User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Balance is the key to all things. For the foreseeable future I will be cutting back on my participation, although not taking a true Wikibreak. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.

Some problems with Elvis related topics

User:Northmeister repeatedly removed quotes that included some critical remarks on Graceland from the Graceland article and included material that praises the National Historic Landmark in its stead. I do not think that this in line with NPOV. It is very interesting that User:Northmeister, who claims on his user page to be an Elvis fan, reappeared on the scene at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of User: Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on Elvis related topics. See [1]. Interestingly, Northmeister has not only removed material from the Graceland article but also the entire critical section on the "Elvis cult and its critics" together with many other sections from the Elvis Presley article. See [2] etc. Some of his edits may indeed make sense but others are not NPOV, as they clearly endeavor to suppress critical remarks concerning the subject. Just one example. Northmeister first removed this passage from Graceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitute this one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See [3], [4]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see [5]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removing these passages from the article. Similar tactics were also used by the sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. I would say this is not O.K. Do you have an idea what I can do? Could it even be that Northmeister is somehow related to the sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo? To my mind there is some suspicion that a group of Elvis fans is endeavoring to whitewash Elvis related Wikipedia articles. Onefortyone 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some additions. To my mind, User:Northmeister is identical, or somehow related to, my former opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW, who also edited under the IPs 66.61.69.65, 24.165.212.202 and 205.188.116.12. These IPs frequently deleted commentaries they didn't like from the Elvis talk page (see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), etc., so that administrators were forced to restore the talk page. See [14]. Soon after, the same passage was again deleted by IP 24.165.212.202 (see [15]), shortly before Ted Wilkes appeared on the scene for the first time with these edits, presumably because his IPs were blocked for vandalizing the Elvis talk page: [16], [17]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes frequently used capital letters in many of his commentaries in order to make a point such as Northmeister does. See [18]. Northmeister (re)appeared contributing to Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (who, to my mind, is also identical with my former opponent Wilkes) were banned for repeatedly removing my contributions (see [19]), and Northmeister also removed large blocks of well sourced material from the Elvis Presley article (see [20]) similar to the material the sockpuppets would usually delete. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. By the way, these sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, primarily created to harass me, also used IPs for their contributions, such as IP 217.196.238.133 (see [29]).

What is more, the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister (see [30]), which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs! How should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not deeply involved in the dispute at that time? Significantly, the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [31].

Interestingly, IP 24.165.212.202 claimed to be someone who knew Elvis all of his life. See [32]. IP 66.61.69.65 said that he is "in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family." See [33]. Furthermore, the same IP is somehow related to entertainment reporter Bill E. Burk, who runs a fan site on Elvis, and to Elvis's former friends, the members of the Memphis Mafia (MM). See [34], [35]. Significantly, Northmeister says on his user page that he has been "a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." He is attacking me when I endeavor to restore passages of text he has removed, calling my well-sourced contributions, without evidence, "trivial, dubious, incorrect quotations" and claiming that I "have some sort of agenda", as Wilkes and his many sockpuppets frequently did in the past when they deleted sourced material that was not in line with their personal opinion. See [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. This is certainly not a coincidence. All this suggests that an Elvis fan such as multiple hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW, or perhaps a small group of Elvis fans under his leadership, has reappeared and is trying to whitewash the Elvis article by removing several well-sourced, but more critical, contributions. I think this is not O.K.

Infoboxes

What the hell is this about? Andy Mabbett 11:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the ban you've handed out to Andy is somewhat inappropriate. I have no position on the composer/infobox issue, and I note that Andy's edits in that area may well be unacceptable. However, most of his work at the moment seems to be on geocoding and microformat work in infoboxes. I suggest that, if you think a ban is appropriate, you should restrict that ban to composer / opera infoboxes; alternatively you should justify the wider ban in light of information about Andy's other editing activities. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think this this is a sensible and proportionate proposal. From the little I have seen (I have been trying to avert my eyes in the hope that it will just go away) some of the geocoding "work" has been as controversial as the infobox "work". Pigsonthewing should consider this as an opportunity to do something else for a change. (Indeed, I see his contributions have continued unabated today, with, as far as I can see, no infringement of this ban.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban that is too narrow is probably more harmful (for the project overall) than one that is too broad. Probation is a last resort measure for editors who have been so disruptive for so long that arbitration was the only remaining remedy, and should be enforced as soon as there are signs of disruption—there is no need to make editors go through yet another cycle of attempted discussion, RFC and so forth. Ultimately the topical ban gives him the chance to edit other areas productively, which a straight block does not. Thatcher131 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to revert this vandalism, but you've prevented that. You've also apparently ignored my reply to your last comment on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"I see his contributions have continued unabated today" Far from it; I have a number of infoboxes waiting to be updated to output microformats, and had planned to do so today. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You may make suggestions on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which would mostly be a waste of my time. You have banned me from editing pages completely unrelated to the current dispute, on the say-so of an abusive sock-pupeteer; and for no good reason. I still await your reply on my talk page, BTW. Andy Mabbett 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I still await your reply on my talk page" - still waiting. Andy Mabbett 09:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting. Andy Mabbett 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting. Andy Mabbett 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett - do you really think this kind if incessant chivvying (5 reminders in 7 days) is likely to trigger any kind of useful response from Thatcher131? Worldtraveller was criticised for this kind of behaviour (of a lesser magnitude - his comments to InShanee were much less frequent, and spread over a much longer period of time) in the InShaneee ArbCom case.

