User talk:Thatcher/Alpha: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 2 March 2007

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

changing title to India-Pakistan

Just to let you know the change of the Arbcom case title to India-Pakistan is fine with me.--Nadirali نادرالی

Your revert

Hi T,

I reverted your deletion on the FR RFAr talk page. I hope you can understand that I feel there might have been a political aspect to that deletion (no insult) - when much of this disagreement IS over 'left - right' battles on Wiki. If Brad wants to delete some or all of it, I'm A-OK with that. Cheers - FAAFA 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the material Thatcher131 deleted and agree with him that it is unnecessary, inflammatory, and has no chance of doing anything other than exasperating the arbitrators, so I've reverted to his version. I will add that Thatcher131 is the head clerk for ArbCom and has deleted similarly irrelevant or inappropriate material from other cases several times in the past, so there is no basis for suggesting that his doing so here was political or for any other inappropriate reason. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the second time that Newyorkbrad has referred to Thatcher131 as head clerk, but this is not reflected here. Also it seems no new clerks have been promoted recently. The page has not been edited in more than a month - is it up to date? NoSeptember 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Head clerk" was my coinage and may not be an official title that's been conferred (as it was on Daniel.Bryant over at RfCU), but Thatcher has definitely been coordinating clerkly efforts at RfAr for several months now. I myself, I'm proud to add, was just promoted from "unofficial hanger-on" to "clerk trainee." :) Newyorkbrad (adjusting his beanie), 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that other clerks frequently defer to me, but there is no head clerk as such. (The original idea was that the head clerk would be an ex-arb and would make policy and appoint clerks.) I've rewritten WP:AC/C to reflect that fact. There are a number of people "in training" (Cowman109, Eagle 101, David.M and Newyorkbrad) but the committee makes official appointments. I've asked to have Cowman and Brad promoted on the AC mailing list but I expect it's a lower priority than the umpteen cases they have going right now. Thatcher131 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add a list of the "trainees", if there is a true distinction being made between them and the ArbCom groupies ;). Also, are the active/inactive designations accurate? - normally you'd expect people to go back and forth between those categories from time to time. NoSeptember 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid excessive hierarchies. Besides the ocassional picture frame-straighteners, a couple of people have opened cases or closed simple cases through coordination at the clerks' noticeboard, and there are "official" trainees in line for the next formal appointments. Some of the logic for this is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. The participants in the cases that David and Brad are watching seem to have accepted them without any official badges from me. Should they be questioned, I'll provide any back-up needed. With Srikeit on wikibreak and Drini now a steward, if I really updated the list there would only be one active official clerk. I'd rather wait for my appointment requests to be approved and then do it all together. Thatcher131 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Essjay has taken an interest in the inactive status of Arb clerks and updated the list. NoSeptember 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did so because I knew the two new clerks were being appointed, and wanted to make sure the list was up to date when the appointment was announced. Essjay (Talk) 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see ArbCom moving forward with the 2 clerks, 1 oversight, and 1 checkuser today. It looks like something really does happen behind the scenes ;). NoSeptember 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing! There is no secret cabal headquarters, it certainly does not have ultra-soft leather couches in it, and there is no truth to the roumor of the chocolate fountain, grape-peelers, and ultra-soft leather couch bearers! FNORD! FNORD! ;) Essjay (Talk) 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Zoeller

Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit[1]. Already it's been vandalized. I also think someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. I posted to AN/I but I thought you might have a more direct link. I'm surprised this isn't front office protected. --Tbeatty 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation seems to be well in hand. The article is protected and several edits have been deleted (though not oversighted yet). Danny seems to be aware of ths situation as he has edited the article in the past; I wonder if a checkuser was run at some point, otherwise how would Zoeller know whom to sue? Thatcher131 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed it must have been IP edits from the law firm's computers, since I don't think the Foundation would give out a user's (even a bad user's) IP information without a subpoena. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I posted to ANI and they were pretty quick about it. I think this is a John Doe lawsuit against anonymous IP address which belongs to the lawfirm. --Tbeatty 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article mentions at least one username. I wonder if they really would hold out for a subpoena. #6 here looks like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Thatcher131 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My read of the article is that they sued the law firm based on the IP and added additional "John Does" whom they hope to identify through a subpoena. I guess we'll be reading a lot more about this. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) In fact, a link to the Complaint is here. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

Complaint:

Ekantik has pushed his POV too far by trying to act like admin. He is threatening to block me for disagreeing to his edits.

He is keen on adding “Sexual abuse allegation” subcategory to the Criticism section. So far kkrystian and myself are against adding this subsection heading. Andries has taken a neutral stand and suggested about changing the section “Criticism” to “Criticism and replies”. I agreed and changed the section heading. Ekantik is the only editor insisting on adding this subsection category to the article, although there is not a single case of Sexual abuse allegation in the contents. SSS108 has disengaged from wikipedia and may not comment on this. Freelanceresearcher has been on and off wikipedia I don't know when she will respond to this comment.

