Jump to content

User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Thatcher

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orchis29 (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 30 January 2008 (→‎Opp2 and the IP vandal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    My admin actions
    Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions
    Admin links
    Noticeboard • Incidents • AIV • 3RR
    CSD • Prod • AfD
    Backlog • Images • RFU • Autoblocks
    Articles
    GAN • Criteria • Process • Content RFC
    Checkuser and Oversight
    Checkuser • Oversight log • Suppression log
    SUL tool • User rights • All range blocks
    Tor check • Geolocate • Geolocate • Honey pot
    RBL lookup • DNSstuff • Abusive Hosts
    Wikistalk tool • Single IP lookup
    Other wikis
    Quote • Meta • Commons
    Template links
    Piggybank • Tor list • Links
    Other
    Temp • Sandbox1 • Sandbox3 • Sandbox4
    • Wikistalk • Wannabe Kate's tool • Prefix index
    • Contribs by page • Watchlist count
    Talk archives
    1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10

    11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20

    21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30

    "Pulled in front of Arbcom"

    You write: "The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can."

    I would like to point out that I have never "been pulled in front of ArbCom". I've made statements in arbitrations to which I added myself. Implying otherwise is a bit much. An apology would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment was generally directed not only toward the 4 parties I placed on revert limitation but anyone else who was watching and might feel compelled to object. Certainly the area of dispute was brought to arbcom. Thatcher 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconclusive

    I'm sorry but can you clarify why the case is inconclusive? The case is related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou and I believe the ip users are infinitely blocked user User:Kamosuke or User:Azukimonaka because the same IP network host, writing style and behavioral patterns on the same interests.

    Due to the reason, I strongly believe that Amazonfire = Amazonjoke = Kamosuke =Blue011011 =Orchis29 =Jsenkyoguid =KoreanShoriSenyou = Azukimonaka =Mfugue and other odn ip users. The evidences I provided as evidences includes the revelation of the ip user. --Appletrees (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of ip address which Kamosuke used was odn.ad.jp and Azukimonaka is also using the same network host

    211.3.118.170, 218.218.129.134, [1][2][3][4]

    211.3.112.132 [5][6][7] 219.66.45.26 [8][9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Double check AE closure

    Hi. Since we appear to be, pretty much, the only admins actively handling AE requests: I would like you to review my latest closure, with my permission to amend it as you see fit. The reason for this being that I have already argued elsewhere that the individual submitting the notice has claimed another arbitration-restricted user breached civility supervision but fell short of directly proving this. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the point of view that Eupator is approaching the article from, as evidenced from his evidence subpage it might not be unreasonable to include it in AA2, and you certainly could ask him to remove references to the dispute or to depersonalize it; "here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." Your response was certainly within the realm of discretion. I often leave off the report archive tags for a while after commenting to see what other discussion turns up, though. (Although I haven;t kept count of how many good discussions versus pointless discussions this leads to.) Thatcher 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, relieved to hear that. I think we need to become more strict with reports and discussions, so largely, that has been the basis for my modus operandi there as of late (that includes closing reports immediately; although leaving em open to future amendment otherwise). El_C 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I press on you to add [what] your own closing assessment [would have been] under my closing notes? That'd be appreciated. El_C 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, again! El_C 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KoreanShoriSenyou case

