User talk:Thatcher/Archive16

Wolfowitz

Yes, the latest issue was on Wolfowitz' BLP. I'm sorry I didn't provide context; I rushed those two noticeboard posts, and I'm always wary of maybe revealing too much given the sensitivity of this conflict. I've had a longstanding issue with DS inserting links to his own Wikinews articles - he's done it perhaps a dozen times - but after our conflict on that arbcom case (THF-DavidShankBone) I let it drop. When he started editing THF's BLP again, that's when I started watching again. ATren 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm detaching from this conflict. I'm sick of being attacked ("And now we have the other ArbCom warrior who is also adept at trolling my edits") every time I object to David's edits. I've been civil through all my dealings with him, even when he was raising an unrelated year-old dispute in every discussion. It's clear he will never let this thing go, and it's also clear that nobody is willing to do anything about it. If you have any questions about my involvement with David, feel free to ask. I stand by everything I've every done in that conflict. ATren 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley and Onefortyone

I realize you may be busy; I'm new at this complainin' stuff and read of your involvement with 141 in a dispute. I want to flag up his continued disruption to improvements sought by reasonable editors of the Presley article. Can someone like you take a look? 141 is on the verge of driving good people away for good - including me. If we have to take a particular course of action, I worry it will be time consuming. Thank you anyway. Rikstar 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very interesting that user Rikstar has used your first edit concerning the harassing activities of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo and his many sockpuppets in order to promote a personal agenda. See [1]. My behavior is certainly not disruptive as I am frequently citing my sources, among them mainstream biographies, university studies and articles by reputed authors. What Rikstar has cited was posted before you were aware of these activities. You also wrote,

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He found the above list of confirmed sockpuppets. All are banned, except Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo who was blocked for a week pending review of the situation. Thatcher131 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) See [2].

Therefore, you immediately lifted all of my bans because they were wrongly set. See [3].

There is much evidence that I am still the target of some few Elvis fans, as I was in the past. See this older statement by administrator Redwolf24 who said that Wilkes and Wyss were harassing me, "and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." The arbcom was of the same opinion. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the same deleting tactics concerning similar topics now continue. The arbcom clearly says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [4]. So why are many of my edits relating to the Elvis Presley article frequently removed by one or two other users? You may also remember my commentaries here. Onefortyone 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Onefortyone is on probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. Rikstar, you can request enforcement at WP:AE. Please include a link to the case and some diffs showing disruptive behavior that you think warrants a ban. Please note that quoting my original block message without also quoting the resolution [5] is somewhat misleading. Also, both of you should be aware that when dealing with a person about whom many credible biographies have been written, deciding which sources to use and how to use them is a matter for editorial judgement. Disagreements should be handled by seeking outside help through the RFC or third opinion process, at least to start. Thatcher131 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

reply

Thatcher, I was contacted by friend to write a short answer ... I am Tajik and not the other IP who posted the text above ... first of all, you have not explained anything ... I wrote 5 E-Mails to you, asking you for help ... you did not reply any of them ... you simply ignored me ... The Arbitrators endorsed the ban based on your wrong accusation ... an accusation that has been disproved by CheckUser! ... during the ArbCom case, I was in Berlin and I had asked all of your for a short break ... meanwhile, User:Tajik-Professor began to vandalize certain articles, and you took advantage of the case and accused me of having a sockpuppet ... Not even User:E104421, my alleged opponent in the ArbCom believed this nonsense ... various other users, including User:Ali_doostzadeh, User:KP Botany, User:E104421, admin User:Alex Bakharev, etc have told you and others to investigate the case, but it is mainly you who is blocking this ... It is not silly that certain IPs edit articles ... Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia ... but it is silly that admins like you abuse their posistion and power in order to get rid of people they do not like ... It is also very interesting that by now, my alleged sockpuppet User:Tajik-Professor has been unbanned and that various vandals from the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom are allowed to come back after 1 year, but I will be still blocked because of your wrong accusation.

I do not understand why you are unable to admit your mistake ... and I do not understand why you do not want to give me a second chance, a chance to explain my case ... I was muzzled by the manipulated ArbCom, and you want to keep me muzzled ... instead, you hide yourself behind this manipulated and illegal ArbCom decision ... You were the one who came up with the wrong accusation, you were the one who manipulated the ArbCom case, and you are the one who has been disproved by CheckUser ... so, actually, it is your duty to re-investigate the case or at least to open another ArbCom case. What are you affraid of, Thatcher?! That you lose your admin rights?! 82.83.134.144 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Email ArbCom. Thatcher131 03:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom has been emailed 8 times (!) ... in addition, Ali_doostzadeh has also wrote an email since the arbitrators seem to ignore my mails ... out of 8 emails, only 1 was replied (!) ... and do you know the answer? They told me that I should contact you ... and now you are telling me that I should write another email?! 82.83.132.216 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raul654. You may or may not want to certify the basis for that dispute. I used your request upon Raul654 as part of the evidence. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I am confused: why you block Giovanni Giove but don't block flamer DIREKTOR who violating his restriction in editing???? Why DIREKTOR edits in Istrian exodus???? Regards, LEO 17 nov 2007

I don't monitor people's edits, I sometimes monitor and respond to reports of Arbitration violations at WP:AE. If you believe DIREKTOR has violated the terms of his revert limitation you may report it there. If you have other complaints you can report them to WP:ANI. Thatcher131 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Violations?

Sorry to bother you, but on User:Giovanni Giove's talkpage you stated: "You can report violations by DIREKTOR at WP:AE. Thatcher131 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)".
I'd just like to no if you were talking in general or refering to specific violations, in other words, did I violate the restriction somehow? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Istrian exodus matter, I reverted once on 22nd October and once more on the 17th of November (History page: [6]). While an "unidentified" IP user made huge (badly spelled) reverts far more frequently than once per week, his frequent grammar mistakes are looking oddly familiar. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni made a comment to the effect of "why are punishing me and not him." I was merely advising him of the proper procedure should he feel there has been a violation. Thatcher131 13:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, thnx. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Raguseo

Yes, thank you.

You might also be interested to view User talk:Ragusan#Confirmed sockpuppet. User:Ragusino and User:Raguseo are probably him. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Ragusan and Moroccan Spaniard are too old to check. I think that if Ragusino was an obvious sockpuppet of Raguseo (or vice versa) it would have shown up on the check, but it wouldn't hurt to ask for a recheck. Thatcher131 13:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots

I was always interested in bots, but never really got to find out about them. Could you lend me some aid perhaps? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Try the people at WP:BAG. Thatcher131 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/U

A page to which you have significant contributions, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

i just saw your comment on Dalmatia 2 and wanted to say thanks for your involvement. These two need to be separated, wouldn't you agree? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is more problematic editing than from just the two editors named in that case. Thatcher131 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for starting of RFCU.
Now that You've cleared mine status, it'd be nice if You request CU's (checkuser's) services regarding user Giovanni Giove and its possible sockpuppets/meatpuppets.
Personally, I thought that user DIREKTOR was Giove's strawpuppet (I've told that to user DIREKTOR on his talkpage, see User_talk:DIREKTOR/Archive_2).
Now, let's return to Giovanni Giove. I was postponing my request for CU regarding Giove's case, because I was busy on other articles (different topics), in which I came to situations that I required CU's services. Too much requesting for those might seem annoying (especially if my suspicions prove wrong; that way I'll risk CU's ignorance towards my requests, and I don't want that), unless you give good "coverage" for your suspicions.
One cannot go to checkuser and say "I think it's him, check it".
But, I believe that admin can do that. I think that we may have a puppet theater... Compare the edits from user:Giovanni Giove, user:Cherso, user:RomanoDD, user:London321 (similar interest, "intervention" with same edits when 3RR was about to occur, registration solely for the purpose of support...).
Possibly the latter three are accounts of some previously banned users (user:GiorgioOrsini, user:NovaNova).
Also, there's a possibility that it might be the person with whome Giove and/or Orsini are in contact. Though, in that case, we cannot do anything, because we're dealing with the 3rd person.
Also, it's possible that Giove, Orsini or their lookalikes act from an other computer, from other location (public library, faculty, internet club...). The IP check might not be helpful anymore, but the edit pattern and vocabulary etc. is easy to recognise.
Regarding user:Argyriou (that appeared out of nowhere on almost closed RFARB and on WP:AN/Incidents, after being months away... to defend Giove???).
Read his conversations and attitude toward the opponents (e.g. "You are not welcome to post on my talk page any more" [7] from 23 Feb 2007). That's our "discussion boy". His too easy use of words like "fanatical nationalist" might be understood as personal attack.
If You want to see more of his discussion approach, see the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik/Archive 1. Just type "Αργυριου" or "Argiriou". There You'll see my discussion with him.
Also, please, read Argyriou's message on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia: "User:Kubura was utterly unwilling to actually discuss anything - he merely restated that he was right, and that anyone else was wrong, and reverted any edit which did not agree with his extreme-nationalist POV."[8].
"Extreme nationalism" [9] is very heavy word. That's etiquetting. Does he know the meaning of that expression at all?
"Kubura...unwilling to discuss anything" [10]? That's blatant lie. Just type Ctrl+F and "Kubura" and read my messages on the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik/Archive 1. Those with external links to academic institutions.
"... User:Giovanni Giove...was amenable to reasonable discussion"??? Argyriou wrote that on 13 Oct 2007, after I wrote all my evidence on the RFARB. Has he ever read what I wrote there? Has Argyriou ever read any content of the talkpages of disputed articles?
Personally, I was mostly present on Talk:Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik, and I'm mostly familiar with the all discussions on those pages (I've visited some other article and article talkpages, but I'm not that familiar with all discussions there).
When one is pointing a finger to someone in order to blame him/her, also have in mind who pointed the finger.
Sorry for being too long, but I needed to provide You more info regarding those accusers.
I hope this'd be helpful. If You need any comments or explanations, please, contact me. Kubura (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding user:Argyriou, here's more [11]. Recent block, 18 Oct 2007. Kubura (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At this time, broad remedies are not in place with respect to Dalmatia-related articles, so Arbitration sanctions apply only to Giove and DIREKTOR. If you believe Giove is using sockpuppets, you can file your own RFCU. Regarding other editors, the dispute resolution process starts with a Request for comment on disputed article content, to get additional opinions, or mediation, and if an editor is a continual problem, an RFC on the editor. Thatcher131 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can start it, but it'd be fair if you start it (since you've already started an RFCU regarding me [12], [13]).
To be correct, your starting of an RFCU hurted me. What did I do in the Dalmatia case, that it woke your suspicion towards me... and, on the other hand, you haven't done a bit to investigate Giove's behaviour (just read the RFARB/Dalmatia/Evidence and the talkpages of that case), nor filed an RFCU against his possible sockpuppets/meatpuppets? What does make Giove more "cooperating" than me?
Also, the RFCU that you've started isn't correctly fullfilled. You gave a request to investigate relations between me, "user:Anto", user:DIREKTOR and user:Raguseo.
"User:Anto" doesn't exist at all, it's only in his signature. You should have point with the mouse over his signature, and you'd see then his username.
Please, be thorough, Thatcher. If you did so in the "studying" of this case, then it worries me.
You mention the expanding of the sanctions (???), "if the editors he was warring against have been acting in concert". Not to mention the "elevating" the case to higher wiki-instances.
Look better. Giove's opponents weren't acting in concert, the opponents were mostly trying to discuss with him, see the talkpage (few of them did violated 3RR: DIREKTOR and No.13).
In fact, if you've noticed, on the RFARB/Dalmatia/Evidence, I wasn't reporting Giove's 3RR violations: I've pointed towards completely different problems in Giove's behaviour, that I find more serious. Ordinary violation of 3RR rule doesn't need an RFARB to be sanctioned.
Did you know that I've tried to communicate with Giove directly (besides all article talkpages)? You cannot see that in his talkpage, because Giove hasn't archived his talkpage, but simply deleted it. So here's my message that I've posted to him on 26 June 2007 [14]. Then follow the discussion (other Croatian users 've tried to talk with him also, you'll see that). Then you'll see that you're dealing with a troll (I must use that word, I allow that to myself after over 14 months of arguing with him).
Now, I'll return to my message from yesterday. I was following the discussion on the talk:Republic of Dubrovnik, but since DIREKTOR began flooding the talk with his posts, I've ...abstained a bit, and to tell the truth, I wasn't reading the tirade and arguing that followed; only few times I've posted.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

