User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Gundagai anon

In considering your dealings with the anon. please review the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and the associated talk page which details most recent history. Also the leading sections of the current Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales page. You can find her reverted edits in the history of the page. I have stated in numerous places including on talk pages and at the RfC that I will revert on sight any unsigned comment and I have stated that over 2 months ago. Others have also adoped that strategy.

The anon was well aware of the RfC (it was announced on talk pages she has edited) but has steered well clear of it for the several months (since late July) it has been active.

I note that someone has found a cite for Yarri being mistreated. The ABC story however, also mentions This true story focuses on what may be the first act of 'Reconcilation' in Australin history. ... The rescues are an important demonstration of the common humanity and goodwill that the Aborigines maintained towards the white settlers in spite of the diseases, depopulation and social disruption they had suffered since the advent of the Europeans. For their efforts Yarri and Jacky Jacky were presented with inscribed bronze gorgets (medallions) to be worn around their necks. ... For the remainder of their lives, Yarri and Jacky Jacky were entitled to demand sixpences and other trifles conductive to Aboriginal comfort from all Gundagai residents - which demands, when in reason, were not refused. ... Although Yarri was well treated by most white people as he got older, he did not get the same respect from everyone, as an article in the Gundagai Times dated 29 June 1879 shows: (incident cited) Today there are a number of monuments in Gundagai which honour the memory of Yarri. I don't think that the current statement The community is said to have developed a special affinity with the Wiradjuri people. Although Yarri was maltreated on at least one occasion afer the flood,[5] Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation. quite conveys that contemporaries of Yarri honoured him and Jacky Jacky specifically in their lifetime, that is the mention of the incident unbalances what was otherwise previously a brief mention and the paragraph now needs to be rebalanced to present a more neutral version of the history - leave in the incident of mistreatment but refer to contemporary and later community positive treatment of Yarri also.

At present I am away from home and the modem disconnects every few minutes and most pages can't load; hence I am on a wikibreak till Monday. For example, it has taken me 7 logons to post this (and that was including editing off-line) and I cannot check the Carr Hansard reference which I think covered the reconciliation comments as well as the sesquicentenary of the flood mention. Nor can I check the article history to verify what was there before. I feel accordingly unable to edit until I return to less temperamental infrastructure.

The flood comments are merely the latest dispute in a series. Editors have been trying to work with her to establish verifiability of the "Coolac massacre" since June. They do not apparently exist. The anon editor is relying on textual interpretation of the poem to infer a massacre; textual interpretation that has also not been published. She refuses to acknowledge that this might be original research. You will find that discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1. On the current talk page there are responses to her accusations of plagiarism.

In conclusion, in dealing with this editor, while it is always good to assume good faith, please assume good faith also of those who have dealt with her before and recognise that they have been thoroughly abused for their pains over a considerable period of time. --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More Twaddle From Artkos/Golden Wot

Golden wattle needs to stop causing chaos on wik when it cant have its own way. Golden wattle I wasnt ever going to give u that restricted info as you have no right to it, plus u are not worthy of it as all you have done here is be nice to try and get the info, then becoming very rude when it wasnt posted.

This ed above knows that I have the other verifying info re Coolac but because of other considerations, I cant post it. NP also know if its correct or not and as info of this kind goes onto the restricted database, thats where it is with no one here ever liekly to get access. As I have also said, because of the nonsense here that started with golden wattle getting pretty iffy when it was realised I wasnt going to hand over restricted info, I wont be posting the info at anytime. Golden wattle knows I wont be posting that info and has known for perhaps, two months at least, when she was told here that I had withdrawn the attempt to post it here and that I didnt think wik was a suitable place to put it. Some Universites through Oz know if its correct or not. The coolac massacre discussion here is long dead. This latest is about ridiculous cradle of reconcilation claims. Whether anything important goes here isnt of any importance to anyone in the world as wik isnt important given the incompetent posting and editing that happens admist ridiculous and immature power plays I have realised. Some here have turned the place into a comic book so its more suited to having micky mouse here than fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I dont think I am a wattle tree. Or a river.

Response re the Comments at the end of the Above

I only read the end of it. As Artkos/Golden wattle well knows, the Coolac Massacre area is undergoing a very lage archaeological survey overseen by the RTA etc, and as this survey isnt finished, I cant publish anything from it. I have already decided not to publish anything from it here also, when the surveys are finished as the arguemnt over it has gone on too long.

Its well known in Gundgaai that the massacre did happen and where the remains were put.

Other works such as the bible and foreign languages, are interpreted - using a variety of tools specific to their task. the same with contexttual interpretation of australian poems etc. Probably the tools needed for that though are a knowledge of arch, local landscape and history and Indigneous culture etc as well as current contextual analysis skills. Its Ok if it doesnt go on wik though.

Howcome the fully cited and very esily checked story of Yarri being kicked, cant go here though?????

Check the 'compare versions' on back of Gundgaai 'discussion' page as the stuff they removed tonight, is there (unless they remove it from there also).

