bryant and Newyorkbrad seem to hang around quite a bit. As I said on the talk page, the official clerks are "official" but there is little guidance about what that means, and we agree that it does not mean that arbitration case pages are hands off to everyone else (this is a wiki after all). I tried to make a list of things that could get participants in an uproar if they weren't done by someone official, but there are often other things that can be done, like fixing the format of requests and answering questions on the talk pages of the cases (if you know the answers, of course :) We coordinate through the clerks noticeboard if you want to ask any questions there. Thatcher131 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the note! I should be the one apologising, I normally watch all user talk pages I post to for replies but I must've missed it. – Chacor 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart arbitration

Thanks for your intervention here. I totally agree with everything you say, but I thought I was going mad because no one else with any standing was seeing it that way. The underlying problem, IMO, is that there is an element who want to make it an attack article ... or who honestly cannot understand the distinction between notability and notoriety, in the sense I tried to explain on the workshop page. I'm not sure why all the focus is on banning Supreme Commander. He may well be a pain-in-the-arse edit warrior, for all I know, and may deserve all those blocks, but I think he has a point and that it would help if the role of some of those on the other side were looked at. Metamagician3000 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Fred is starting to do that. I am surprised at some of the comments on the talk pages. (Like mugging someone in a court room.) You may certainly wish to add additional specific proposals to the workshop page if you believe others have engaged in disruptive editing or are ignoring the imperatives of WP:BLP. Thatcher131 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I wasn't intending to be grandstanding. I had said what I thought needed to be said concerning the facts relevant to the RfA, and any further discussion was either repetitious or was veering away (far, far away) from the meat of the issue, neither of which was constructive, so I thought it would be best to rest on what I had said to that point. However, I did not want my sudden silence misinterpreted as either abandoning the issue or mis-used by the fractious elements as further "proof" of their "side", whatever that "side" might be. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I am sorry that it looked to you like grandstanding. I suppose it might have been better just to say my piece and let it go at that. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-16 07:15Z

And for the record I wasn't intending to make it personal, however his accusations and attacks against me just frustrate me a lot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks, with a little sockpuppet barnstar, for all the good work you've done at RFCU. Essjay (Talk) 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks arbcom request

If this isn't an arbcom case, can you provide a reason why not? If it isn't, then where should it go? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On your talk page already. Arbitration deals with disruptive behavior be other editors. There's hardly even any discussion on the talk page about the protection, much less a credible suggestion that the protection was placed as part of some kind of scheme to block certain editors. Use WP:RFPP to request lifting protection if the protecting admin is not available. Thatcher131 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but since I already notified the parties in question and you took the request off, you go ahead and notify the involved parties that it has been taken off. I'm a bit busy and need to do work here at school. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it's already ON WP:RFPP, it was one or two of the involvees there and on the article talk page itself that suggested that I take this silliness to ArbCom. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:September_11.2C_2001_attacks_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the unprotection. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock, horror, outrage!

How could you?!?!?!? I can't believe you prefer him over me!! :p Essjay (Talk) 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My Name Is Earl moves

I understand, and I apologize. It won't happen again. However, a few pages weren't consistent with WP:NC, so I fixed those. Evan Reyes 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't

Please undo this change:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=102205008

Not only does it screw up many links and diffs related to this case, it is not correct. This is created instead of a previous and unsuccessful RfM regarding the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. That article is not at issue at present, while user conduct is the subject of this RfA. While the conduct of myself and Ilena are the primary issue, the conduct of Peter (WizardDragon) is also an issue, as his improper, biased, and very unsuccessful mentoring of Ilena has only escalated the conflicts and encouraged her behavior, leading to two more blocks. This is all very sad. Please change the title back to the one chosen because of the history of this whole affair. Believe me, the involved parties find the old title to be correct. -- Fyslee 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the name of the case is just a shorthand and does not in any way restrict the ArbCom's ability to take whatever action it deems appropriate (although the arbitrators' comments in voting to accept it may do so). It has frequently happened that a case was named after User:A or Article:X, but the final decision sanctions only Users:B, C, and D and includes their conduct on Article:Y and Talk:Z. Historically, words like "et al." have not been included in casenames, and there has been a concern that naming just one or two users in the name could imply a prejudgment or focus attention too much on the named users, so other forms of name are generally preferred. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original "et al." was unfortunate, but the title was chosen because the issues are definitely not the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, but user behavior (primarily mine and Ilena's). The changing of headings and titles is frowned upon because it causes havoc with existing links, and this title is also off-base because the RfA replaces an unsuccessful and misguided RfM that was rejected by several involved parties because it was on the wrong topic. The issue is user behavior that peripherally touches lots of articles, but regards mostly user talk pages where long attacks and violations of NPA have occurred. By focusing the title on the proper topic, it avoids derouting into other issues that are no longer current. -- Fyslee 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, there is a consensus that cases should be named for the underlying issue whenever possible, rather than individual editors, as this implies that the process is adversarial, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_17#Case_names. (Fyslee-Ilena is not far off from Fyslee vs. Ilena which is specifically discouraged.) The personal name might also tend to obscure Peter's role, should you want to include that in your opening statement. Changing the name won't affect any diffs and could only affect bookmarks to this page which have been made in the last 12 hours and will be invalid anyway once the case is opened. I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not inclined to go back to a personal name at this point. Thatcher131 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'll have to redo some of the last many hours of preparation. At least I tried, and will bow to your judgment and experience in these matters. As long as arbitrators and participants understand that the basic issues underlying all the edit conflicts and discussion page conflicts are basically related to user attitudes and conduct, there can come something good out of this. If a collaborative spirit existed, then all POV conflicts can be overcome, but that's not happening. I do hope that Ilena will be stopped immediately if she starts recycling her charges against me over and over again as she has done. She has refused to provide documentation, and now is the time for it to be required of her before she proceeds any further. I am more than willing to face the music, but I need to know what evidence she is using. Vague charges based on something slightly related to some real life fact are impossible to deal with, especially when it is thrown at me all at once, and alleged in front of the whole world through search engines as if it was fact. -- Fyslee 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all ArbCom cases are about user conduct, they don't usually rule on article content except in the context of user conduct problems or major policy violations, so I think you can take that as understood. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy

Thatcher, can you kindly comment on the new material that is being added to the Robert Priddy article. The Sanathana Sarathi material is being taken from Priddy's Anti-Sai website. More material is being cited from Indymedia. All of this is original research. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote in response to my first opposer. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfAR:Hkelkar

Hello. As you were the clerk on the above mentioned ArbCom case, can you have a look at this. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small question

Hello Thatcher, I do not know much about "ArbCom etiquette". If a party in an ArbCom case violates WP policies (such as WP:NPA etc) during the ArbCom case, is it correct procedure to place the necessary warning templates on their talk-pages as if it were normal circumstances? Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would never use a template on a long term user. A short note conveying the same information would be appropriate, just as it would at any other time. Of course, if the remark was made on the arbitration pages itself, be assured that the arbitrators read all of the case pages before they vote. Thatcher131 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Thatcher, please protect this article from editing by unregistered users. It is continually being vandalised. Kkrystian 17:31 (UTC+1) 22 January 2007

One or two a day is not enough to justify protection at this time. Thatcher131 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at Robert Priddy, and has just broken 3RR. I gather that you suspended application of a block on him; my feeling is that it now needs to be applied. I've been involved in the article, so can't do it myself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and do something tonight (to both queries). Thatcher131 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any other reasonable solution than to leave it protected until the case is decided. There is a fundamental disagreement about how to apply the remedy in the previous case. Thatcher131 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, when you have time, please see my comment at: Talk:Robert_Priddy#I_despair. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a minute

Hi Thatcher, sorry to dump this in your lap, since you say you're busy, but if you get a minute can you take a quick glimpse at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block-evading_sockpuppet.3F, esp. my diffs at the bottom of the section. It's pretty clear sock puppetry in my opinion, but wanted to consult with another sock-hunter before blocking. Bucketsofg 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that took 20 minutes :) Answered at AN/I. I concur, but... Thatcher131 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re: image deletions

Sorry about that. I don't delete many images that are still linked to pages. I'll remember for next time. Thunderbrand 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old

See here. You were involved in this before and I have no intention of going down this path again. --Tbeatty 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Zer0 tolerance on a repeat ocurrence. Thatcher131 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tbeatty 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Morton Devonshire^Yo 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping under the rug

Regarding this, premature archiving of the active disscussions by force has been tried and rejected as inappropriate many times at various boards. ArbCom specifically made it clear in so called "Giano case" that the proper disscussions should be allowed to go their course without being forcibly shut down. Please do not do it again. --Irpen 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since 95% of the current discussion has nothing to do with the arbitration case you intend to bring, why don't you archive the current thread and start a new one that focuses on what you consider the key issues? Thatcher131 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are key issues in the thread. Please leave the archiving to the Werdnabot. Thanks. --Irpen 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Two points:

1. Would you mind rewording your Clerk notes here to bring the description into line with the general consensus, that the article and content issues are not the locus of attention, but rather our behavior?

2. I'm also wondering about the description here:

Split case part one:

• "Allegations of conflict of interest and disruptive editing by Ilena and inappropriate response by Fyslee"

Does that really cover the issues? It doesn't mention what is really the main subject - gross and repeated personal attacks by Ilena on myself. I would appreciate it if you would add that to the description, so it reads something like this:

• "Allegations of conflict of interest, disruptive editing, and personal attacks by Ilena, and inappropriate response by Fyslee."

Please let me know what you think, and if this is the appropriate manner to deal with this. I contact you because you have made those edits. Regards, Fyslee 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)