moved User:Thatcher131/Clerks archivebox to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Clerks archivebox

I moved this template, for I thought it didn't make any sense to have it in the user space :). Let's free the userfied templates, brothers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Advise on Church and School of Wicca Please

Dear Thatcher,

I was hoping you could advise me on what I think may become a problem. I recently went through a long but quite civil discussion with another editor (Fuzzypeg) about the "controversy" section of the Church and School of Wicca article, concerning the defamation of the founder of the organization and the presence of a section that contained a good deal of non-factual evidence, was based on a single mis-quoted article, and which was contradicted and/or clarified by other articles by the same author. The discussion went well, and we came to an agreement. However, a new editor who has never contributed to Wikipedia has ignored all that and returned the entire text, and has accused me of being "associated" with the founder (which I am not, except that years ago he spoke at an event I help organize, as have over a hundred speakers).

Just to give you what I think is an important piece of background, there is an individual who has been pursuing a campaign against this Church and the founders named A.J. Drew. He has been the organizer of an event called The Real Witches' Ball for many years, and this year he lost all his major speakers because he announced, and then hosted, a ritual there in which effigies of the founders were molested in front of the attendees. I suspect that this new editor may be a sympathizer with Drew's cause, or might actually be him. His behaviour has ostracized him with the majority of the Neo-Pagan community, and by his own admission may result in the end of his event and a lawsuit as well. But he continues to pursue this course.

I do NOT wish to be part of a flame war, but I feel that the edits I made were well justified and documented. I hope you will take the time to review them on the talk page of the article, and perhaps advise me as to how I can stop the article from being a vehicle for character assasination rather than a description of the subject. Thanks in advance.Rosencomet (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At a first glance, the controversial information in Church and School of Wicca violates the rules on biographies of living people regarding addition of unverified negative information. Such information can be be removed without regard to the 3 revert rule, and you can also report this situation (if it resumes) to the BLP noticeboard to request assistance. At to this edit, he has a point that Frost's qualifications (PhD and DD) should be sourced to something more reliable than someone's personal web site, or a web site with a built-in conflict. (In other words, a wiccan web site probably does not meet the reliable source guidelines in this case, as the personal web site of a Christian evangelist would probably not be considered reliable regarding the evangelists own biography.) You may want to work on this. Thatcher131 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the information. I'm not sure where else to go for the degrees an author claims in his bio, especially if you are saying that a religious person or clergyman can't use a website associated with his religion as a source. His degrees are listed in his bio in some of his books, but I don't have a link to that. Here, though, is one other source I've found that might work: [15].Rosencomet (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Credentials are often a problem regarding biographies of people of limited notability, especially when their credentials are challenged. Such people lack the truly in depth biographical coverage of a Margaret Thatcher or George Bush, for example. You might look for a newspaper article that describes the person and his work; if it describes his credentials, you can use that on the preseumption that a newspaper wouldn't report it as true if it hadn't been checked. Of course, this is not always true, but it is a permissable presumtion and overrides the objection, unless the objection has an equal or better source. Thatcher131 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive WP:ANI thread

Bravo — I think that was a good call. I was trying to move it in that direction at the end, but you know... --Haemo (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

After 3 days of conversation about whether or not to archive, well... Thatcher131 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you please explain what exactly you have done with archiving? There were several pages where discussion was ongoing. Than you made several moves, deletions, etc and I can't make sense of what happened. What exactly did you move, copied, pasted and where? TIA, --Irpen (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up on the first rename (move). Ultimately, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor was moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330, which puts it back in the normal hierarchy of AN/I archives. I felt that simply closing it would leave it as an orphan page with a strange name that no one would be able to find unless they knew exactly what to look for. Now it is back as part of the normal AN/I archive pages. Thatcher131 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik

Beh-nam, you should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik, especially Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. Eight Arbitrators endorsed the finding of fact that Tajik had engaged in sockpuppetry to continue editing while claiming to be "too busy" to engage in mediation (which he had agreed to do to avoid arbitration). Even if some of the alleged sockpuppets are not him (which I am not in a position to evaluate) the broad finding remains, and has been endorsed by Arbitrators who do have access to the checkuser information. As I have explained to Tajik many times (and the idea that the anonymous person posting repeatedly to my talk page, as well as emailing me, and posting other places, is not Tajik himself is just silly) he may appeal to the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How can he appeal to the Arbitration commitee if he is banned? And I don't blame him for not taking part in the initial arbitration because it was very SILLY to suggest that he was Tajik-Professer and he must have been frustrated with it. Has anyone even looked at Tajik-Professors contributions? They are not anything like Tajik's... for example: Tajik-Professor asked me for help... why would Tajik (a veteran editor) ask me for help!? Take a look here. He asks me to add a map for him. Why would Tajik ask me that? He knows how to do that. Clearly Tajik-Professor was a brand new user and I am the one that actually invited him to join Wikipedia (though I regret it now). So why have the Admins not looked at the contributions? They clearly show they are not the same person. Yes, they have a similar IP, because they both live in Germany... but they live in DIFFERENT parts of Germany and their IPs have a significant difference. The Admins were just rushing and were influenced by the manipulations user: Atabek who spreads around his Pan-Turkist POVs and wanted a way to ban Tajik. I would be really frustrated if I was Tajik and I wouldn't bother asking for an appeal because it's so ridiculous! He is banned now so he cannot appeal, can you please start an appeal for him? -- Behnam (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can appeal his ban by emailing the Arbitration Committee via the email address given at WP:AC. This is the only route of appeal for users banned by ArbCom. Thatcher131 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher, I posted this on ANI as well. User:Beh-nam keeps insulting me on my talk page, he did so today for a second time [16]. The previous attempt was in September [17]. Atabek (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beh-nam needs to stop carrying Tajik's water. Banned users have a valid route of appeal, via email to ArbCom, and protests, complaints and edits on behalf of banned users are likely to get one banned as a proxy editor. Thatcher131 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Very weak, Thatcher. You had been told before that Tajik did try to contact the Arbitration Committee. But his mails are being ignored. The same way, he has told many times that you ignore his mails. And most recently, User:Ali_doostzadeh has requested an investigation, and his emails are being ignored as well. I took this to User:Jimbo Wales and also asked Tajik to write a short comment. But admins once again ignored. This is not a mistake or failure of Tajik. It all started with you and your injust block. And it continues to this day. And what surprises me most is that you are now even threatening User:Beh-nam. What the hell is wrong with you, Thatcher?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.44 (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no influence over whether ArbCom answers your email, either individually or collectively. I hope that they would communicate with you, of course, but I have no way of knowing whether or not they have. I do note that while you are pursuing your request to be unblocked you are also making disruptive and contentious edits to topics related to Azerbaijan etc., which will certainly weigh against any request. Your best hope would be to apologize and agree to reopen the Arbitration case involving your previous (and current) behavior. You give me too much credit if you think my original block persuaded ArbCom to confirm the block in the face of insufficient evidence, especially as the Arbitrators had access to the underlying checkuser data while I did not. Please pursue this through ArbCom. Thatcher131 11:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

a) I am not Tajik, maybe you should contact him (write him an email). b) everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia and not everyone needs to sign up. c) which of my edits do you regard as disruptive? There are other users who openly use IP socks and vandalize articles (they also personally attack other users), but the admins don't do anything against it. One such case is User:Moorudd with various of his IP socks (see here). He removing references and valuable information. At the same time, his edits are coordinated with those of User:E104421 (who has recently been put on a 1RR parole). This is meatpuppetry. You are the admin, you can check this and you will see that I am right. Do not point fingers at others and do not see Tajik where he is not. Tajik has quit Wikipedia and you know that. I am active in the German Wikipedia (which, by the way, has a much higher quality than this Wikipedia) and I do not intend to waste my time in here with corrupt admins and silly "Armenia vs. Azerbaijan vs. Iran vs. Turkey vs. Afghanistan vs. Pakistan vs. India vs. all the rest" wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.141.78 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Arbcom banned user and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to

Since you're an Arbitration Committee clerk, I thought I'd let you know about the above templates.... I have converted these to use the new ambox format. Feel free to revert me if you want. I made these changes so the templates would look better.

Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 16:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For you good sir

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for the following links:

recycling and bigfoot. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation resolution

Hi. Following up here on your question on the Signpost article talkpage (since as Ral315 indicates that's probably not a sensible place for this). I was working off what appears to be the current version of the Foundation resolution, updated in June. This one has a slightly different wording of paragraph 2. In particular, note how the word "including" age verification is changed to "which may include." Then in paragraph 4, the resolution specifically applies to checkusers, oversighters, and stewards, but does not expressly mention arbitration committees (even though one of the Board members is a former arbitrator herself and served on the committee with an underage member, so the issue must have crossed her mind). The inference I drew was that the Board had decided to leave the issue of whether arbitrators must meet the age requirement as a local decision, or at a minimum, that the policy was ambiguous and could reasonably be construed in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you should bug Anthere about the change to #2, which removed one of the two main purposes of the resolution when narrowly parsed as you have done. Regarding the rest, I stand by my conclusion that since the policy bars minors from access to data disclosed through checkuser, ArbCom had the choice of adopting an age limit or of creating a two-tiered system in which minors would not be able to participate in discussion of any case involving such information. Thatcher131 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an intermediate interpretation is also quite possible under which minors could not themselves be checkusers (and thus in a position to decide unilaterally which checks to run), but I see no issue with an editor who is legally a minor, but is sufficiently trusted by the community to be elected to the committee, having access to the information supplied by an adult checkuser as one member of a 15-member committee or a 40-member mailing list. As a matter of principle, I still think that a minimum age for arbitrators is unnecessary and derogates from our ethos of equal rights and opportunities for every editor. However ... I seem to be the only one who feels strongly about this (even the two younger editors who were forced to drop out of the election when the ruling was announced seem to have adjusted and moved on with their lives :) ), so I don't expect to press the issue further at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deecee voice

Please note this - it is my intention to unban/unblock Deeceevoice from editing on Afrocentrism and other topical articles, as her most recent edits seem to me to be constructive, and she seems to be making an effort to engage others constructively (and effort, I note, that in my opinion has not been reciprocated by one or two other editors). I hope this is sufficient. I will be travelling for a few days and will not have access to Wikipedia - if any technical changes must be made I hope another sysop can help out. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:_Songgarden

I believe you are mistaken about the events surrounding the block of Songgarden and the reasons for same. No big deal, but Flonight was not a checkuser when Durova claimed that she was??? Sorry to bust the bubble. Once...was blocked by JzG for ? 200.107.53.253 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Durova as a sock of Amorrow. The reason was changed to sock of Once and Forever by FloNight. Although FloNight did not have checkuser access at that time, she is a member of the Arbitration committee and has access to privileged communication between checkusers, or could have contacted a checkuser privately. I myself have placed "Checkuser" blocks, although I usually list the name of the checkuser whom I contacted. You are essentially accusing FloNight of lying, which I do not accept. For the present, Songgarden is banned and his/her contributions may be reverted and his/her IPs may be blocked. Songgarden may appeal by sending email directly to the Arbitration Committee. Thatcher131 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131, with all repect that is now good and due to you, I would like you to read the record offered to you as to when Flonight gained her access to the checkuser status. It is available right above in the Songgarden evidence page. Good faith and common sense tell us that Durova was the one not being truthful. If Songgarden is forced to take his block to the Arbcom., there will be plenty of verifiable attempts at getting the issue resolved prior to same. This is my final communication with you. Save it to archive, please. Thank you. In re: Songgarden November 27, 2007 From U.S, IP. Public...Tandem/link off...ab. Cc. SM. 75.53.133.150 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very clever. Your behavior indicates that no matter who you are, banning as someone more interested in stirring up trouble than in contributing to the encyclopedia is probably a good idea. Good luck with Arbcom. Thatcher131 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

Hi, Thatcher131. I noticed that User:Tajik is posting several messages to your talk page as well as mine under anonymous ips. Now, he is causing disruption more than ever, since he's trying provoke other users. As he did here: [18],[19],[20],[21]. Tajik was banned by ArbCom, after anonymous ip and User:German-Orientalist issues. Unfortunately, User:Beh-nam is colloborating with him and spamming messages to other users, too. As he did here:[22],[23],[24]. In addition, Beh-nam posted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/E104421 but in his comments used the same style of Tajik, misrepresented my parole, and accused me of sock/meat-puppetry. How can i get rid of Tajik's disruption? User:Picaroon advised me to apply WP:AIV, and quote this diffs. What do you recommend me to do? Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just banned Beh-nam. For article edits you can revert them and then request at AIV for the IP to be blocked. Since he acquires new IPs rapidly, a 24 hour block is all that is really needed. If he is focusing on a few articles, you can go to Requests for page protection and ask that the article be semi-protected to block IP editors. Thatcher131 12:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Thatcher. I have just declined to unblock Beh-nam. I think it would be useful for future review if you could document on his talk page the previous warnings you referred to. I sense some sockpuppetry. Was that Tajik or Beh-nam? Its difficult as an outside admin making valid reviews of complex cases like this so if there is a summary hanging around somewhere you can link to, it would be really helpful. Something tells me that we haven't heard the last from this editor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to provide some information on the latest warnings. I warned User:Beh-nam several times in my talk page [25], in Beh-nam's talk page [26], and posted two warning messages to the talk pages of the articles as a reminder [27],[28] for both Beh-nam and Tajik (anonymous ips). Thatcher131 warned him [29]. Dmcdevit also warned him (i do not know how many times, i'm adding the recent ones) [30],[31],[32],[33], [34]. There is a discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page [35], too. It's difficult to document all of the discussions on Tajik-related issues but i think the recent ones (from November 2007) provide enough information on the case. Regards. E104421 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a note on Beh-nam's talk page with some diffs. Thatcher131 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My last block

Thank you from un blocking me. But anyway I do not consider valid my 2 days block, because I actually did NOTHING, and I do not understand the reasons for it. I am not guilty if Steel trusted to some users acting in bad faith adopting a biased behaviour !Giovanni Giove 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Just FYI, WP:ANI#Giovanni Giove (redux). – Steel 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call

...here. I was getting ready to do that. John Reaves 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was waiting for one more post to WT:RFAR but then I checked and saw he was trolling Giano too. Unacceptable. Thatcher131 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Aynabend

Hi, Could you please have a look at this: [[36]] Thank you in advance. --Aynabend 06:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

beh-nam

beh-nam is evading indef ban by using several annon IPs to vandalise pages... Special:Contributions/64.229.16.84 and Special:Contributions/67.68.54.87 and Special:Contributions/65.95.145.19.--LarrySpin 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk status

My page and the clerk page show you as no longer a clerk (NYB indicated you retired in August), yet I see you doing clerk functions. What is your status? If you previously retired, when did you return? Or were you really just inactive for a while? Cheers, NoSeptember 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I fit into any particular pigeon hole. I retired, rather than list myself as inactive, for several reasons, one of which is that I do not intend to open or close or babysit any more cases. However, I still sometimes chat with the other clerks on IRC, and if I see something that needs doing, I may occasionally do it. Feel free to categorize me in any way you prefer. Thatcher131 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Senior status :) NoSeptember 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as we do not refer to the rule of 80. Thatcher131 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I claim the right to defend me

I was preparing a comment on my talk page, to show why my ban is uncorrect and excessive. I had not the right to reply to my last block, and to defend my self. As a consequence a block of one week, was changed into a permanent block and ban. My request is based on the following therms (see the link. [37]) I was judged as a consequence of several violations that I *never* did and about a supposed "general incivility" based on few minor accidents: I never inserted insults in my edits, despite the kbyte of insults I've received. So, I simply refuse the label of "uncivil", and I can provide several arguments for this claim. I do not ask my unblocking for now, but just the right to edit in my talk page to show my good faith. Nevertheless and administrator has blocked my page. See [38]. Not only I am a good contributor, but I was sentenced on the base of false evidences, and I can provide sources for my claim (and I was working for this). Most of all, the claim I reverted the edits "I did not like", is false: I've reverted just the edits offensive claims, as (I thought) it was my right, I did it in good faith (as usual) and perhaps because nobody defended me. Regards. user:Giovanni Giove, 16:07, 4 December 2007

I support the above claim. It seems there it is a well orchestrated "attack" against Giove by a group of Serbocroatians (centered around user:Kubura).

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of Giovanni Giove by User:AlasdairGreen27, a "boy living in Ljubiana" (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th)), even if there were undeniable proofs that my IP is totally unrelated with that of Giove (I live in Florida, while he lives in Italy). Please read:Conclusions This Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni_Giove_(3rd) shows Cherso is unrelated to Giove. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since last year Kubura has continuously provoked Giove, irritating him even in the Italian wikipedia. The minimum of offense this croat writes is to call ignorant whoever disagrees with his croatian POV (totally based on unreliable references from the Tito era). There it is an enormous and incredible amount of edits by this Kubura requiring everything against Giove from many users and admins: just read, please, his talkpage & contributions in the last years. Kubura has even been accused of using many "sockpuppets" by another user named Paxequilibrium, but in the "conclusion" of the case he has not been totally cleared by sure proofs. And the "boy living in Ljubiana", who has just accused me, repeats the exact phrases of this Kubura and writes edits to many users in the same way....

Now that these croatian users have "destroyed" Giove with a ban, who is going to face (with continuous edits from the Italian side) their croatian nationalistic POVs in the dalmatian topics? That is why they have provoked him - day after day, month after month - to do histerical edits (that generated a ban by admins who seems "too much friendly" toward the croatian side). I am now afraid that the croatian group (Kubura, Zenanarh, Direktor, etc..) has obtained fully the wanted objective: Free hands to do whatever they want on the Dalmatia-related articles of the English Wikipedia.