I guess you are asking for a response to your comment here, asking whether Thatcher131 is "aware of the history of those debates" (presumably "those debates" are the several discussions on ANI recently about your conduct in relation to infoboxes) and your invitation for Thatcher131 to "review" his "arbitrary, unwarranted and unjustified action".

Save for Pc1dmn's comment below, I see no reason for any kind of "review" to be required. I find it rather troubling that you are not taking this opportunity to review your own conduct, but rather continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. (I suspect you will now tell me that I am mistaken about that, but there we are.) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had a number of useful (at least to me) exchanges with Andy Mabbett, without any virtual blows being struck. I don't think there is anything controversial about his excellent work on templates (including infoboxes), and I would ask for this part of his ban to be lifted. (Ie he should be permitted to resume unrestricted edits in template-space.) -- roundhouse 10:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is now evidence of controversy going back some weeks re AM's work on templates (see here including the remarks today in the Google support subsection) so I withdraw the remarks above. -- roundhouse 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey - just wanted to say thanks for the article on Template:User committed identity in the signpost. I'm very glad people have found this useful, and it's always nice to see Cryptography get some attention. I made a few changes to the text, including replacing "key" with "commitment" (since "key" is a bad term to use, especially "secret key", for a piece of data that is actually public, and also to link to Commitment scheme which is really the technique being used). Mangojuice^talk 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was following the discussion on the noticeboard about handshaking each others' PGP keys and I'm glad this rather simpler and more elegant solution was proposed. Saves me from having to learn to use PGP for one thing. :) Thatcher131 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69

Hello, user Dacy69 violated his parole, and his argument is basically that Wikipedia rules dont apply to him: [42] I dont want to have to waste my time and debate Wikipedia's rules with him. I reported him for his parole violation and the comments speak for themselves.Azerbaijani 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

After you read the Arbcom page, you may also want to read this: [43] I hope this situation can be remedied quickly.Azerbaijani 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now these users are making more false accusations. These users are disruptive editors, they make and then break compromises, they trade reverts, they blatantly make false accusations against other users, which can be considered a personal attack, etc... what does it take for a user to get banned? Do I have to take this harassment and abuse everyday on Wikipedia? They're trying to run me out of here by continuously abusing and harassing me. what am I supposed to do?Azerbaijani 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, pls. read this as a whole [44] and check sockpuppet user requests [45], [46]. The whole thing and complain was started by Azerbaijani. He once was already to put on hold for revert parole violation [47]. Page safavid Dynasty is being vandalised by several socks replacing each other whom user:Azerbaijani defend--Dacy69 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please read everything and notice how Dacy proved himself wrong on the Arbcom noticeboard, which showed that he was purposely trying to make a false accusation against me. I also explained why I defended the anon, not because I wanted to waste my time, but because I had to, because Atabek made false accusations to manipulate an Admin just so that Dacy could get away with violating his parole.Azerbaijani 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Report

Thanks very much for covering for me - I really appreciate it. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thatcher131 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing?

By what divine right are you allowed to censor discussion of p*dophilia-related topics at WP:AN/I? Has the arbcom forgotten what "arbitration" means?? There is no policy that allows this. Please revert yourself. -Jillium 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be no public discussion. If you revert it I will block you. This has happened several times before and the arbitrators themselves have removed the discussions and frozen the page if necessary. Some topics are too sensitive and carry too much danger of bringing the project into disrepute to be discussed openly, not to mention disruptive. I suggest you contact Fred Bauder or any other arbitrator by email. Thatcher131 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I call bullshit. "contact Fred Bauder" == "talk to the hand", as I've contacted Bauder on this issue and gotten no response. I am certainly no defender of pedophilia, I believe my record shows that; but it is both weak and stupid to give in to moral panic on this issue. The Wikipedia is allowed to ban whomever it wants to, but there is no reason not to be public and aboveboard. Herostratus 03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Now User:Northmeister has gone too far! Sorry that I cannot assume good faith any more.