Now Ekantik has threatened to block me in my userpage. He is acting like admin and pushing his POV too far. How can a user block another user for differing in views? Could you please look into this issue? Please let me know your response. Wikisunn 23nd February 2007

A spurious and hysterical complaint that completely misrepresents the whole issue. First of all, I am not an admin therefore I cannot block anyone. Due to Wikisunn's repeated introduction of stylistic errors into the Sathya Sai Baba article, I have placed three template warnings on his talk-page here as per procedure. As those who are familiar with this issue know (and the ArbCom case is still open), Wikisunn has a history of disruptive editing on the page, often blanking content (arguable vandalism) because he disagreed with it. Despite this, I and other editors have tried to patiently coach and explain to him why his edits are non-viable and against WP policies, but he continues to introduce them and justify his actions with explanations that defy WP policy conventions, often edit-warring. For a short history of the issue, please see: Wikisunn's edits, Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title.

After I took the step of placing the necessary warning templates on his talk-page (after patiently trying to explain to him why he is wrong), he has now come out as openly threatening and hostile in his behaviour, accusing me of incivility and personal attacks when I have been nothing but civil to him. I'm afraid that Wikisunn has now pushed everyone's patience too far and I am frazzled, I don't see any point in working with editors who have a serious problem with non-comprehension of Wikipedia policies, what to speak of repeatedly using the article talk-page to engage in continued hostility and personal attacks instead of addressing the matter on editor's talk=pages (and being told to do so repeatedly). It should also be noted that Wikisunn's recent behaviour largely consists of personal attacks that partially replicate SSS108's arguments, for which SSS108 has been blocked indefinitely.It won't be too long until the ArbCom is over and we will see what happens then. i shall of course be updating my evidence on this matter. Ekantik ^talk 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, this whole issue started with your insistence on adding the Subcategorytitle "Sexual abuse allegation" to the article and there are enough proofs to show what happened. Don't misrepresent the facts. These were your edits: [2], [3], [4] although none of the editors agreed with you. When I edited your wrong WP:MOS and also added a discussion on talkpage you added the 1st warning in my talk page [5]. Then after Andries suggestion I renamed the Section "Criticism" to "Criticism and replies" you added the second warning in my talk page saying I disrupted the article and threatened to block me giving second warning [6]. That's when I decided to complain to Thatcher. You cannot warn other editors because they differ from your views, by the way none of the editor agree with your views so are you going to warn everybody about blocking. This is pushing your POV and misusing wikipedia policies for pushing your POV. I also see you added links about discussions we had in talk page such as "Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title". These are discussions which every editor participated and gave their views, these are discussions for consensus and has nothing to do with my edit warring as you complained. Don't keep bringing up sss108 he is not even involved in this discussion and his userpage says he has disengaged from wikipedia.

So far I have never had any problems with any other editor but you have had problems with every editor kkrystian, sss108, freelanceresearcher and now me. You find fault with every editor who don't agree with your views, if anybody disagrees with you then you accuse and criticise them and now you have started adding warning for disagreeing with your edits. I request you to be more civil in your behaviour with other editors and not to wrongly use wikipedia policies for pushing POV.

Wikisunn 24th February 2007

Perhaps we should have a childish little school-playground argument about "who started it". I have already responded here, which shows that Wikisunn made the first controversial edits without consensus and is now trying to misrepresent the issue by claiming that I want to introduce stylistic errors.

Ho hum. I still find that this complaint has been made on a hysterical basis by an inexperienced editor who is still unfamiliar with the issues at hand and still refuses to accept good advice, instead presenting hostile and threatening behavior which is why I have chosen to withdraw from this argument. And for the record, I have never had any problems with any editor on any article except those involved with Sathya Sai Baba who have gone out of their way to make my life hell on Wikipedia with their unceasing defamations. I am only responding here because Wikisunn insists on dragging on his crusade on the talk-page of other editors/admin and I have a duty to make sure the facts are presented with evidence. If anybody wants/needs to discuss this further, please feel free to leave a message on my talk-page. Ekantik ^talk 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, you threatened to block me in my userpage for not agreeing with your edits, now you are calling me hostile and threatening. There is no point in this discussion with you. You will never agree that you misused wikipedia policies, issued warnings and tried blocking coeditor who did not agree with your edits although there are enough proofs to prove it. Wikisunn 25th February 2007

Maybe that's because I never made any threats, because as I've already explained that the "threats" are templates? Which Wikisunn would never have received if he hadn't made any bad edits and is being bitter about it? This is a frivolous complaint and as I keep repeating myself, Wikisunn is an inexperienced editor who does not fully comprehend or interpret Wikipedia policies properly, even after they are explained to him at length just as I have done. As a matter of fact, all editors have a responsibility to edit responsibly; Wikisunn introduced massive changes without consensus (proof) and when I try to change it back, he starts edit-warring and making wild accusations about how I "edit war" with editors who "disagree" with me, issue warnings (which any responsible editor should do), and misuse Wikipedia policies. Ridiculous, since I am the one who has explained them at length to Wikisunn and which he repeatedly ignores.