This is why I hope that you can help him with his ban. May be he can reach an agreement with you.

Sincerely. An old exiled from Dalmatia, who fully support Giovanni Giove in order to get a "balanced" Wikipedia.--Cherso (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one, am certainly not part of any "organized group", nor am I "centered" on anybody. If anyone has been doing the provoking, its User:Giovanni Giove with his hundreds of undiscussed, badly written edits and reverts. The only reason he even got banned in the first place is that he underestimated the willingness of the community to enforce its restrictions. He totally ignored the findings of the ARBCOM and he got banned. Its not a question of provoking Giove, he simply did not take any notice of the restriction at all, as is evident from his block log.

All (or most) of the attacked "Serbocroatian users" are from the region of Dalmatia, and their interest in these matters may be considered normal, however, Giove and "the exiles", are a group of people who decend from Italians that left the region. It may be assumed that their emmigration (certainly not as drammatic as the title "exile" would suggest) forced them to endure hardship, wich left them quite BIASED in these matters. It is understandable that an NPOV cannot really be expected from these guys, isn't it? This is why expressions such as "balance" are simply an (obvious) clever way to make uninvloved Wikipedians oversimplify the matter and support a continuous edit-war with these radicals. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Direktor has quickly intervened, so admin Thatcher 131 can easily understand how the group of Croats behaves in Wikipedia everywhere and in perfect synchronization. He quickly provokes me writing that my "emmigration (certainly not as drammatic as the title "exile" would suggest)" was a normal hardship.... Well, I am not going to repeat the mistakes of Giovanni Giove and answer "tough". I am a mature old man who has never been able to go back to where was born, who has lost all the family properties in my Cherso island, who has lived "poorly" (I don't know if Direktor understands fully the meaning of this word) the first thirty years of exiled life in the USA until the American Dream was realized by me and my exiled father, and who has seen destroyed by Tito the Cherso cementery were my family rested for generations (in order to make disappear another "Italian" evidence in my Dalmatian island). Luckily for me, I have learned from America to have faith in democracy and western justice and stay away from the hate of nationalism and racism.

I am sure admin Thatcher131 understands very well that I only ask for a "balanced" Wikipedia, free -if possible- from nationalistic groups (Croat, Italian or whatever...). And I am sure Giovanni Giove -continuously harrassed for months/years by Kubura with his group- deserves another "chance".

Last but not least I want to pinpoint that Direktor -in my personal opinion- is the more "calm" (and less anti-italian) of the Kubura group, may be because he has distant Italian roots. Finally it strikes me the fact that the Russian "pro-Slavs" admin that initially punished Giovanni Giove in the Dalmatia arbitration (allowing him only one daily revert), did the same with the only Croat with some Dalmatian Italian roots, Direktor: strange punishment, while it was obvious that Kubura was much more involved (and has provoked fighting in the dalmatian issues for many more months) than Direktor. Strange, very strange....Anyway, I am not going to write again to admin Thatcher131, because I don't want to bother her. I am sure justice with prevail soon or later in this "ban-case", even thanks to her renowned honesty and dedication. Sincerely--Cherso (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thatcher131.
Sorry for using your talkpage for the discussion, but because of heavy language used here, I'll answer here, in order to have complete discussion on one place.
To be short:
1) "Serbocroatian" is a term, that's an insult to a Croat person.
2) Second, I'm a Croat, not a "Serbocroatian".
3) If you have doubts that me and other Giove's opponents are POV-izers, nationalists, narrow-minded, than have in mind that an official body, Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reacted today. It send a very sharp protest note to Italy, because a stamp issued by Italian post, was created in irredentistic way. The stamp has a photo of Croatian city Rijeka, with the text: "Rijeka - eastern country that used to be Italian" ("Fiume-terra orientale gia` italiana") [39].
Croatian Ministry reacted because of similar rhetoric from Italy (not to mention that president Mesić reacted half a year ago because of Napolitano's revisionism and anti-Slavic irredentistic rhetoric), just as I (and some other users) reacted on Giove and Co.'s edits (Co. being puppet or not).
Just put it this way: how would French react if Italians did that with Nice, or if Germans did that with Mulhouse? How 'd Poles react if Germans did that with Wroclaw? How would England react if Argentine did that with Falklands?
Thank you for the attention, sincerely yours, Kubura (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I claim the right to ask everyone to please stop. I can only imagine how annoying all this may be... sorry Thatcher --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

HariRud & Beh-nam

New user HariRud seems to be very similar to banned user Beh-nam. Same attitudes, editing the same articles. Note recent unneeded edit to Kabul Province link, which is similar to previous edits by Beh-nam. Note also the sophistication of the first edit by HariRud at Talk:Afghan afghani link. --Bejnar (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can file a Request for checkuser to have this investigated. Thatcher131 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind.  Confirmed by checkuser. Thatcher131 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls review

Please review Allegations of Chinese apartheid; I suspect this page should have been redeleted when the allegations of apartheid case closed. It is currently showing {{ArbcomDeletedpage}}. GRBerry 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Thatcher131 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf and related

We've harrowed the Waldorf and related topics articles pretty thoroughly. I wonder if there is a process for reviewing the probation...or if you could just have a look and give your impression of what remains to be done to bring the articles into line with Wikipedia's best standards. Hgilbert (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls review

Please review Allegations of Chinese apartheid; I suspect this page should have been redeleted when the allegations of apartheid case closed. It is currently showing {{ArbcomDeletedpage}}. GRBerry 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Thatcher131 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with an editor

Dear Thatcher,

I'm sorry to have to bother you with this, but I seem to be back in a similar position as I was before with an editor (and perhaps with Mattisse as well) concerning this editor's efforts to prevent me from doing what I firmly believe are edits that there are no rules against, acting as if there are. There are three articles, so far, that this involves, articles whose status I believed to be settled long ago, and before I am accused of "aggressively editing" them I was hoping you could comment on whether the edits I made were disallowed.

First, on the Starwood Festival article, I addressed a "citation needed" tag on the paragraph simply stating that the Starwood Festival offers over 150 classes on a number of topic ranging from etc etc etc with a link to the section of the ACE website that contains the last ten years of online programs listing nearly all of them. I explained on the talk page that I was doing this, and since that was the only "citation needed" tag on the page, I eliminated the one at the top of the page. This was reverted, along with a scold from Kathryn NicDhàna, the editor in question, even though I have been told in the past that for such a simple statement of fact the website of an event is a perfectly acceptable citation; I mean, where else would you find a record of the number and content of the classes offered by an event if not in it's catalog? The truth is, Kathryn NicDhàna is quite aware of these facts, and she is involved in the Neo-Pagan community, and I'm sure doesn't deny that they are true. These facts are also corroborated by several articles in the reference section, which she knows (e.g. [40], [41], and [42]). I was merely trying to supply a perfectly acceptable citation to replace a "citation needed" tag for the good of the article.

She is treating WinterStar Symposium the same way, including on both the phrase "Publications in "References" does not indicate if they are non-trivial mentions that source content." As I say on the talk page, I am not aware of ANY article that includes characterizations of just how significant or trivial a particular reference might be, or on what scale one would measure that, or where you would put such a characterization. She also says that the articles have no "footnotes", though they clearly have "Notes", and plenty of references, and no article is REQUIRED to have footnotes, nor must references only be citations.

Also, on the Jeff Rosenbaum article, I tried to expand the section mentioning professional career. When she reverted my work and began to pepper the article with "citation needed" tags (which, as you remember, was how my problems with Mattisse and her sock puppets began), I tried to address these requests one by one. She mis-labeled a section as a bibliography and deleted several articles, which I reorganized under more proper headings, and I provided a citation to a book supporting part of the career information I had posted, without re-adding material I have not found a citation for. But now she is simply reverting ANYTHING I do on the page, including citations to satisfy requests for the same, and scolding me for editing the article AT ALL, which is NOT something I have been forbidden to do by any existing rules. Nor is she discussing her actions on the talk pages. Meanwhile, Mattisse (who is back for some reason) has commented on the issue.

I know I'm long-winded, but the bottom line is that this sounds like Kathryn NicDhàna has revived the campaign to interfere with my editing, and get me back into the same trouble as had to be dealt with through arbitrations and mediations, and/or sucker me into an edit war so I can be accused of "aggressive editing". Mattisse has also begun peppering articles I either edit or created with tags (like Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and M. Macha Nightmare. I thought this was put to bed, but here it is again. I don't consider my edits to be controversial or inappropriate; this is IMO all about her considering ME to be controversial and inappropriate. I am trying to be careful to support my edits and keep these articles, which I care about, clean of tags. Could you please comment on my talk page?