The only thing holding up the Coolac Bypass is a platypus colony and the tender hasn't been awarded (The archaeological excavations should be completed last week)[1]. -- Bidgee 10:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Howcome bidgee thinks the bypass is held up, when in fact it isnt ready to start as the EIS isnt completed. Then there is a process to happen post that. I guess bidgee thinks xmas is held up each Sept because the time hasnt progressed to Dec, also? Eh? Unusual reasoning.

Re Gundgaai page - They Still Delete All I Post

I just went through and replied to commeents on Gundagai talk page (veracity of cites, how bidgee can check cites very easily himself, etc), and they are now deleted. They delete anything I put up including on Rfc. They will probably delete this here.

OK TO LEAVE ME LOCKED OUT. Its the bullying worries me. if they do it to me they will to others also

Dont mind my typos. Its all par tof my charm. *laffin*

Its a bit like being locked out of the looney bin.

Anon

I haven't deleted anything the Anon has added today. The Anon has made a misleading accusation saying that and they are now deleted as I have not reverted anything by the Anon today. Also I have looked for the book the Anon has talked but and I haven't found anything but I will continue looking. -- Bidgee 10:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• • So u were deleting pre that? Tsk. Why? Get over it. Little wonder wik is full of so much aggro. Give em a tool and they need to wield it. Its partly wiks fault also for letting anti social people have the tools to cause mayhem.

Its in wagga library. Failing that, ring Gundgaai library and ask them to read you the bit at the end of p.3 in Butchers latest book.

I just checked that ABC article. It was written by Brodie Asmius a child, as part of an ABC competition. I noted to the ABC the many inaccuracies at the time and they responded. It was this authors Mum wa sintergal in having the rmeins of Moonlight the bushranger, excavated from their 100+ year old resting place in Sydney and bought to Gundagai where they now promte town tourism. I will note here I am a direct descendent of survivors of the 1852 flood whereas asmius' are not though they did/do own very large areas of land here since colonial times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

You have a major problem there dont u.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I think I would have a bit (LOT) better idea of what is happening re the Coolac Bypass than the wagga paper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Whats the name of the book? Captain Moonlight's remains where moved from Sydney to Gundagai. Are you saying this is wrong? -- Bidgee 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave the name of the book in the original citation. Its 'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back' by Cliff Butcher 2002. The releif lib ass would probably send u a copy of the pages (3 and 4)via Wagga Library if u ask her nicely, but wagga library have a copy of the book, down near (two rows back) the far wall on the ground level floor which would save u bothering anyone re it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Do u think its right to dig up a persons remains and move them? They did it hush hush and they were here in town before anyone who wasnt involved, knew. If I had known, I'd have protested and asked they leave them where they were. Grave robbery for the sake of tourism using the excuse that moonlight wanted to be buried near one of his gang, (who the locals decided was his lover to add some spice to jazz the whole story up), is wacko in my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Why would you have a better idea on what's going on with the Coolac Bypass? Other media outlets have reported the same story (Prime News and Win News). -- Bidgee 10:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would know more re Coolac than any local or wider media outlet. For one very good reason that can be yours to wonde rover.

New paragraph. Doug Hogan (Prime) and I have discussed his reporting and he has given an assurance to tone his tone down even if he continues composing attention grabbing and riveting stories that jazz his show up a bit. Prime is a commercial station isnt it so needs advertisers so needs interesting shows. I think ABC Riverina have just opted out re their reporting and are being a bit circumspect re what they say as they know they will hear from me if they go too overboard. Our local paper is very creative re some of their compositions but even they have toned it all down a bit too recently. The truth of it all is, none of them really know but as its a current issue, they need to print/broadcast soemthing. I think there was a media update last week some went to though. i.e. what the rta was prepared to, and could, tell the media - they did. Not a lot. Dayum eh. I dont think they went to the actual arch sites as they werent invited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I know a cite for the Coolac Massacre.

Last monday at around 10am, on ABC Radio666 Canberra Morning Show presented by Alix Sloane, Alix had Ian Warden (UC) as a guest. They had a phone in re Australian values and aussie trivia. The show went right across NSW. During it, it was said that the Coolac Massacre happened. The tape of the show should be available. I am sure Alix would oblige.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Blocking the anon from Gundagai

• Not sure you are aware but you just took out part of the IP address range for south-east Australia (densly settled part of Australia) for the largest ISP provider in the country, Telstra. [2] - the range is actually to 203.54.#.# - the random allocation does give her access to, for example 203.54.186.36 (talk · contribs · block log) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Telstra has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight. Thatcher131 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway.

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic Telstra are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. Dont deny service to other Telstra users just because you want to have a go at me as that is pretty crook.