• A devoted Elvis fan, Northmeister still removes well sourced material not only from Elvis Presley (see [48], [49]) but also fromGraceland. See [50], [51], [52]. He even denies that there is an Elvis cult at Graceland, although many sources say that this is the case. See [53].
• What is more, Northmeister not only removed my well-sourced contributions from article pages but has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively in a very heated manner two years ago and placed it in the current talk page in order to harass me. See [54]. Significantly, this is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [55], [56]. In his recent edit, Northmeister even confuses me with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of the 2005 edit war with Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit war with me at that time?

• It should again be noted that the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs!

Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? The said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [57].

• More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading as a user from Duesburg (see [58]). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• Some additional facts concerning Northmeister's edits of 2006. As has already been mentioned, this user first appeared on the Wikipedia scene on 5 February 2006. It should be remembered that around the same time Ted Wilkes had created some other sockpuppets: User:Danny B. and User:Cynthia B.. The history of Northmeister clearly shows that his aggressive behavior is very similar to that of Wilkes. Like Wilkes, Northmeister is very interested in Elvis Presley and, apart from some edits he called "improvements", this user, from the beginning of his appearance, frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs from the Elvis article which were not in line with his personal view. See these old edits: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. This is also very similar to Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics. Furthermore, it is very interesting that, in the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See, for instance, [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. See also these comments concerning Northmeister's accusation that User:Will Beback allegedly violated the three revert rule. [82], [83]. Interestingly, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes also frequently violated the three revert rule and repeatedly accused me of "outright fabrications" or "vandalism" in the past. Is it just by chance that Northmeister accused Will Beback of "outright vandalism" (see [84]) and of harrassing him (see [85])? Compare also these edits: [86], [87] and [88].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202. 80.141.245.140 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi mate,

i see you´ve block me because of the trouble. Dear mate, we have no trouble more (Arian bro and me(Tajik-Professor)). He thought i am a person who claim himself Pashtun and i thought he was a Pashtun. Now it´s clear. Plz; unblock me again. Thanks and best regards --84.58.240.27 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale

Can you please provide a detailed justification for blocking Gwen Gale? I'd like to see the evidence. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

She has admitted it in e-mail to me after I blocked her. I obviously can not share that with you. She was prohibited from making edits related to homosexuality at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. She was also placed on general probation, and any three admins can agree to place restrictions on her editing, up to and including a one year ban, for disruption, based on the same arbitration case. I can see that she has been edit warring. I have not looked to see how or why or against whom, but edit warring is never justified. If her defense is, "I was only edit warring because I had to respond to so-and-so", that is a reason for RFC, mediation or even arbitration, not edit warring in return. She has edited in violation of her topical ban. An admin discussion on her probation is warranted, I believe, by recent edit warring. Thatcher131 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit history

I have a question: when I try to look at the edit history of an article now, the display is totally different than it used to be, and it doesn't show the two text blocks with the changes in red like it used to. I see this on all the articles I attempt to view the changes of. Has there been some major change recently in the way this is done, or did I do something that caused the display toi change? Is there some way to change it back?

For instance, I looked at many changes an editor did to Timothy Leary, and can't see a before and after version. I tried making changes myself, and can't see before and after versions of them, either, just the beginnings of a few sentences. I made several changes, but I can only view part of what I did at the very beginning of the paragraph.

Did I miss something going on in Wikipedia while working on List of Marvel Comics mutants? Rosencomet 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of has changed, and I still see the diffs (green for new and yellow for removed) above the page when I look at a diff. Try emptying your browser cache, history and cookies, then restarting your computer and logging in again. Thatcher131 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, ban -jkb-

You may remember my endless quarrel with -jkb-. You have asked us both not to import here the drama from cs:. -jkb- breached this, that's why I ask you to ban him. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

---

oh well, so see meta:Requests for CheckUser information#Cross check Commons / sk:wiki / en:wiki please (after deletion: [89]. -jkb- 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

Can I just clarify his revert parole please? Given that he was banned for a year, I would have assumed any other sanctions (such as the revert parole) would apply from the end of his ban not run concurrently? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally they run concurrently. He was placed on revert parole on 9 Dec 2005, then banned for a year in a separate vote on 25 Jan 2006. Revert parole might be a very good idea but as far as I understand things it is no longer in effect. You can file a request for clarification on WP:RFAR and ask that the revert parole be reinstated. It would probably be better than selective topic bans. Thatcher131 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of edit warring over the infobox on Sutton Coldfield is false and defamatory. Kindly remove it. Andy Mabbett 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, no. Thatcher131 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence to support it, lest people think you're a liar. Andy Mabbett 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried. Thatcher131 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but you are a liar. Andy Mabbett 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)