BTW, thank you very much for your responses on Church and School of Wicca. They seem to have settled the issue for now.Rosencomet (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Supposed sockpuppetry

To my mind, a newly created sockpuppet of User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo has appeared on the scene and repeatedly removed, as usual, well-sourced material from Elvis Presley. See [43], [44], [45]. The same user, GiantSpitoon has accused me, without justification, of original research. See this discussion. The same thing happened several times in the past with other sockpuppets of this user. For evidence of sockpuppetry, compare, for instance, this edit with this very similar one. See also [46] and [47] and this edit by Mingy Jongo, one of the many other sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, which includes the same accusations of original research. Furthermore, it is certainly no coincidence that GiantSpitoon, as a new user, is very familiar with Wikipedia pages such as WP:NOR or WP:AGF and even with the abbreviations primarily used by Wikipedia administrators. Apart from his interest in Elvis Presley, the very first edits by GiantSpitoon were contributions to Michael Jackson. See [48], [49]. Significantly, Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (who, together with his other sockpuppets, also showed much interest in Elvis related topics) was voting against the good article reassessment of Michael Jackson because he found "this article to be quite biased and in general badly written." See [50], [51]. It is also very interesting that User:Hoserjoe alias User:BomberJoe, who had removed similar passages from the Elvis article some weeks ago, has now reappeared in order to support GiantSpitoon's "useful comments" on Talk:Elvis Presley. See [52] and [53]. Another Elvis fan, User:Steve Pastor, also supports GiantSpitoon and says on the latter's talk page that they "tried to clean the thing up." See [54]. Very interesting indeed. See also these commentaries by another user on my talk page concerning the same case. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I feel that I have to defend myself here. Firstly, I have not accused onefortyone of anything, and I'm disappointed that I'm being singled out like this when I've tied hard to follow policy and assume good-faith on this issue. Let me explain. I came to the elvis presley page and noticed that this [55] particular paragraph is a synthesis of sources serving to advance a position according to WP:SYN, which amounts to original research under said policy. I took the bold step of removing it while explaining my actions, as well as leaving a note on the talk page. My actions were later silently reverted by onefortyone [56], and we then exchanged reverts a couple of times, where I tried to explain that 'well-sourced' isn't relevant in the case where sources are hand-picked and bundled together to further an unpublished position. Instead of continuing to remove the paragraph, I stated on the talk page that I would immediately stop editing it out for the time being and await input from the community [57], which I have. So far everyone agrees with my actions, if you'll check out the discussion under Original Research ? in the elvis presley talk page. I certainly never intended anything malicious towards onefortyone, and my removal of the paragraph was based on policy and not because I don't like it (as I've been accused of [58]). Additionally, if you'll see my posts on the talk-page I never accused ANYONE of deliberately adding original research or any other attacks. I don't wish to start, or continue any edit-wars, which is why I'm discussing the issue rather than editing the page further (I'd appreciate some input from an uninvolved editor also, if you'd like).GiantSpitoon (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Significantly, GiantSpitoon's first edit on Elvis Presley was the removal of an entire paragraph. See [59]. And he removed it without comment on the talk page. The comment only appeared a day later, after Onefortyone had reinstated the paragraph. See [60]. Furthermore, GiantSpitoon falsely claims that he didn't accuse Onefortyone of anything. However, his edits say otherwise. Here are some excerpts from Talk:Elvis Presley: On this page, GiantSpitoon said,

Specifically this paragraph which I have removed [61], is a synthesis of sources serving to advance a position (check out this WP:NOR, and this WP:SYN). See [62]

Onefortyone replied that the material GiantSpitoon has "removed is well sourced, as it is backed up by several mainstream biographies on Elvis (among them authorities such as Alanna Nash and Peter Guralnick) and eyewitness accounts of women the singer dated." See [63]. Notwithstanding the objections, GiantSpitoon continued his accusation:

Well-sourced is irrespective of the point, what you are doing is drawing these sources together to advance a position which you appeared to have reached yourself, and that is original research; in other words your creating a new narrative from a pile of sources you have hand-picked - a big no no. Also, the above quotation you have given is open to interpretation and does not explicitly state what you conclude from it (for example, that may just be ONE ocassion here Presley decided not to do whatever...). Your conclusion that Presley was not generally overtly sexually active from this and other sources bundled together is just that, YOUR CONCLUSION, and is thus original research. See [64]

Onefortyone replied that it is not his "conclusion, as most sources say that Elvis was not overtly sexually active. Even his ex-wife Priscilla confirms that this was the case." See [65].

Meanwhile, User:Hoserjoe, who some weeks ago had deleted similar paragraphs from the Elvis page, reappeared on the scene repeating the same accusation:

I agree with GiantSpitoon that this article is of very low quality due to the absurd level of "original research" being attempted here. See [66].

After an edit by Steve Pastor, GiantSpitoon continued his accusation:

Unless you have a published source which draws your same conclusion based on the sources you have presented, what you have included is synthesis of published sources which advance an unpubished view point, and is therefore original research under WP:SYN. Whether it's well sourced or not doesn't matter! From a quick glance your most sources is a mere handful, and you cannot draw a conclusion yourself based on that handful (or even a more substantial amount) that Presley was not very sexually active. See [67].

To conclude: GiantSpitoon shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, removing a well-sourced point of view with comments such as "a synthesis of sources serving to advance a position", "well-sourced is irrespective of the point," "Your conclusion ... from this and other sources bundled together is just that, YOUR CONCLUSION, and is thus original research." NB GiantSpitoon has not yet provided reliable sources that contradict the sources Onefortyone has accurately cited.

As for a third-party statement, see these commentaries by User:Rodhullandemu:

• I have an idea who User:GiantSpitoon might be, it fits a pattern. See [68].
• Let's just say that of all the emails I get from WP, this guy features in most of them. See [69].
• Pastor has already hit my radar. He will go into the pot along with the rest of the socks. See [70].
• I can see this has already been all round the houses and as far as ArbCom. If you think he's a sockpuppet, file a request. See [71].

These commentaries speak volumes. Onefortyone (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I had a very brief look at this late last night. On the face of it, there was a pattern of similar editing. I've had a closer look today, but by no means exhaustive, and on that basis I don't think User:GiantSpitoon is the editor I thought him to be. I have software which does informal analysis of writing styles, and the match here isn't enough to raise suspicion. If the parties want to raise an checkuser SSP report, that's up to them. My interest in this article is over. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this proves that I accused you of deliberately adding original research. When it became apparent that you were the one that originally added the paragraph in question, I did address the 'making conclusions' part to you. But seriously, my intention for doing this was not to offend you or accuse you of deliberately adding original research, only to make the point I was making easier to convey. All I've done is remove a paragraph that I felt was original research based on the synthesis of sources and that some of these sources are not explicit and open to interpretation (per WP:NOR, and WP:SYN). When an edit war started to brew, I stopped editing the article and instead concentrated on discussing the issue on the talk page. I have not continued revert, and I'm committed to discussing the issue, so I don't see what the big issue is here or how I've done something wrong. Thats it from me, otherwise I will just be repeating myself as well as clogging up Thatchers page further. Oh and one more thing, if Steve Pastor and Hoserjoe agree with me (you also left out Rikstar and Mfbinc, who also agree), well good for them and good for consensus, but I'm certainly not pulling any strings. GiantSpitoon (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim in all innocence, "I still don't understand how this proves that I accused you of deliberately adding original research." Notwithstanding, your accusations are clearly directed at me: "what you are doing is drawing these sources together to advance a position which you appeared to have reached yourself, and that is original research..."; "what you have included is synthesis of published sources which advance an unpublished view point, and is therefore original research..." etc. However, it should be noted that most parts of the present state of the paragraph have been included by Rikstar. The said passage is an abridged version of a much longer paragraph written by me. Rikstar wrote, "Some of the above issues have been addressed by a new 'Sex Symbol' section. I felt this was an obvious addition, especially having read a lot of evidence which does support the idea that he wanted female company, but not always for sexual gratification." See [72]. See also this edit. As for the few other Elvis fans supporting your removal (some of whom are supposed to be socksuppets), they have not yet provided reliable sources that contradict the well-sourced content of the "Sex symbol" paragraph. Onefortyone (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User Penser

Please look into a violation of 3R by Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

You're better off taking this to one of the admin noticeboards. Thatcher131 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Dear Thatcher, Sorry to bother you again, but things are getting worse. Kathryn NicDhàna, Pigman, and Mattisse have been targetting the articles I've mentioned before, and others I created, chopping sections out, peppering them with citation demands, and nominating them for deletion. This is all happening over a matter of a few days, and I fear it will get worse.Rosencomet (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help with formatting notice to Rosencomet

I'd never had to do one of those before (still pretty new with the Mop and Bucket), and was sort of winging it. Where did you find the template you used? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I made my own templates a long time ago, {{Warning3}}, {{warning4}} and {{Warning5}} which I always substitute and type in a personal message. Some of the "standard" warnings are so complex with multiple parameters that it is easier for me to type a message than learn how to use them. Thatcher131 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You left a spelling error in the message. Read it again. —Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have fixed it for me, but thanks. Thatcher131 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf and related

We've harrowed the Waldorf and related topics articles pretty thoroughly. I wonder if there is a process for reviewing the probation...or if you could just have a look and give your impression of what remains to be done to bring the articles into line with Wikipedia's best standards. Hgilbert (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can try to take a look; in general, probation is concerned with editor behavior and can be lifted when the problem behavior is over even if the articles themselves still need work. I would wait until the new arbitrators are officially installed, probably Jan 1, and then post a request on Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 15:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwartz

Hiya,

As discussed on the DRV page, I've had a go at drafting a version of a bio article from basics, that hoepfully meets NPOV, and BLP, avoids tabloidism, does not take a "stance" on issues, and uses sources appropriately. Would you be willing to review for me? (I've asked a couple of others - Stifle and Geogre - already, but in view of the contentiousness I'd value your view too.)

Note that there are 2 issues, is she notable, and, can we write a neutral bio. I'm only considering the second of those for now (the first is more "opinion"), and this one can be ruthlessly trimmed more, if there are still issues. It's the most I felt able to write that was within NPOV/BLP.

It's at User:FT2/Schwartz. Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A laugh

This was amusing. :) Acalamari 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to be noticed. Thatcher131 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Your Comment

Thatcher131, I appreciate your attempt to take a neutral stance in resolving the disputes. Just one comment on this [73] statement of yours:

• "The allegation that the Armenian population ethnically cleansed the region of Azeris is a matter of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, the sources that I can easily find seem to agree that it was the Armenians who were ethnically cleansed by the Azeris."

First, let me highlight for the sake of neutrality and fairness and I do not deny that Armenian population of Azerbaijan was forcefully displaced mostly from Baku during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but those sources you "can easily find seem" to stop short of other simple evidence:

In 1989, Nagorno-Karabakh had a population of 192,000. The population at that time was 76% Armenian and 23% Azerbaijanis, with Russian and Kurdish minorities (Miller, Donald E. and Lorna Touryan Miller. Armenia: Portraits of Survival and Hope. Berkley: University of California Press, 2003 p. 7 ISBN 0-5202-3492-8).

Today the population of Nagorno-Karabakh is 100% Armenian and 0% Azeri, and 7 surrounding occupied districts (per UN SC resolutions) are also 0% Azeri with some attempts to resettle the regions with Armenians. If this isn't sufficient evidence of ethnic cleansing, then perhaps Khojaly Massacre article would help. All I wanted to emphasize in my talk page comment is that "NKR" is illegitimate entity, because it was established by cleansing that 23% and some other 600,000 people from surrounding regions and is not recognized by anyone.