ALSO, are you allowed to disclose personal details of people who contribute to wik such as their ISP and IP numbers as you have here. I dont post your IP numbers etc and I think that is contrary to wik policy, isnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs)

I unblocked your IP range when I filed the arbitration request so you would have the option of responding. Regarding disclosure of your IP, if Wikipedia editors register for a username, their IP information is hidden to everyone except for a few senior administrators with Checkuser access, and may not be disclosed except under extraordinary circumstances. Since you choose not to register, your IP address is not masked, as it is the only means of identifying you. So in fact, registering for a user name protects your privacy more than being completely "anonymous." Having a username also gives you other benefits such as your own talk page for carrying on these sorts of conversations. Thatcher131 11:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reply: The privacy policy is linked on the bottom of every page. It states in part,

f you are logged in, you will be identified by your user name. This may be your real name if you so choose, or you may choose to publish under a pseudonym, whatever user name you selected when you created your account. If you have not logged in, you will be identified by your network IP address. This is a series of four numbers which identifies the Internet address from which you are contacting the wiki. Depending on your connection, this number may be traceable only to a large Internet service provider, or specifically to your school, place of business, or home. It may be possible that the origin of this IP address could be used in conjunction with any interests you express implicitly or explicitly by editing articles to identify you even by private individuals. It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.'

Thatcher131 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have added my bit (3:10am here) and don't know how I went as it's my first time posting in a Arbitration. -- Bidgee 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I've just noticed your handling of the "Lost episodes" mediation (picking up where the assigned Mediator had dropped off), and thought that perhaps you might be interested in joining the Mediation Committee. The Committee is always in need of more active members, and you seem to be successful. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Arthur/Bad Arthur

Hi Thatcher. I've corrected one of your IP locations. When I "whois" it, it comes back Ottawa, not Hamilton. Best, Bucketsofg 03:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gundagai

Yes, I know and I completely agree. I was inclined to block for longer but enforcing it seems to be impossible. Can we do a range block or would it take out too many people? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though her main range includes 65000 addresses, almost all of her contributions come from the ranges 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. (I suspect her local telephone exchange is only served by these two ranges.) If we were to block anonymous editing only with account creation enabled, the block would not affect any registered users, or anyone who wanted to create a new username, and would only potentially only affect a small number of people in her local area who might also wish to contribute anonymously. If you look at the list of IPs on her RFC, none of them have any contributions that are not obviously her. (is that a triple negative)? Anyway, I would definitely use the rangeblocks I suggested if she repeats her behavior. Thatcher131 11:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I myself am a former soldier in the "sock wars" and know too well how easy it is to misinterpret identities. Though I respect our current policy I believe we would be better served with a blanket prohibition on the use of socks so that the considerable expenditure of effort to determine which particular troublemaker a sock belongs to and to demonstrate that the resulting activities constitute disruption would no longer be necessary. I tried to start a discussion at WPT:SOCK on this but it stalled, in part due to the opposition of a Karmafist sock. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Slovan

You just blocked my roommate for indef. Yes, I live in a college --VinceB 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And as far as I know, logging in is not a must. I wrote the sign on my userpage that "I nearly always do anonim edits instead of using this account" so accusing me of sockpuppetry or such assumpion that I wanted to avoid the 3RR is false. A: I'm not the only one making contribs from Hungary B: I always stopped at the limit. Check it leisurely. But yes, that's true that I'm quite short tempered. I learned the lession abt this. All what is proven is that I wrote a true sentence on my userpage. And I got a block for it. pff...--VinceB 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, your roommate can post to his own talk page even while blocked. He can post {{unblock}} and give a reason. The roommate excuse is frequently given, sometimes it is true and sometimes not. I would like the case to reviewed by someone else. Of course, your roommate's account was recognized by users familiar with your editing habits; if he had different interests, no one would have had the idea to check. As far as editing while logged out is concerned, it's not really sockpuppet behavior, but if it is done to avoid accountability for 3RR or other problems then it's wrong no matter what it is called. I will keep an eye on your talk pages to see what other editors think. Thatcher131 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:RRgg

Thanks for the welcome - the pointers will be helpful. I have been enjoying wikipedia as a rich information source so I guess it is only right to contribute my share and learn to do it the correct way. Thanks Rrgg 04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Rrgg

Thanks

I just want to thank four your detailed explanation of your attitude. Sounds reasonable to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

AE

Hey. You talk about the spirit of my arbitration decision. I think the spirit was to get editors to discuss reverts. I made clear attempts to do so - when I inserted the tag, I wrote on the talk page about it. When the other user removed the tag, I pointed him to the talk page. You point out that I didn't write on the talk page that day. This was because nobody else had written about that issue that day, including the editor who removed the tag.

You say, "other editors... could have replaced the tag if they felt it was needed". I see your point; but equally, the same applies for the other editor, too.