I have already stated that I am not an administrator and thus cannot block anybody, but Wikisunn still doesn't understand and still accuses me of threatening to block him. This guy will just not understand and refuses to understand. For the third time, I withdraw from this debate after just writing here to make sure the facts are present. Wikisunn is now openly engaging in trolling behaviour and thus he is subject to WP:DENY as far as I am concerned. I cannot make it any more clearer.

Even after I mentioned that other editors' talk-pages are not to be used as a venue for airing gripes and that Wikisunn's or my talk-page may be an appropriate venue, he still does not get the hint after indulging in the same behaviour at Arbitrator Charles Matthews' talk-page. Wikisunn, this is my last message to you for the foreseeable future: please stop trolling me. If you continue to act in an irresponsible manner then that is your lookout, not mine. Now please leave me alone. Ekantik ^talk 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt wheel war evidence page

An SPA (presumably an existing editor wanted to be anonymous) called Marcus has posted some odd evidence on the Daniel Brandt case's evidence page. It's been suggested on ANI that a clerk remove that evidence and/or semi the page. What do you think? Newyorkbrad 13:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the evidence by Thebainer and some of the new proposed principles being added in the case, it seems to me that there should be more parties to this case. Or at least that some of these editors be invited to participate. NoSeptember 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the case as I opened it was defined by the referral from Jimbo. Any expansion of the case beyond that would have to come from him or from the arbitrators. Any editor, as you know, can comment on the talkpage, present evidence, or make workshop proposals. If there is someone who's been mentioned that you think should be made aware of the mention, you or anyone should feel free to let them know. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't assume that Jimbo looked into more than the admin logs of the article, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. And ArbCom did expand the scope of the Pedo wheel war case last year. That said, my purpose was to make sure you guys have considered the issue of additional parties, and now I will assume that you have. These cases have a life of their own beyond my control ;) and my interest as usual is primarily in the principles of desysopping and resysopping, more than in the specifics of the case. NoSeptember 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We are certainly aware of the general events and the evidence presented. If the arbitrators wish to consider other admin actions besides un/deletions, that will become apparent in the workshop, or through their questions to the parties. Either they or we will notify anyone else who seems to be in the line of fire and give them a chance to respond. Thatcher131 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible I can add this? Or where?

Socks or Block evasions:

Batabat
Tengri (Confirmed to be Atabek)
Gazanfar
User talk:158.59.89.27 {AdilBaguirov}
User talk:158.59.89.27 {AdilBaguirov}
User talk:70.108.130.75 {AdilBaguirov}
Mikara (Artaxiad) Artaxiad 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

Per your request, I've fiddled with the RFAR header. Have a look at the dummied up version in my sandbox and see what you think. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to user:sundaram7

I just saw your message in my talk page [[7]]. I dont have any clue about this issue. I am working in a huge organisation with thousands of people working and sharing same proxies and routers. May be others are on wikipedia from same organisaton. Sundaram7 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, however I feel it is unlikely as these accounts all joined Wikipedia about the same time as you and edit the same article and no others. Thatcher131 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a co-incidence that other people are also editing the pages. The message that you have put in the user talk page of user:ganeshco and user:ashokachakra are not correct. Please dont blame for the sockpuppetry. I am not them. For me it looks like a personal attack. You say perhaps and you are not sure. But you have declared that these users are socketpuppet of mine. I would strongly suggest to review this pages and review your blocking strategy. You might have seen agument clashes between useres user:ganeshco, user:ashokachakra and user:bakasuprman. But please dont drag me to this. I am trying to contribute to Wiki from my knowledge. [8] Sundaram7 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gordon Watts RfAr

Hi Thatcher. Would it be possible for you to move some of Gordon's statements onto the RfAr talk page? Specifically, his "rebuttal" sections seem to be growing longer by the minute. Thanks, ChazBeckett 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably have to wait until after work. Thatcher131 14:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikimedia checks aren't paying the bills? ;) Sounds good. Thanks, ChazBeckett 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smileys

In response to your edit summary at WP:ANI, if you're interested in the fate of the smiley templates, the relevant discussion are:

Yours, WjBscribe 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose they aren't very encyclopedic. Oh well. Thatcher131 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for your response. I was just trying to make the case easier to follow for those of us not not privy to private information. Open disclosure of such information should be in the interests of the community. I will be resubmitting my evidence by email per User:ElinorD's suggestion. Catchpole 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find an email address for the Arbitration committee mailing list. Could you please point me in the right direction? You may also want to look at reformatting the various ArbComm pages to make this easier to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catchpole (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the AC doesn't want their private mailing list address to get flooded with spam and trolls. Most of the ArbCom members list their own addresses at WP:AC; you can e-mail any member and ask that it be forwarded to the rest of them. Thanks. Thatcher131 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Request

Hey there, could you possibly take a look at Virginia Tech Hokies Basketball and see if semi-protection is warranted? Lots of vandalism of a relatively new article by anons and the like. Thanks in advance. Arkon 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the Rare and Coveted Rouge Admin award for your actions in this incident. If there was a Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia, they would no doubt be proud of you!

Seriously, this is a token of tongue-in-cheek appreciation for all the hard work you do. And there is no cabal. FNORD. :D Justin Eiler 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please see my response. Daniel Bryant 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIM only. Work for you? Thatcher131 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...but I like /Temp. Daniel Bryant 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take the heat off of you

I took the heat off of you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=111553107&oldid=111552666#EMERGENCY_reply_to_Thatcher

I did the best I could to take responsibility -if not blame -and do what I could to minimise any hard feelings or damage to your reputation. My reputation, however tarred at present -will be OK if I do nothing stupid -I think -because I have the truth on my side on all of my arguments -except maybe the one regarding consensus about the talk page. I may have been initially wrong there ,but that is a minor point -not something I need to bother or worry you about -since you are recused.

Except for small typos or replies -or emergencies like my reply to you -I appear to have no further input.

I'm sure your reputation will be just fine -if you continue on your steady course of duties. Best of luck and bright blessings,

--GordonWatts 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reputation will survive just fine. Unfortunately I gave you bad advice, so I did not feel I could take any further actions with respect to the problems that UnivitedCompany had with your statement. Not a big deal in the long run. Thatcher131 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratbags.com??

It seems the conspiracy of finding out who I am still continues to go round and round (although it should be by-the-by, I am staying out of the sh!tfight although everybody is trying to pull me in). Please feel free to email me and I can discuss with you to hopefully sort out the mess. Shot info 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly relevant. You have some edits to Australian topics, and Ronz pointed to the song lyrics as if you were already familiar with them. But it doesn't really matter. My point is that there are a lot of editors committed to one side or the other of the alternative medicine fights, and I'm concerned that the articles will still be targeted even after Ilena and Fyslee are banned from them. If the article probation is not passed then all of us bystanders will just have to cross oour fingers and hope that Ilena and Fyslee were the only source of the problem. Thatcher131

I must admit, I find it difficult to work out which Australian topics you refer to (not saying that I haven't just cannot recall and cannot readily see them in my edit list). I presume you mean Inco (a Canadian company) and Rheebu Nuu (a New Caledonian activist group)? I really cannot comment on Ronz's comments on the particular songs other than in the context that it was a spoof site (or so it appeared). However if it isn't important, why did you bring it up? However I agree with you sentiments even though I disagree with your linking of me with a POV site. Although it is nice to see that you infer that I am not Stephen Barrett's son something that I didn't need to respond to and something that I note my main accuser has not been taken to task over yet (but this is by-the-by). Shot info 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 :It's not particularly relevant.  You have some edits to Australian topics, and Ronz pointed to the song lyrics as if you were already familiar with them.  But it doesn't really matter.  My point is that there are a lot of editors committed to one side or the other of the alternative medicine fights, and I'm concerned that the articles will still be targeted even after Ilena and Fyslee are banned from them. If the article probation is not passed then all of us bystanders will just have to cross oour fingers and hope that Ilena and Fyslee were the only source of the problem. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]]
 ::I must admit, I find it difficult to work out which Australian topics you refer to (not saying that I haven't just cannot recall and cannot readily see them in my edit list).  I presume you mean [[Inco]] (a Canadian company) and [[Rheebu Nuu]] (a New Caledonian activist group)?  I really cannot comment on Ronz's comments on the particular songs other than in the context that it was a spoof site (or so it appeared).  However if it isn't important, why did you bring it up?  However I agree with you sentiments even though I disagree with your linking of me with a POV site.  Although it is nice to see that you infer that I am not [[Stephen Barrett]]'s son something that I didn't need to respond to and something that I note my main accuser has not been taken to task over yet (but this is by-the-by).  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
+== Could we get a hand at Free Republic? ==
+Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article?  I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician [[Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations]] who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks  - [[User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All|FaAfA]] [[User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All|(yap)]] 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)