Similar ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, as we know, resulted in NATO bombing of Belgrade, while Azeris weren't as fortunate in protection. Perhaps, because we are "raving maniacs" (citation of Golbez) for even mentioning such facts in Wikipedia talk page? Thanks and sorry if I was too annoying. Atabek (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the referendum was invalid because part of the population was displaced (or cleansed) is a good argument for a historian or a political scientist or a government, but as a Wikipedia editor it borders on original research. If a majority of significant world sources recognizes NKR as a republic, then Wikipedia will too. It would certainly be appropriate to note that the government of Azerbaijan contests the designation due to the change in population before the referendum, but it's really not good to pick a fight over this, especially rehashing the same arguments over and over. And I would hope that editors who are partisans on both sides would respect the views of editors who are not partisan. Thatcher131 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor correction. The population was not ethnically cleansed then referendum held. The Azerbaijani population was very much still in NK when the referendum took place, it was simply boycotted by them. But like you said it is not up to us to decide whether they were legal or illegal. VartanM (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, there are no "significant world sources" which recognize "NKR" as republic outside of Azerbaijan's borders. If you claim such exist, perhaps, you could point to such sources and justify their significance. Also, some contributors on the page simply ignored comparisons to other similar pages of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Atabek (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher. You may wish to check the official position of the Council of Europe, PACE and EU with regard to NK: [74] [75] [76] As you can see, the separatist authorities in NK are considered illegitimate by the international community and results of any elections in the region are rejected until the deported Azerbaijani population is allowed to return to their homes and take part in them. Grandmaster (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal here is to report the situation fairly and without disruption. Thatcher131 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this is what most contributors sincerely want, but they need some help from neutral and unbiased editors to balance the POVs and maintain neutrality. Grandmaster (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that NK doesn't exist is getting a little annoying. Perhaps both of you could write letters to Bako Saakyan, Arayik Harutyunyan and why not the 33 members of National Assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh. VartanM (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Adil's sockpuppetry

Hi Thatcher, as you might've noticed on the Admin. noticeboard, banned user Adil Baguirov is suspected by me and many others of using a sock, user:Ehud Lesar. I have collected some evidence... here it is [77]. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. Please check em out if you have time within your busy real-life schedule. Thanks - Fedayee (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My request for help

Dear Thatcher,

I began asking you for help with the issue of Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse on the 15th. Back on the 19th, you said you were going to address my concerns that night. It is now the 22nd, and I only now found out you were engaged in a long conversation here [[78]] with Pigman and Kathryn since the 16th. I feel a little like I was not invited to my hanging. Not that I consider you the hangman; on the contrary, you did not seem to agree with them.

However, I still have not gotten any guidance, and Pigman is proceeding to rally editors against me in this one-sided situation. I have found this User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist, this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and there are others.

In the past week, 18 articles I either created or regularly edit have been edited by these three. I know they have the right, but when does it become stalking to tag 20% of the articles an editor's created, and have a watchlist of all his work? When is it called creating a hostile environment? Some have had sections chopped out. A few have had scolding messages placed on their talk pages and/or edit summaries. One editor is being confronted for daring to support me. Three articles I've written have been nominated for deletion; one deleted MINUTES after I created it. (One nomination included posts from a User:Whpq, but the posts were signed by Mattisse [[79]]. Is this a sock?) These edited articles include ones with no connection to Starwood or ACE. Third-party citations found to replace ones that link to the ACE website are now being challenged by Pigman. This feels like a multi-front attack, and I don't think Pigman will be satisfied until he gets me blocked completely.

I have not edited agressively or been in contention with editors for months. This seems to me to be a campaign to, as I've said, provoke me into anything that he can blow up into "agressive editing", and claim I've broken rules that either I have not broken or do not exist. In fact, on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, he says, "Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article." He redefines editing or what he calls "extensive revisions" (which they are NOT) as "aggressive"; no revert war or conflict with an editor necessary! If you review them, except for such edits as typos, grammar, linking names to their own Wiki articles, fixing links, and fixing or making new headings, all I've done for months on those and what he calls "Starwood-related" articles is add references and citations (usually because a tag was placed saying one was needed, or to support notability and avoid nomination for deletion or merging).

I seem to be all alone here, with Pigman opening discussions about me here and there, rallying folks, and the threat of a long contentious bout of interaction with Mattisse to anyone who sympathizes with me. What am I to do? Should I request an advocate? Is there such a thing anymore? Am I talking to the wrong person, and if so, who do I talk to?Rosencomet (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no response on this, 8 days after first request.

Please read this: [80] 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rosencomet, I can answer your questions but I don't think I can solve your problems. The majority of my conversation with Kathryn and Pigman was to explain why the caution given to you in the first arbitration case is not enforceable, and to suggest a Request for comment as a means of having the larger community review your edits. The first problem here is that you edit in a narrow area (modern paganism) that does not seem to attract much interest from other editors except for Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn. While Mattisse has been a problem in the past, Pigman and Kathryn have been approved by the community as administrators, which is generally an indication that they are viewed with some respect, are seen to have broad experience in editing articles, and do not have behavioral concerns. Because you edit within this narrow topic area, you encounter these editors over and over again. As I explained to them, the preferred way of dealing with this sort of conflict is to bring in additional editors to review the situation, either through content or user content RFCs. Bringing in outside editors create the opportunity for non-involved editors to either tell you that they agree with Pigman and Kathryn about their concerns (demonstrating that their concerns are not personal) or to tell Pigman and Kathryn that they agree with you.

• There are definitely aspects of your editing that concern me. I'm not willing to ascribe them to malice or deliberate attempts to mislead or to use Wikipedia for your own purposes, or even to lack of acculturation. But some of the things Kathryn has pointed out I agree with. On the subjects of references, you complain about this comment. The main purpose of references is to support the text of the articles. To some extent, references can also provide additional information on the topic; sometimes they are labeled "for further information" or "external links" in that case. On Starwood Festival you have a long list labeled "references." I agree with Kathryn that the list looks padded, in that some of the references merely mention the existence of the festival and do not contain any information that either support the text of the article or would give an interested reader more information about the topic. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of links; the references should either support the text or they should provide additional encyclopedic-quality information that is not appropriate for the main article. Also, blogs and personal web sites are generally not acceptable either as external links or as reference citations, except in limited circumstances. For example, with respect to the book The Necronomicon Files: The Truth Behind Lovecraft's Legend. , neither author is mentioned in the article, and Starwood is only briefly mentioned as a place where they met other people. As a reference, it's padding, and it's not suitable as an external link or a "for more information see" because of the limited mention. Both end-listed references and in-line citations are acceptable under the manual of style, but Kathryn's request to change the references to citations is a reasonable request to demonstrate which references are truly relevant to text of the article, which are suitable "for further reading" and which are padding. References are also context specific; per this search, the book The Necronomicon Files is not an appropriate reference for the article Starwood Festival because it says nothing encyclopedic about the festival and does not add to the article, but it might be an acceptable reference for the article Daniel Harms to prove that he presented his word there.

• On the issue of extensive linking to festival artists raised here, you need to be aware that new editors join all the time, or take interest in new topics, and will not be aware of past discussions. A simple polite pointer to the archived discussion will serve better than a long defensive response. Also, consensus can change, and new editors may take a different view of a topic; plus the prior discussion was influenced by the presence of multiple sock puppets on both sides of the issue. Questions like this about article content will typically come up more than once as new editors become involved. I recall a user page essay by a frustrated physician who complained about spending hours and hours working on an article only to have to re-argue the same issues because some high school kid with one health class thought it needed to be changed. This is the wiki process, there really is no such thing as a stable or permanent article; articles are never "finished." There is a huge difference between Woodstock, with attendence of 250,000, and WinterStar, with attendance of 250. There is also a big difference in the importance of the presenters; compare the "What links here" list for Margot Adler and Steve Blamires; one is clearly more important than the other and this may affect how linking to them is viewed.

• This type of editing is also of great concern, as you are in a position to profit from the sale of these lecture tapes as a principle of ACE. Major recording artists do usually list a complete discography, but I am not sure that is equally appropriate for a minor author. It is certainly not appropriate for you, as a beneficiary of those links, to add them yourself.

• Your comment (I do not vandalize others' work, nor have I EVER touched anything you have written), displays either a failure to understand the wiki editing process or an assumption that Kathryn is targeting you for reasons other than improving article quality. Editors do not own articles they start or edit heavily, Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I believe Kathryn has legitimate concerns about your editing and she has been trying to raise these concerns in a reasonable manner. You have already been cautioned to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest and edit the talk pages but not the articles in such cases.

• Ultimately, we come back again to the fact that you are writing about minor topics in a narrow field of expertise that does not have many other interested editors. If there were many interested editors, there would be many opinions on the discographies, and other editors to add them if they agreed with you that they were appropriate. There would be other editors (not involved with ACE or Starwood) to agree or disagree that lists of presenters at WinterStar Symposium and Starwood were appropriate along the same lines as lists of presenters as Woodstock. (The examples you list had 10,000 to 500,000 attendence, WinterStar has 150-250.) There is of course no way to force other editors to develop an interest in your articles, and at present, there are really only 4 people interested in your content; yourself, and Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse. Unless you can show deliberate bad faith on the part of these people (for example, deprecating your own articles and links while creating articles and links about a rival minor pagan festival) you need to try and work with them, take their concerns seriously, and use the dispute resolution processes (third opinion, request for comment, and mediation) to try and find other editors to support you (or who will agree that Kathryn et al are correct and not just picking on you for personal reasons). Above all you need to take the Arbitration committee's caution seriously; if another case is brought and accepted, it is likely that you will be banned from editing any articles related to Starwood, ACE, or Starwood-related topics, and restricted to talk pages only. Thatcher131 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At least I believe these things should be said:

1. I have not been "editing aggressively" nor have I "violated the terms of the arbitration". I immediately sought advice from you about the issue, though none was forthcoming until now, nine days later. And to reinterpret any editing as aggressive editing is unfair, as is talking about 16 months of activity when refering to adhering to an arbitration that took place seven months ago. I should not be blocked for something I'm not doing.