I understand that you probably don't have time to research the issue, but there is a situation on anarchism/anarcho-capitalism-related articles (and on many other topics on wikipedia) where many (either multiple users or multiple sockpuppets) have descended upon articles with the single purpose of "representing their opinion on wikipedia". In many cases this also has the (intentional or not) side effect of pushing off and/or misrepresenting other opinions on said articles, and/or exasperating more neutral users, who are not as eager to edit wikipedia as they are. I am telling you this just so you know. Not every editor is neutral, and the population of editors on an article, especially articles on topics such as these, do not necessarily reflect the general population. -- infinity0 14:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RFAr Pseudoscience

As a clerk, what can you do to keep Ian Tresman from miring the workshop page down with proposals that lack even the most basic requirements - to overhaul the entirety of our DR policies, the creation of entirely new and empowered groups of people, his principals that do not propose any principal at all, and the like? At what point does inexperience become disruption? JBKramer 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much. The workshop is a public workshop after all. Look at the Giano and Rachel Marsden cases, for example. I will remove personal attacks (should any occur) but there's nothing in the job description that allows me to remove ill-advised proposals. They will just get ignored by the arbitrators. Usually, the only arbitrator to edit the workshop page is Fred Bauder (sometimes Dmcdevit). When he gets around to this case he will pick and choose what he likes or ignore everything and write his own proposals. That's why I an Flo are trying to write proposals that follow the form and content of previous cases, so our time spent won't go totally to waste. Thatcher131 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that while his proposals will be ignored (as I know they will be), his clutter will make my appropriatly formed, plausable proposals get lost in the mire - this has already happened on the evidence page, which is a morass of people trying to prove their pet theories. JBKramer 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I could maybe move some things around when the time gets closer (Fred is still 3 cases away). Thatcher131 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have a question about this subject: as you remark on my talk page, I already added a comment somewhere, but I forgot where(!); now I see familiar looking comments by others on one of three new pages on which I could/should comment. That's looks a bit like overkill to me; please tell me on which page I most effectively should place a comment (partly to be copied from where I put it before). Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this is one of the talkier cases, that is true. There is a lot of duplication in this case; some opening statements recycled as evidence and recycled again as proposed findings. This case has more concerned parties than most and they all want to get their say in, so the case pages are longer than most cases
• The statement you made at the beginning was moved to the talk page of the case page, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. If you want to be considered an "involved party" (in which case any sanctions or remedies could apply to you) you can move your statement to the main page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and add your name as an involved party. Probably not a great idea at this point unless you have specifically been involved with these other editors on these articles. If you want to make general comments on the case, the talk page where your comments are now is fine. If you want to present specific evidence of bad editing or other bad behavior, add a section to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence page; if you would like to comment on evidence offered by others but not offer your own evidence, use the evidence talk page. The parties and arbitrators make proposals in the case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop, where you can comment on specific proposals or use the talk page of that page. Eventually the arbitrators will post final principles for voting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision which only the arbitrators edit. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's crystal clear - thanks! :-) Harald88 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided that there is probably no need to add more evidence; instead I made some critical comments at some places. More than anything else, I hope that this artibration can lead to some more precise guidelines about the application of "due weight". I don't have in mind to follow the RFAr closely from now on.

Best regards, Harald88 01:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am only involved in the most tangential ways possible, and am primarily concerned about this RFAr due to its potential precedent-setting (despite WP:CCC of course, and, I know, the statement that ArbCom is not bound by precedent). I've authored a potential solution to the RS/OR/NPOV/Undue Weight mess on the Workshop Talk page, but given the above "chattiness" on this case and my own naivete in Arbitration, I'll leave to your judgement as clerk if that should be included in the actual Workshop for further consideration. Serpent's Choice 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support, especially in light of the developing request for arbitration. Results of the adminship discussion are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Arb thing

Regarding your evidence at the WP:CHILD case ("Another possibly problematic edit") please note the important difference between John's first edit (which is not a request for comment but a link to a poll to make it official policy, but does not list an ending date or the required amount of support) and the second edit (which, indeed, is an RFC and to which I have no objection). >Radiant< 09:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Marsden

To think of Boyd and O'Hagan as seperate from the Donnelly affair is inaccurate. O'Hagan was the harassment policy coordinator that picked the panel that investigated the original claims. O'Hagan personal involvement with Marsden is part of the reason SFU revised its policies for dealing with harassment. In a single letter, SFU warned Marsden that she would evicted from a campus residence if she went near Boyd or Donnelly. SFU didn't treat this as three seperate problems, but one.

The case is totally different from Bill O'Reilly's alleged naughty phone calls. He was a television commentator before his harassment controversy. With Marsden it is the other way around. The Donnelly Affair is her "claim to fame". She was a household name in Canada years before she ever got a TV gig. Geedubber 03:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If the allegations involving O'Hagan are a significant part of the Donnelly controversy, why aren't they mentioned in the Donnelly-Marsden article? If they're only going to be mentioned in one article, it should be that one, and the leap from "O'Hagan improperly discussed the pending case with one of the parties" to "O'Hagan and Marsden had an improper relationship which Marsden pursued to the point of harrassment" is too large to make on the basis of the evidence available, in my opinion. WIth Boyd, the fact that the uni sent her a warning letter is not sufficient proof that there had been a problem, or that it was Marsden's fault. Frankly, if I was the new uni president and Marsden returned as a student, I would want her gone ASAP, and I would have no problem sending a letter to please stay away from any situation that could lead to further trouble, even if it were on the flimsiest of evidence. And of course you did not have any defense from Marsden for these two incidents. I think that the article was crafted to leave the reader with the impression that Marsden has problems with ending relationships, is a serial sex harrasser, and a fabricator of sex harrassment claims against herself. If you can't come right out and say it, you shouldn't be able to infer it either.