    Are you closing it just like "inconclusive" without looking the evidences? The amazon fire report is a side report from KoreanShoriSenyou due to my long waiting (it's over 19 days). The amozonfire file just hold the recent activities of the suspected user after I filed the KoreanShoriSenyou case. Are you saying that KoranShoriSenyou is not the same person of Azukimonaka whom I strongly believe as a sockpuppetmaster? I feel aghast at the result because I've been patiently waiting by this time. --Appletrees (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    You're active now, so could you take a look at a possible 3RR violation with sock ip which occured today? Or do I need to file another report at RFCU or add this to my completed previous report? You didn't tell me Amazonfire is unrelated to anybody, and the user is active now. And one more question. In the Amazonefire file, I made a lot of differs on their possible 3RR (violations, Amazonfire, Jusenkoguide, Kusunose, and Blue011011, and ips) But you didn't say whether they're related to each other. The 3rr reports were all in the very short period of time. But was it also not helpful for you to confirm their possible sockpuppetry? --Appletrees (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I am going out right now but will look later. Sorry. Thatcher 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I just wanted to know where I have to report it. --Appletrees (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The IPs that were reverting you are likely Orchis29=Azukimonaka=KoreanShoriSenyou. Those IPs had similar interests on that day to Amazonfire (Manga, Imperial House, Timeline) but there is not enough technical evidence connecting Amazonfire to the others. It could be one person who just hasn't slipped up yet (Amazonfire only has 57 edits, more would help). It could be two people who work together, or just two people who have independently decided to target your edits. Have you filed a report at suspected sock puppets? Sockpuppets can be blocked and tagged based on behavior even without technical evidence; you need to get some uninvolved admins looking into this. You can also ask to have disputed pages semi-protected at Requests for page protection which will block IP edits and force editors to log in when reverting. Thatcher 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, that's it. I wish Wikipedia only allows user with account to access. But I thought the checkuser is the last and conclusive way to confirm sockpupptry. If once sockpupptry case are not clear, admins suggest to file a RFCU report. With this report, I think I'm being a target of the other party. --Appletrees (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Thatcher, I'm sorry to bother you again, but this is all about technical check. I looked through their whole contribution history and not surprisingly they didn't appear same day except a few occasion. If Azukimoanka appeared one day and the next day KoreanShoriSenyou appeared and then Azukimonaka showed up. The table shows closet time ranges between them, especially violet box are closet I can see. Tey all live in the same metropolitan city, Tokyo and odn users with same writing pattern, interest and degree of incivility. They might live closely to each other or craftily switch their ip address with some method, or one person uses several computer in an internet cafe or any other place. But if you look at these, I may get any proof of whether Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou are the same person or not. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358

    I supplied new evidence pertaining to Appletrees', showing his removal of {{3RR}} and {{sockpuppet}} tags from other users. Clarification of Appletrees' likeliness of sockpuppetry will be appreciated. Thank you very much.--Endroit (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already did. Removing tags from editors whose edits you like and who were tagged by someone whose edits you don't like isn;t really evidence of anything except failure to get along with people. (And maybe that the JP/KR disputes need to go before Arbcom if things don't improve.) Thatcher 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see thread at Administrators' noticeboard

    Not sure if you are already aware of this or not, but please check out this thread/complaint about me, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Prolific_POV-pusher_moving_from_Wikipedia_to_WikiNews. Several editors and Admins from both Wikipedia and Wikinews have already commented on a thread here and on a thread by the same user raised at n:WN:AAA, and I thought you should know. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you warn or do something to this odn ip user?

    61.209.163.123, the odn ip address user who presumably one of editors on my RFCU reports per the same edit summary comment is falsifying contents in incredibly uncivil manner at Yakuza. Once another Japanese anon editor, 125.200.61.177 vandalize the page as falsely altering referenced statics on crimes by Yakuza of Korean origin. I think the anon knows the RFCU result and tries to provoke me to be enraged. (I assume that the anon calculates that he or she can't easily be identified to any account, so try to drag me into edit warring or 3RR violation)

    • 61.209.163.123 (odn.ad.jp) rv:(Korean Raicsim) Writing IP address of Japan is not prohibited. [11]
    • 61.209.163.123 (odn.ad.jp) Vandalism by Korean. Korean people's crime should not be concealed.[12]

    If the anon is the same person of the anon 219.66.40.104, or 219.66.45.131 the block sanction is still valid (2 weeks duration).

    I don't think I have to put up with this racial slurs and incivility. Can you watch him if you are active. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely this is the same person who has been reverting you as an anon and also as Orchis29=Azukimonaka=KoreanShoriSenyou. I feel somewhat constrained to act. Some people may think it is a conflict of interest for checkusers to perform investigations and then also to block, especially here where the IP evidence is only partial confirmation, and additional confirmation is needed by looking at the persons's constribution style and content. You should make a report at WP:SSP and ask to have the listed accounts blocked or banned and to have the articles involved semi-protected. Blocking the IPs will not be effective because this person has a new IP several times a day. Thatcher 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much. I really appreciate your effort for this. I will add more evidences to prove the users' likeness. I saw several admins's doubtful comment over KoreanShoriSenyou and Azukimonaka's possible sockpuppetry with abusive ip users who are also on my report and other editors (unfortunately they're stale). If they look into the case, it will be much helpful. Thank you again.--Appletrees (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Appletrees (talk · contribs) and Ecthelion83 (talk · contribs) have the word "JPOV" that only they use. These two accounts participated in the edit war of Azuchi-Momoyama period.Please confirm Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358 --Orchis29 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Johnyajohn RFCU