2. Since the arbitration, most of the articles by far that I've created have been non-Starwood related, and my edits have been for the most part non-controversial. Even during the arbitration there was a recognition that my editing has improved.

3. I am not a "beneficiary" of the products ACE sells, nor am I "in a position to profit from the sale of these lecture tapes". I make absolutely nothing from them, nor from the totally voluntary work I do with ACE. I've explained this many times.

4. Yes, I know that editors do not own the articles they write or heavily edit. I was just trying to emphasize that, in the midst of all the accusations of aggressive this and hostile that and being "attacked", I (unlike other editors I have observed on Wikipedia) have not engaged in that sort of behavior, and should not be treated as if I have.

5. I do not "hire" speakers or entertainers for ACE events. ACE hires them, based on committee-of-the-whole vote. They hire people I never heard from, and turn down people I'd like to see there. To say that the article of any artist who appears at Starwood is a "Starwood-related article" is like saying no one who volunteer works for the Muscular Dystrophy Telethon may write or edit an article about anyone who has appeared on it over the decades; a sizable list indeed. (Yes, I know, Starwood is smaller; but the principle is the same. I'm using famliar examples.) Or if Domino's Pizza uses UPS, no one who works (much less a volunteer) at Domino's may edit an article about UPS. Or if you ever worked on an MGM movie, you can't edit an article about any actor, writer, choreographer, producer, director, dancer, musician, composer, etc etc who worked on an MGM picture. Rosencomet (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Thatcher131

Is it you or an impersonator? Merry Christmas, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Me, recreating to prevent impersonation. Thanks for checking. Thatcher 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban of User:Zanthalon

"We have a policy. Advocacy of pedophilia is not tolerated, nor is trolling for partners.

Fred"

This user didn't do any of that, nor is there any evidence that they were even aware that they did anything wrong. This ban comes almost a full year after this user was regularly active, and the statement on their userpage was made before the arbcom case. It is absolutely inappropriate to treat this user this way. It was made very clear in the arbcom case that blocking people simply because they were known pedophiles was not acceptable, and that is exactly what has happened. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And talking about this issue on-wiki was not banned from that arbcom case. Advocacy of pedophilia was. Don't confuse the two. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what edits have been removed by oversight, or whether the user had used sockpuppets for some inappropriate reason, and the block log is very clear that questions about the block should go through the Arbitration committee. Thatcher 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My request for help

Dear Thatcher,

I began asking you for help with the issue of Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse on the 15th. Back on the 19th, you said you were going to address my concerns that night. It is now the 22nd, and I only now found out you were engaged in a long conversation here [[81]] with Pigman and Kathryn since the 16th. I feel a little like I was not invited to my hanging. Not that I consider you the hangman; on the contrary, you did not seem to agree with them.

However, I still have not gotten any guidance, and Pigman is proceeding to rally editors against me in this one-sided situation. I have found this User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist, this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and there are others.

In the past week, 18 articles I either created or regularly edit have been edited by these three. I know they have the right, but when does it become stalking to tag 20% of the articles an editor's created, and have a watchlist of all his work? When is it called creating a hostile environment? Some have had sections chopped out. A few have had scolding messages placed on their talk pages and/or edit summaries. One editor is being confronted for daring to support me. Three articles I've written have been nominated for deletion; one deleted MINUTES after I created it. (One nomination included posts from a User:Whpq, but the posts were signed by Mattisse [[82]]. Is this a sock?) These edited articles include ones with no connection to Starwood or ACE. Third-party citations found to replace ones that link to the ACE website are now being challenged by Pigman. This feels like a multi-front attack, and I don't think Pigman will be satisfied until he gets me blocked completely.

I have not edited agressively or been in contention with editors for months. This seems to me to be a campaign to, as I've said, provoke me into anything that he can blow up into "agressive editing", and claim I've broken rules that either I have not broken or do not exist. In fact, on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, he says, "Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article." He redefines editing or what he calls "extensive revisions" (which they are NOT) as "aggressive"; no revert war or conflict with an editor necessary! If you review them, except for such edits as typos, grammar, linking names to their own Wiki articles, fixing links, and fixing or making new headings, all I've done for months on those and what he calls "Starwood-related" articles is add references and citations (usually because a tag was placed saying one was needed, or to support notability and avoid nomination for deletion or merging).

I seem to be all alone here, with Pigman opening discussions about me here and there, rallying folks, and the threat of a long contentious bout of interaction with Mattisse to anyone who sympathizes with me. What am I to do? Should I request an advocate? Is there such a thing anymore? Am I talking to the wrong person, and if so, who do I talk to?Rosencomet (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no response on this, 8 days after first request.

Please read this: [83] 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rosencomet, I can answer your questions but I don't think I can solve your problems. The majority of my conversation with Kathryn and Pigman was to explain why the caution given to you in the first arbitration case is not enforceable, and to suggest a Request for comment as a means of having the larger community review your edits. The first problem here is that you edit in a narrow area (modern paganism) that does not seem to attract much interest from other editors except for Mattisse, Pigman and Kathryn. While Mattisse has been a problem in the past, Pigman and Kathryn have been approved by the community as administrators, which is generally an indication that they are viewed with some respect, are seen to have broad experience in editing articles, and do not have behavioral concerns. Because you edit within this narrow topic area, you encounter these editors over and over again. As I explained to them, the preferred way of dealing with this sort of conflict is to bring in additional editors to review the situation, either through content or user content RFCs. Bringing in outside editors create the opportunity for non-involved editors to either tell you that they agree with Pigman and Kathryn about their concerns (demonstrating that their concerns are not personal) or to tell Pigman and Kathryn that they agree with you.

• There are definitely aspects of your editing that concern me. I'm not willing to ascribe them to malice or deliberate attempts to mislead or to use Wikipedia for your own purposes, or even to lack of acculturation. But some of the things Kathryn has pointed out I agree with. On the subjects of references, you complain about this comment. The main purpose of references is to support the text of the articles. To some extent, references can also provide additional information on the topic; sometimes they are labeled "for further information" or "external links" in that case. On Starwood Festival you have a long list labeled "references." I agree with Kathryn that the list looks padded, in that some of the references merely mention the existence of the festival and do not contain any information that either support the text of the article or would give an interested reader more information about the topic. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of links; the references should either support the text or they should provide additional encyclopedic-quality information that is not appropriate for the main article. Also, blogs and personal web sites are generally not acceptable either as external links or as reference citations, except in limited circumstances. For example, with respect to the book The Necronomicon Files: The Truth Behind Lovecraft's Legend. , neither author is mentioned in the article, and Starwood is only briefly mentioned as a place where they met other people. As a reference, it's padding, and it's not suitable as an external link or a "for more information see" because of the limited mention. Both end-listed references and in-line citations are acceptable under the manual of style, but Kathryn's request to change the references to citations is a reasonable request to demonstrate which references are truly relevant to text of the article, which are suitable "for further reading" and which are padding. References are also context specific; per this search, the book The Necronomicon Files is not an appropriate reference for the article Starwood Festival because it says nothing encyclopedic about the festival and does not add to the article, but it might be an acceptable reference for the article Daniel Harms to prove that he presented his word there.

• On the issue of extensive linking to festival artists raised here, you need to be aware that new editors join all the time, or take interest in new topics, and will not be aware of past discussions. A simple polite pointer to the archived discussion will serve better than a long defensive response. Also, consensus can change, and new editors may take a different view of a topic; plus the prior discussion was influenced by the presence of multiple sock puppets on both sides of the issue. Questions like this about article content will typically come up more than once as new editors become involved. I recall a user page essay by a frustrated physician who complained about spending hours and hours working on an article only to have to re-argue the same issues because some high school kid with one health class thought it needed to be changed. This is the wiki process, there really is no such thing as a stable or permanent article; articles are never "finished." There is a huge difference between Woodstock, with attendence of 250,000, and WinterStar, with attendance of 250. There is also a big difference in the importance of the presenters; compare the "What links here" list for Margot Adler and Steve Blamires; one is clearly more important than the other and this may affect how linking to them is viewed.

• This type of editing is also of great concern, as you are in a position to profit from the sale of these lecture tapes as a principle of ACE. Major recording artists do usually list a complete discography, but I am not sure that is equally appropriate for a minor author. It is certainly not appropriate for you, as a beneficiary of those links, to add them yourself.

• Your comment (I do not vandalize others' work, nor have I EVER touched anything you have written), displays either a failure to understand the wiki editing process or an assumption that Kathryn is targeting you for reasons other than improving article quality. Editors do not own articles they start or edit heavily, Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I believe Kathryn has legitimate concerns about your editing and she has been trying to raise these concerns in a reasonable manner. You have already been cautioned to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest and edit the talk pages but not the articles in such cases.

• Ultimately, we come back again to the fact that you are writing about minor topics in a narrow field of expertise that does not have many other interested editors. If there were many interested editors, there would be many opinions on the discographies, and other editors to add them if they agreed with you that they were appropriate. There would be other editors (not involved with ACE or Starwood) to agree or disagree that lists of presenters at WinterStar Symposium and Starwood were appropriate along the same lines as lists of presenters as Woodstock. (The examples you list had 10,000 to 500,000 attendence, WinterStar has 150-250.) There is of course no way to force other editors to develop an interest in your articles, and at present, there are really only 4 people interested in your content; yourself, and Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse. Unless you can show deliberate bad faith on the part of these people (for example, deprecating your own articles and links while creating articles and links about a rival minor pagan festival) you need to try and work with them, take their concerns seriously, and use the dispute resolution processes (third opinion, request for comment, and mediation) to try and find other editors to support you (or who will agree that Kathryn et al are correct and not just picking on you for personal reasons). Above all you need to take the Arbitration committee's caution seriously; if another case is brought and accepted, it is likely that you will be banned from editing any articles related to Starwood, ACE, or Starwood-related topics, and restricted to talk pages only. Thatcher131 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At least I believe these things should be said:

1. I have not been "editing aggressively" nor have I "violated the terms of the arbitration". I immediately sought advice from you about the issue, though none was forthcoming until now, nine days later. And to reinterpret any editing as aggressive editing is unfair, as is talking about 16 months of activity when refering to adhering to an arbitration that took place seven months ago. I should not be blocked for something I'm not doing.