I think there is room for more content in the article. For example, have any media analysts written that Marsden's career as a commentator is due to the fact that the earlier controversy "made her a household name?" (For a U.S. commentator I would look for sources like Jeff Jarvis, Howie Kurtz, or Columbia Journalism Review, who are journalists who write meta-analysis of journalism itself.) I think it may be fair game to mention that earlier in her career she promoted herself partially on basis of her looks, creating a certain image involving provacative dress combined with provocative commentary; provided you can find reliable sources, or Marsden's own writings, that back this up, and noting that she has pulled back from this approach.

Anyway, I don't plan on becoming part of a continuing saga, or Marsden's next white knight. I made an attempt to address Fred's concerns while still keeping the essential content. I hope it ends up being useful in some way, if not I will have wasted a perfectly good hour on it. C'est la vie. Thatcher131 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't support an improper relationship? O'Hagan claimed that Marsden sent her chocolates, flowers, gifts, letters and tapes and called her up to 400 times. Marsden said their relationship was akin to a mother/daughter one, close and affectionate(direct quote). After Stubbs insisted O'Hagan end the relationship, Marsden sent a letter to the president threatening to commit suicide(the Vancouver Sun has a copy of the letter). Geedubber 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The exact nature of the relationship is unknowable, even though both sides' allegations are printed in a newspaper.
2. Even if there is reason to include the allegations, prior versions of the article did not present Marsden's side.
3. If the relationship was a key factor in the Donnelly reversal, it should be mentioned in that article first. If it wasn't an important factor in the Donnelly case, there is certainly no reason to include it in the Marsden article, unless you want to paint her as a serial harrasser.
4. It seems to me like the relationship was highly improper from O'Hagan and SFU's side of the equation but not from Marsden's side. Marsden had no particular duty not to date a college official; O'Hagan had every reason not to date a student (or at least recuse herself from the case) who had filed a complaint over which she had authority. (Unless you allege Marsden began the relationship specifically to influence the outcome of the Donnelly case, for which there is no proof whatsoever.)

I took my shot. This is my effort to balance the desire to write an encyclopedia article describing this person's career with the need to be respectful of living subjects and the desire that Wikipedia itself should be more respected than the National Equirer or the UK Sun. Your mileage may vary, of course. Thatcher131 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo arb

Copied from my talk page:

It appears that in the Kosovo arb case, since there are now only 7 active arbs (plus JamesF, who voted before he went inactive) there are 8 on the case, making a majority of 5, so the case is ready to close if they want to. Thatcher131 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher123, It seems everything is in order. Arbs have been adjusting the majority as they go along. How to count the majority gets a little tricky on some of these cases. Your count seems right to me, though. They will likely get to it in the next few days. Have kept me busy opening and closing cases this week. :-) Take care, FloNight 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please close my account

Now that the Marsden arbitration is done, could you please close my account and delete my talk page. Thanks. Arthur Ellis 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, your account is never "Closed" unless you forget the password. You can always come back to it. I have deleted the user page and blanked the talk page. (Blanking the talk page is the conventional response, leaving this history there for inspection). I will watchlist it and if it looks like people are abusing it I will protect it if necessary. Cheers. Thatcher131 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whether this indicates that Arthur Ellis desires to withdraw his request for reconsideration currently pending on RfAr? Newyorkbrad 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, hesitating to ASSuME. But it's moot anyway because the new rules on accepting cases requires 4 "net" votes to accept. With two declining, there would have to be six votes to accept, and there are only 7 or 8 active arbitrators in total. Thatcher131 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nodding, but in the spirit of allowing people to depart with dignity, I think it would be more appropriate for the last word to be a "withdrawn" or "mooted by events" rather than "rejected." Newyorkbrad 02:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noted his departure statement on WP:RFAR. One of the clerks could remove it I suppose. Thatcher131 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfAr revert

Hi Thatcher131 - just to clarify I had mistakenly read that anon's edit as vandalism. I didn't realize he/she was party to the dispute and not adding "nonsense." Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Unless you're close to the case you wouldn't recognize her as one of the parties. That's why I explained it in the summary instead of using rollback myself. Thatcher131 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

sign?