    A minor point, but one of the accounts you listed is spelled "Sarazip1", not "Sarazip". At this time I feel I am under enough scrutiny or I would change it myself. Thank you for your efforts. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oops. Thatcher 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TOR block of 139.18.211.252

    Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 139.18.211.252, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQLQuery me! 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're sure its not a tor node any more than go ahead and unblock it. Thatcher 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, thanks! (It's been a year now, and I haven't seen it pop up on /drop from my lists in a while) SQLQuery me! 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientology filmography

    This article was recently closed as "keep", and I have no problem with that. But the entire article is unsourced, and has been for years. Do you have any problem with cutting out the unsourced stuff, and making a note w/DIFF of that action on the talk page? If another editor wants to come along and put it back, they'll have the old page history, providing they can add secondary sources to back stuff up. I asked the closing admin about this, Jerry (talk · contribs), who referred me to Arbcomm because the article is on probation due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. I thought since you are knowledgeable of that case, you could provide feedback to me, is it alright to delete unsourced violations of WP:OR from the article, and make a note of it on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update, I also have the exact same question for you with regards to recently closed AfD on Scientology discography, also an article that is purely unsourced WP:OR violations, would it be appropriate to remove the WP:OR violations, change the article to a stub pending secondary sources, and make a note of it on the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article probation is not meant to stop normal editing. Disruptive editors can be banned from the article, though. In theory, there should be no problem removing unsourced information. However, in the case of these articles, do you believe they are actually inaccurate, or probably accurate but unreferenced. If you agree they are probably or mostly accurate but only unreferenced it might be better to add references where you can instead of removing stuff. Thatcher 00:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But is it my responsibility to add references to all articles I come across with unsourced or WP:OR material? (rhetorical) I'd rather remove it, and make a note of the Diff on the talk page - that way another editor can always find the removed material if they wish to add sources to it later. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't get into a pissing contest with another editor over it. Thatcher 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1rr

    You recently placed several users (including Yahel Guhan) on a 1rr per week limit. Does this apply only to Israeli-Palestinain articles? Would Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism, related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, be included?Bless sins (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As it says, "all pages related to the conflict area", conflict area being defined in the case as
    There doesn't seem to be any way of separating those articles from the Middle East conflicts, so I would say yes, they are included. Thatcher 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let a Japanese editor edit a Japanese article comfortably

    Many Japanese users cannot contribute to a Japanese article by interference of Korean user Appletree. He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. --124.87.134.96 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thatcher, I receive a threat from this anon OCN (not ODN user, 124.87.134.96.

    Appletree. The reason why you supported Ecthelion83 in your log is not written at all. You will be accused as a meat doll if you do not show an opinion. Please cope immediately.[13]

    Ironically, the user just proves his "meatpuppetry" to support the odn user's massive blanking and adding confirmed source. Can you check the ip user with any others on my RFCU files? Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thus, Appletree is a user who rejects the discussion. A lot of users will feel the unpleasantness though "You are Socks" is a convenient word for him. Do you keep supporting his attitude? --124.87.134.96 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you're the first reverter, so you have to leave your "plausible rationale" for your removing the sourced materials or adding unconfirmed JPOV. But you and your friend refused to my repeated suggestions to talk with me or others at the relevant pages. Of course, a lot of user feel unpleasant with the report, so that vandalising my page is productive way for your side? That's too bad. This is Thatcher's page, so if you have something to say, visit to my page. --Appletrees (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I really don't have anything to say here. If there are editing conflicts you are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process, such as filing a request for comment to get outside opinions, or mediation. Blocks and bans for edit-warring and for Checkuser findings can also be pursued at the Admins noticeboard. From what I have seen, if this dispute goes before Arbitration, a number of edit-warring editors are likely to be banned. Editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny is really bad behavior as well, and it may be necessary to put the affected articles on long-term semi-protection (request at WP:SSP). Thatcher 12:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinilpa

    I'm so sorry to drag you into this silly quarrels. But Jjok made a false link regarding chinilpa. So I added it for him to change the comment at the RFCU page and his talk page. After Endroit's accusation on me, I thought I had to explain why I "fix" his hidden link. The chinlipa is only used for some Koreans who betray their country to aid Japanese Imperialism during Japanese occupation. But Jjok mistakes the notion with pro-Japanese side. The historical term is only exclusively used for Koreans not foreigners. --Appletrees (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of the term to refer to any Wikipedia editor constitutes a personal attack and should be avoided. You can agree or disagree with a person's editing behavior or content changes without commenting on their character. Thatcher 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't used the term to call the party because it is only used for Koreans born before 1920s. But Jjok did call himself and his party chinilpa by his misunderstanding of the concept. That's why I tried to inform him not to use it. I don't have anything to disagree with his editing behaviors as long as he keeps sticking to reliable sources. In fact, he is a few people editing as such unlike the odn users's disruptive behaviors. But I had some suspicion ever him because whenever edit warring between Korean and Japanese users occurs over inclusion of Korean relation, he was always there. However, the editor even pointed out that he thinks I made edit warring with only one editor not with several editors. And I agree with his opinion on that.--Appletrees (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Appletrees, Do not you apologize to Jjok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.133.167 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The same sock ip [14] appears again at very weird timing. Hmm.. please visit my page if you want to say to me. The admin Deiz once said you strikingly resemble to KoreanShoriSenyou[15], so blocked you for your apparent sockpuppet and disruptive edits. Of course you have grudge to me for my report on you. WP:ANI#User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)
    Please clarify your urge for matter, why I should apologize to User:Jjok. I haven't called him as chinilpa but if you insist, I might say sorry to him for "fixing" wrong information on that. Please stop your sockpuppetry. --Appletrees (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tajik

    [16], [17], [18] - same old. Do I have to file a checkuser again? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There already is a case open, you can make a short comment or add evidence there. Thatcher 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Decision

    cross-posted from User_talk:Giano II:

    Thatcher, being the clerk on that arbcom case, I know it is your job to ask Giano nicely not to edit a page he should not be editing. However, color me surprised when I went to Fred's talk page to see what nice message you sent him and saw nothing from you. Surely you don't approve of this edit whereby Fred calls Giano a "bull in the china closet," a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple"? If Giano cannot edit that page to defend himself, surely Fred shouldn't be baiting Giano on the proposed decision page. It is your job to ensure we have decorum on those pages, how about leaving Fred a nice message asking him not to call people names? SGT Tex (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern but it is not my place to publicly disapprove of the members of Arbcom. Also, I think you will find similar frank comments in some pasts cases, as well as in numerous discussions on the admins' noticeboards concerning proposed actions to be taken against allegedly disruptive editors. If you feel that the Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum then you should open a discussion at WT:RFAR or WT:AC. Thatcher 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing Fred to bait Giano is completely unacceptable behavior. If you're choosing sides, which in leaving THIS untouched is telling us, you shouldn't have your position any further. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to the diff in which you told Giano that his comment suggesting that the Committee could not emasculate him (using an off-color metaphor) was unacceptable behavior. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum. I do expect them to be somewhat dispassionate about their deliberations, however. Calling someone names in such a public place that will be there from now to eternity is not right. My contention is that he is baiting Giano, hoping for another flare up so that he can get Giano banned as he has been trying to do for some time. I thought the clerk of the case was supposed to try to keep peace. I thought a polite suggestion to keep things civil from the clerk on the case would be justified. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, then I guess there's nothing that can be done. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not "similar frank comments" were acceptable in the past, I think we should be working to make things better in the future. SGT Tex (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you see law clerk publicly criticize the judge he or she is working for, you let me know. In the mean time, it is the Arbitrators prerogative to edit the proposed decision and make such comments as they see fit. You also are making assumptions about Fred's motives that are perhaps coloring your reaction. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thatcher, I feel you are becoming defensive, so I will just let it go. I will say; however, that if you are refusing to ask Fred nicely not to call people names because you "work" for him, then something is wrong. I will boldly ask him myself. Happy editing. SGT Tex (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not feeling particularly defensive here because I have no personal stake in the matter. I noted that I will not (or at least, I generally avoid) publicly criticizing Arbcom. After all, it would be rather silly for me to make a frequent habit of venting at things I disapproved of and then ask them to continue to trust me to speak on their behalf in certain circumstances. I am not above private criticism, when the situation calls for it. Thatcher 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Thatcher. I respect the position in which you find yourself (having been in similar situations in real life), and also respect you for, in this particular case, your decisions on what actions to take (or not take), either publicly or privately. I realise that sometimes the message is in what is *not* said. Risker (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

    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/Ehud Lesar/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/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yipeee. Thatcher 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for explanation or review

    Hello. You ruled on an Arbitration enforcement complaint at WP:AE, and sanctioned me by placing me on a revert limitation for a period of 30 days.