2. Since the arbitration, most of the articles by far that I've created have been non-Starwood related, and my edits have been for the most part non-controversial. Even during the arbitration there was a recognition that my editing has improved.

3. I am not a "beneficiary" of the products ACE sells, nor am I "in a position to profit from the sale of these lecture tapes". I make absolutely nothing from them, nor from the totally voluntary work I do with ACE. I've explained this many times.

4. Yes, I know that editors do not own the articles they write or heavily edit. I was just trying to emphasize that, in the midst of all the accusations of aggressive this and hostile that and being "attacked", I (unlike other editors I have observed on Wikipedia) have not engaged in that sort of behavior, and should not be treated as if I have.

5. I do not "hire" speakers or entertainers for ACE events. ACE hires them, based on committee-of-the-whole vote. They hire people I never heard from, and turn down people I'd like to see there. To say that the article of any artist who appears at Starwood is a "Starwood-related article" is like saying no one who volunteer works for the Muscular Dystrophy Telethon may write or edit an article about anyone who has appeared on it over the decades; a sizable list indeed. (Yes, I know, Starwood is smaller; but the principle is the same. I'm using famliar examples.) Or if Domino's Pizza uses UPS, no one who works (much less a volunteer) at Domino's may edit an article about UPS. Or if you ever worked on an MGM movie, you can't edit an article about any actor, writer, choreographer, producer, director, dancer, musician, composer, etc etc who worked on an MGM picture. Rosencomet (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Thatcher131

Is it you or an impersonator? Merry Christmas, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Me, recreating to prevent impersonation. Thanks for checking. Thatcher 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban of User:Zanthalon

"We have a policy. Advocacy of pedophilia is not tolerated, nor is trolling for partners.

Fred"

This user didn't do any of that, nor is there any evidence that they were even aware that they did anything wrong. This ban comes almost a full year after this user was regularly active, and the statement on their userpage was made before the arbcom case. It is absolutely inappropriate to treat this user this way. It was made very clear in the arbcom case that blocking people simply because they were known pedophiles was not acceptable, and that is exactly what has happened. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And talking about this issue on-wiki was not banned from that arbcom case. Advocacy of pedophilia was. Don't confuse the two. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what edits have been removed by oversight, or whether the user had used sockpuppets for some inappropriate reason, and the block log is very clear that questions about the block should go through the Arbitration committee. Thatcher 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement Armenia-Azerbaijan

I really think something isn't working. Perhaps a 3rd rfar is necesary? How long will this nonsense continue? People are just gaming the system to its fullest. -- Cat ^chi? 17:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Well, Arbcom has indicated that it would like to review all ongoing sanctions once the new arbitrators are appointed. I don't know if this will be public or private process or whether they will take evidence, but it would be something to look for. Thatcher 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - but with this full bag! -- Cat ^chi? 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

Very nice way to deal with the scheduling issue; thanks for coming up with that! Kirill 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see someone with a head on their shoulders is keeping things under control there. I don't envy you the job, but am glad to see you doing it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee and John.

You need to do something, or else the credibility of the admins will go out of the window. John's block of Fedayee is too inappropriate. Even assuming John is innocent, it does look suspicious, and that's bad enough. He didn't as much as chastise Ehud for the insults that he made, he went as far as to justify them. Noone is blocked for not assuming good faith. Especially when Fedayee has some basis for believing Ehud to be a sockpuppet. And noone is blocked without an official warning on the page of the user--simple requests on the ArbCom page don't count. Fedayee's block needs to be lifted, unless you want members to think of administrators as a joke and tools for some users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Even assuming John is innocent"? Way to go WP:AGF. Orderinchaos 11:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Thatcher. Just to make some things clear. WP:AGF is not a policy. It is a guideline which "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (WP:AGF). Saying that someone is a sockpuppet is not a violation of AGF--someone may engage in sockpuppetry with good faith (i.e. believing that he is making Wikipedia better).

Furthermore, a penalty should be applied after an official warning is placed on a user's talk page, and the user is told that continued violation will result in blocking. It's spelled out in the ArbCom decision: "Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop

Feedback is requested on what to do with Giano's deleted talk page, since there's evidence included in the history of the page. Users are debating on m:vanish issues, while Jehochman has suggested an alternative regarding the clerk of the case, I guess that means you. :-) Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the workshop talk page. Thatcher 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration. I think the history back to July will be more than satisfactory for discussion relevant to the IRC case. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:ANI

Hi Thatcher, I find you comments at WP:ANI where quite rude. :( Also, could you please explain to me why you believe the conversation should be archived so quickly? --CyclePat (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a close call between archiving and simply blanking it, as per recent practice in similar cases. It's really not a good idea to be taking up advocacy for banned users when you don't know why they were banned. There have been a number of recent cases of editors who take the position that adult-child sex is normal, even going so far as to put pedophile userboxes on their user pages. It may even be an organized campaign, since the approach is the same across many articles and by a number of editors. We don't know if they are really pedophiles, or law enforcement running a sting, or just plain trolls. We ban them and ask them to deal directly with Arbcom via private email. If they move on to other topics, they can be unbanned. But most don't--I suspect they are single purpose throwaway advocacy accounts. There is a recent long discussion of this on the wikipedia mailing list as well. We most emphatically do not want to call attention to it with a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over "bad blocks" and "arbcom abuse." There are about 40 million preteens in the US alone, all of whom have mothers, fathers, or guardians. If they think of Wikipedia at all, it's as a mostly accurate encyclopedia that kids use to do their homework. We do not want them getting the idea that Wikipedia promotes or encourages pedophilia; having 80 million parents and guardians thinking that their children are not safe on our web site would just about kill us for good. This user made a number of article edits pushing the point of view that sex between adults and children is normal, and that adult-child sex relationships are not molestation if the child consents. We don't need to entertain that sort of editor. Thatcher 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Thatcher, as you are probably aware, I removed the archive template (edit here). I also find that action, of adding the archive, to be a little rude. The explanation is within the edit summary and discussed on that page (i.e.: reference to WP:Censor). Thank you again for your WP:AGF in my abilities to manage this question. --CyclePat (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:CENSOR means that we have accurate articles on penis, vagina, Santa Claus, and Jesus Christ, and don't worry about the sensitivities of children or atheists. It does not mean that we must welcome users who advocate in favor of illegal activities, especially where such advocacy could bring the entire project into disrepute. Thatcher 08:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, unfortunatelly the explanation I submitted regarding Censorship is no longer on the page because my last comment (ie.: reference censorship) was removed from WP:ANI. (Here is the link). Given the alleged sensitivity of this subject, per your above comment, I'm debating on whether it should be put back in or not? Anyways... I believe it may be a key element to the conversation. I'm sure some others may ask the same question. In fact I believe this entire conversation should be happening in RfC according to procedures since we are talking about user:A.Z. and his conduct? Again, I point you to WP:CENSOR and conclude my side of this debate, though I wanted to quote the wikipedia policy on censorship, with a list of crimes (in Canada and probably most other countries) in articles on Wikipedia: homocide (222), biammy,theft, poligamy, duelling, forcible entry, piracy, forgery, sedition, corrupting children (Criminal Code 172), even interception of communications (184), sexual assault (271). Interestingly enough, there appears to be a lot of information on this subject of child sex. I pulled open the canadian criminal code and even noticed under section 273.3 it says "removal of child from Canada" (alluding to any sexual intercouse outside of Canada). Again, I don't know what the entire story is with A.Z. but, I do know that the information I looked at which he provided, appeared to be well sourced and simply controversial per your statements... and refutable perWP:CENSOR. Does this really meet the criteria for an indefinite block per our blocking policies? --CyclePat (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I am saying. We certainly do have articles about sex crimes on Wikipedia. However, we choose not to welcome editors who argue that sex between adults and children is not actually a crime. We choose not to welcome an editor who creates a plot summary for a book about a relationship between between a man and a boy that is so sexualized that it reads like a Penthouse letter and draws an objection from the book's author who complains that the description is inappropriate. We choose not to welcome an editor who objects to the sentence "Adult-child sex is commonly defined as a form of child sexual abuse." And most certainly do not want to give editors with these views a high profile public forum such as an RFC in which to air these views and explain that they are not so bad and that adult-child sex is "misunderstood." I'm sure that if the user contacted Arbcom privately and agreed to edit other subjects he would be unblocked, and (like any other banned user) he is free to create a new account and edit as long as he changes his habits enough to avoid recognition. And we are about done here, I think. Read up on the mailing list posts on the same subject. Continuing to pursue this will not have a happy ending, I think. Thatcher 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cycle Pat, I think Thatcher has been very articulate here and he certainly gets my full support for all his actions in this, such as archiving the AN/I thread. Wikipedia does not block pedophiles from editing even pedophile subjects, its advocacy that is problematic. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this was a case that required due diligence. Thank you for taking the time to explain the circumstances. What I feared was some sort of discrimination towards the user:A.Z. because of his sexual orientation and strong support (advocacy). Surelly everyone has a POV which they may enjoy and like to advocate. I personnally see nothing wrong with that as long as it is properly sourced and well balanced per WP:NPOV. (minority view points can even be omited!)... mine was electric bicycles when I started on Wikipedia. Anyways, I think we can say that there appears to be some big learning curve for new wikipedians to know and undestand the entire scope of a POV. Perhaps there should be some better explanations on "fair balance of an entire article?" Sourcing issues, other policies, etc... etc... Again Thank you for your time. --CyclePat (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's important to note the difference between reporting (with sources) that there are groups that hold controversial views about sex and children, and actually advocating for those controversial views, through edits, page moves, talk page comments, and the like. The first is good editing, the second is icky and could expose Wikipedia to public condemnation that would be far more damaging than having an admin falsely claim a religion doctorate or having an accountant with a criminal record. And thank you for understanding. Thatcher 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)