Hi - I think you inadvertently forgot to sign one of your edits here. I wouldn't mention it except it makes the conversation hard to follow, which would be a shame as it seems to be a productive conversation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Travb

This issue was discussed in the past and you had told me arbcom ruling are not scarlet letters. Travb is now purposely edit warring and threatening to report me for violating my Arbcom decision as a way to get me to stop, even though he is not even giving edit summaries or presenting the sources. [3] I would like you to look at the situation seeing as you dealt with most of this, and are being reffered to again now. I opened a post on AN/I and the first thing he does is threaten me there as well. [4] --NuclearZer0 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Systar

Hi Thatcher131. You G12'd this article recently. The author of the above article claims to have removed copyvio on the above article. Looks ok to me also. I've restored it, hope it's ok with you. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No sweat. Thatcher131 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gundagai arbitration

With full appreciation of the time you have put into writing up the /Workshop (I may nominate you in this year's ArbCom election if you are not careful, though I disagree with you on some nuances of the opera case), I am starting to wonder if it is time to bypass finishing the full-fledged arbitration proceeding and propose moving directly in the direction of a community ban of the "anonymous Gundagai editor." Today's posts including her comment on your proposal for a civility parole are ridiculous already and I can't see that devoting too much more effort to assembling this case is a sensible investment of everyone's time. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone I respected thought I was out of line that would be one thing, but here I'm mostly amused. The only real problem is that the case will take another month at least to close. The problem with a community ban is finding an uninvolved admin to block the IP, then the range, and keep the blocks up as she changes IPs. An arbitration ruling will give the admins in the case (me, Durova, Wattle and Longhair) the right to block and revert even though we are "involved." If Longhair or Wattle want to propose it at AN/I I would support but it can't be implemented well without a dedicated watcher. Thatcher131 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More absurdity overnight, clearly a very sad situation (I don't think it's deliberate trolling, though I've been wrong before). Is she currently disrupting anywhere else other than the RfAr pages themselves? If so, I'll present a motion for an injunction against her editing any pages other than the arbitration until the case is resolved (unless you'd prefer to make the motion yourself), with violative edits treated as from a banned user and subject to reversion by any editor. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Premature. Could also semi-protect any articles she is a real problem at. So far its just a couple of edits a day to her usual topics. Thatcher131 13:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I've said my piece on this one, but let me know if it would be helpful for me to weigh in in the future. You have still succeeded so far in disregarding the parenthetical in the first paragraph of this thread, but that is okay - for the moment. :) Newyorkbrad 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of today's threats, I am now starting to think in terms of this precedent. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear

Hmmm, this is very confusing. I'm just clicking on his sig "NuclearZer0". The first part "Nuclear" links to Umph and the second part "Zero" links to Zer0. What's going on here? Is the same person using two accounts simultaneously? Derex 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I should blush over the attention, I think he deserves an answer, even though he has already been shown the arbcom ruling that states I do not use zer0faults anymore [5], makes you wonder why he would ask the question ... See Thatcher131, you try to play by the rules, and nothing but harrassment. --NuclearZer0 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a case of vandalism [6] [7] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [8] [9] [10], that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries. I guess this is good because I can present it to Arbcom soon as proof of why I need a new username and need it seperated from past rulings. This combined with the Travb incident and Ryan just add even more weight to it. --NuclearZer0 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Further harrassment by RyanFreisling [11] --NuclearZer0 23:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope some action can be taken to prevent this harrassment from continuing. --NuclearZer0 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever that means. I am quite confident my conduct is anything but harassment. I've asked you twice, and you've refused to answer. You didn't correct Morton's comments though. Have a great day, Zer0/Nuke/whatever your next account name will be. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So dramatic of an exit, RFCU has told you 2x that I wasn't, only you seem obsessed to hunt the bogeyman forever. --NuclearZer0 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So incorrect of you. RfCU has only stated your current IP's are not those of the prior offender. However, even Thatcher pointed out the similarities. Your tendentious conduct under your current doppelganger is telling enough. Have fun! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, ok to appease you once and for all, I am not Merecat. I would have thought everyone under the sun telling you, including Essjay when he told you basically that all Merecat socks were found, but apparently you just needed to hear it and I have deprived you of it for so long. Its true, the boogeyman is gone for good, whatever will some wikipedians do now that they can't chase shadows, not you of course, you seem to edit fine without the ever looming Merecat threat. --NuclearZer0 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question. Despite your protestations there is no boogeyman (and certainly no fear of one), just aggressive and tendentious socks of a troll who has demonstrated a willingness to lie ad nauseam to derail productive editing on WP. Since I (and others) saw similarities in your editing behavior, the question was appropriate both times. Again, thank you for finally answering the question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we done here? Good grief. Thatcher131 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really I would like something done about this users harrassment:

Here is a case of vandalism [12] [13] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [14] [15] [16], that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries. --NuclearZer0 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NM, seems they been blocked for a month for similar behavior. Thanks you for taking the time out again Thatcher131. --NuclearZer0 10:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:GrahamNC.jpg