    Your statement on my Talk page [HERE] caught me completely by surprise. I was unaware that my name was being discussed in connection with that action, since no one left me any indication of it until you left your ruling on my page after it had been completed. I was therefore unable to comment on it at the time.

    Because I did not have a chance to participate then, I would really appreciate it if you would read my statement about the edits that got me sanctioned [HERE] when you get the time. As I describe in detail, I never exceeded 1RR, and I always left a detailed description and justification for my edits in Talk for every one of my edits to the article.

    I would also appreciate an indication of why I was sanctioned. I have always tried very hard to uphold WP's guidelines, and I do not see any way in which I failed to do so in my edits to that article. Nor do I see that I failed to uphold any of the additional guidelines dictated by the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. I would appreciate it if you could review the facts I present and tell me what it is that I should have done that I did not do, or visa versa. Please feel free to reply either here or on my Talk page, whichever you prefer. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The report and discussion is here. After reviewing the history and the diffs, I tried to identify editors who reverted without making constructive attempts to discuss, and who had reverted other related articles recently. Thatcher 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check out the page I prepared that discusses my edits [HERE], you will see that in fact I always left a relevant and detailed description in Talk of my edits to the article (links are supplied). Nor will you find examples of me reverting other articles - I like to write, I do not like to delete or revert. I know that neither you nor any other editor has massive amounts of time to devote to these conflicts, but I also think it is important that the wrong people are not punished due to inadequate time being applied to analyze the facts. I do hope that you will read my discussion and reply when you get the chance. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless all editors of these topics are simultaneously placed on all remedies, application is likely to be somewhat arbitrary, based on who complains at WP:AE, who answers, how good the evidence is, and whether the admin in question can pick up on whether the report is being made by someone who is the real troublemaker (so to speak). That is one of the reasons I put a 30 day expiration, because at this stage it is much too early for permanent remedies. Reverting is never a good way to edit so my feeling is that 1RR/week is almost the least restrictive remedy that could be applied; certainly much less intrusive than a page ban. I will review the situation if I can, and you can list a request for appeal at WP:AE per the Arbitration case. Thatcher 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When you block an established contributor...

    ...such as Giano, you're supposed to put the block up for review on ANI. Come on, Thatcher, you know this. Bishonen | talk 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    To be honest, I don't think an ANI review would be helpful. Giano also seems to be taking the block quite calmly. I have made some points about the handling of this, and those points, which include some direct questions to Thatcher, can be read here. I accept that as the clerk trying to keep control on those page, Thatcher has more latitude in his actions, but I do wish he had acknowledged that others were also trying to handle this. What I am going to do now is continue in the same vein of calming the situation, and post to Giano's talk page again. Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (cross-posting from the arbcom proposed decision talk page) Sorry, Thatcher, I've just seen what the timeline was here - I had it all wrong. Giano edited again, and crucially it was after I'd asked him to calm down, and Thatcher blocked him for that. I can't defend Giano's actions there, but my offer on Giano's talk page still stands, and most probably will stand regardless of what happens in future. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was a fourth edit, after he db'd the page and then said he was done. Thatcher 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen, with the exception of reports at WP:AE of violations of existing Arbitration sanctions, I would normally not block an established editor without an ANI review before the block. Here I think the situation is a bit different; Giano intended his actions to be disruptive, and several editors had explained the American context of the term "wimpy" as referring to the remedy, not the editor. If I had been on line when he db'd the page I would have blocked him then, however by the time I was around the {db} edit was stale and he had said on his talk page that he was done for the day. Thatcher 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete this too?

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think so. Thatcher 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Opp2 and the IP vandal

    At this point, Fut. Perf. might not impose anything to Opp2 unless the IP vandal is really proven as Opp2.[19] Opp2, Fut.Perf. and I need a clarification on the matter. Can you confirm whether the vandal with plara ISP is Opp2 or not? And here is the relevant thread at his talk page.User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

    And would you please look at the new table box which I added into KoreanShoriSenyou thread? The two violet boxes are closest time ranges from their contribution history. one has 4 minutes gap and the other is 30 minutes. I feel sorry I've been asking your help many times. --Appletrees (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Appletrees rewrites the comment on Jjok. Please return it. [20]　--Orchis29 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher/Alpha&oldid=187976272"