You removed the speedy deletion template, but the image is not listed under an acceptable license. In fact, the "with permission" template - template:copyrighted - says that these are to be deleted. Thus I have restored the speedy deletion tag, and added that one. --NE2 05:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though the flickr site says all rights reserved, the upload summary claims permission from the author. As far as I can tell, that makes it ineliglbe for any of the CSD categories. However, I don't mind letting another admin take a pass at it. Thatcher131 05:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's permission from the author for Wikipedia use, not to release it under a free license. This type of license is explicitly not allowed. --NE2 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the claim of permission was "on wikipedia." Thatcher131 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerkship

Hi Thatcher. I thank you for your informal clerking for arbcom. Since you have an open application, I've submited your name to the mailing list for confirmation as an "official" clerk, which means nothing really, except that we trust you to keep doing it. If there are no objections, with your permission, I'll add you to clerks-l and put your name on the WP:AC/C#Current Clerks list. Cheers. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You have my permission and I appreciate the endorsement. (So far I have just done two cases where the most active clerk was recused; I will endeavor to be a good boy about the process and help keep the playground picked up for the other kids :) Thatcher131 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GVSU sign.jpg)

Thanks for not deleting Image:GVSU sign.jpg, but forcing me to reupload the free version under an inferior name. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. You may add it to an article if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy). Thank you. Kjetil_r 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure your sarcasm is well-placed. You quote policies to me basically to prove that the image is deletable (orphaned fair use, and I can not add it to any articles since you have uploaded a free version), yet the speedy deletion criteria you quoted was plainly invalid (identical copy on commons). Since the image is now tagged orphan fair use, expect it to deleted in 7 days or so and then you can rename your free version to the better name. Thatcher131 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't take my previous comment too seriously, but I find it a little bit too rigid to not delete a fair use image when a free replacement is available under the same filename. But never mind, I guess the fair use image will be deleted in seven days, and that I then can move the free image back to it's former filename. Cheers, Kjetil 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Velten

I am the person who has edited from the account in question and saw your messages on WP:RFAR (which have been my only edits since the block was first initiated). I think you would do a good job as a third-party administrator in determining whether I become blocked or not in future cases. I would be happy if you unblocked the account (see my message on WP:RFAR). It is your choice. I'll go now. 64.231.73.129 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten to remove that. Thank you. Velten 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Thatcher131 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Removing warnings" discussion link?

Do you have handy a link to the lengthy discussion about "users removing warnings from their talkpages" that came up a few weeks ago? This old perennial has come up again and I'd rather link to that discussion rather than reinvent the wheel. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. I'm sure there are several in the ANI archives. If you find it, I'll probably add it to my sandbox for future reference, though. Thatcher131 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, Chacor just saw this post and pointed me here for the most complete discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a real wordy piece of business and doesn't really go anywhere (i.e. removing warnings is ok, but no one is willing to change the {{wr3}} templates). A link to an archived noticeboard discussion would be useful to have in one's back pocket as well. Thatcher131 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome that too if it turns up - and I think the templates really do need to be updated - a good, well-intentioned admin (who hardly ever blocks) has been criticized for the past two days for lengthening a block based on warning-removal, which he says he did in express reliance on the language of the templates. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad, here are two discussions.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Hiding talk page warnings
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Funny problem with false warnings on my talk page

HTH Thatcher131 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Apparently there are also some templates-for-deletion debates on this as well, which I will try to hunt down later. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation followup

Thatcher, hello, I would like advice on something, as regards the Lost mediation which you assisted with (thanks again for that). As you may recall, after extensive discussion, we came up with unanimous agreement on a set of episode guidelines, which specified such things as length of plot summary, consistent article titles, rules for inclusion of trivia, etc. However, another user, Ned Scott (talk · contribs), has taken exception with some of these guidelines (specifically the article title portion), and is engaging in move wars[17][18] on the Lost episode articles, and edit wars, to the point that the guidelines page is now protected. :/ I have re-checked consensus on the talk page, and everyone (except Ned Scott) has continued to agree with the guidelines, but he persists with his protest, and is evidently expanding uncivil behavior to other areas of Wikipedia as well. Can you please advise as to what kind of "enforcement" power that we have? Repeated polite messages and warnings from multiple users (not all of them related to Lost) to his talkpage[19][20][21] and encouragement to engage in discussion rather than unilateral action, have not been effective, and indeed, he intends to respond to these in a negative manner, such as deleting other people's comments, using profanity in edit summaries, and accusing other people of "harassing" him [22][23][24]. Considering how much effort went into the guidelines, I really do not want to see one user de-rail the progress that we made. What I would like, is to proceed with the work that we were doing with converting all of the episode articles to the format that was agreed upon via the episode guidelines, without Ned following along behind me and reverting things. We made an elaborate table at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost/Episode_guidelines#Episode_list to carefully step through and convert articles, with a member from each side of the mediation (me and PKtm) carefully initialling each one as it was done. But now with Ned jumping in and reverting, things are getting all tangled up. Can you please advise as to how we should deal with this? Thanks, --Elonka 11:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think to contact the mediator about this. There seems to be much confusion about the mediation on these articles and whether or not the mediation discussed article titles for episode articles and the use of disambig titles. I've since requested comments from others and even from others who were originally in favor of the titles Elonka and co wishes to use. I don't think the article titling has anything to do with the mediation, and it would be great if you could clarify if it did or not. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee's back

Hi Thatcher. There is a bit of cafuffle over this as I am 99.9% sure User:Icemountain2 is one of sockpuppets of the Rikki Lee Travolta trolls so the account should really be tagged as such. However the user is clever, as we know and is placing extremely long messages on pages of people I have been in dispute with claiming I am harrassing them when I readd the tag. This edit pretty much clinches it for me. I'd be OK with letting it go if I hadn't discovered new sockpuppets adding Rikki Lee info to the Thor article. Arniep 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Be aware, this is a situation in the making. I'd prefer everyone were in the loop. Please see User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Being_Stalked_by_User. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, that's a diff from January, what the heck??? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Killer I am sorry but this case is so complicated you will not understand the significance of the diff or the pattern of the user's edits. This went on for literally weeks earlier this year and was part of a campaign to promote an actor and the student film he was partaking in. Arniep 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite capable of understanding complicated situations. I am not capable of understanding why, after Thatcher131 removed the sock tag with a statement of AGF, you found it necessary, 'without introducing any evidence to anyone so far as I have been able to determine, to replace that tag. The "evidence" you give above is from January. Surely you have better things to do than to edit war with two administrators over a sock tag based on an edit from last January? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This qualifies as proof of a sock? "This went on for literally weeks earlier this year and was part of a campaign to promote an actor and the student film he was partaking in". Uh, no. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Icemountain2 was one of a suite of user accounts that existed almost entirely to promote Rikki Lee Travolta as (a) the unacknowledged half-brother or something to John Travolta; (b) fan favorite to be the next James Bond, twice; (c) a top-5 Broadway draw, and (d) set to star as Thor in a comic book movie adaptation. None of these assertions could be backed up be reliable sources; essentially RLT is a small-time Chicago area off-Broadway stage actor, and all the other claims came from blogs, his IMDB bio (written by his agent), a foreign news web site that allows anyone to submit unverified press releases, and the two TV guide polls which mysteriously (as TV guide itself said) named this unknown guy as the fans favorite to be the next James Bond. The only thing RLT seems to be top-5 at is astroturfing. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta)
• I don't know if the RLT promoters were true sockpuppets, or friends, or fans, but they were all clearly single purpose accounts and often obnoxious about it. If Icemountain is back adding RLT as a cast member of some movie, that should be held to the usual standard of verifiability (no blogs or fan rumor sites). On the other hand, I don't think there is any real value in forcing the account to wear a sign around its neck saying its a sockpuppet of someone, so I would suggest to Arnie that he back off a bit and stick to watching Icemountain's edits for verifiability. (Probably every editor has run into at least a couple single purpose accounts with a history of dubious edits. What Wikipedia seems to lack is a mechanism to track, watch, and inform other editors that is milder and less potentially offensive than slapping a sockpuppet tag on the user's own talk page.) Thatcher131 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross posted from User talk:KillerChihuahua:

Icemountain2 has not started re-adding RLT. His sole contributions since this mess have been a vandalism revert[25] and an addition, with sources, of an attorney's statement[26] on Sept. 23 which lasted until an anon removed it, with no explanation, on October 15[27]. Both edits were valid; neither had anything to do with RLT. I am willing to AGF and say this account may have started as a meat-puppet, and is a Travolta fan, and may become a good contributor if not bitten. I see no evidence this editor is acting as a sock or meat puppet at this time. I could be wrong; but there is no evidence otherwise currently. Until there is, there is no reason to harass this user because of suspicions. The evidence is simply too slight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Query

Thatcher, regarding this deletion, the normal thing is to keep rejected cases, I believe, and this part of the RfAr was moved to a subpage only because of the space it was taking up. It will be needed in case of future trouble, in all likelihood. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, rejected arbitration cases are not kept anywhere, except in the history of WP:RFAR. There is an incomplete and unofficial archive of rejected cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests, which is just a collection of diffs to the rejection. Plus, the subpage I deleted was only a partial statement of the case anyway, since it only included comments moved off the main page for space reasons. Having said that, you are of course welcome to undelete or userfy the page if you want it for reference. If you are building a record of the case, don't forget to capture the other statements from the main RFAR page using the history link at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Thatcher131 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's best to leave these things undeleted so that people can look through the history and find them, even if they're not compiled in an archive; especially as the page is part of the original RfAr and only became a subpage because of spillover. I'll probably restore it at some point as you have no objection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I expect the reason that rejected cases are not specially archived is more or less the same reason that uncertified RFC's are deleted. All the comments that were moved to the subpage are also in the history of the main page, so the subpage is merely a convenience. As long as it's needed for an ongoing situation I have no problem keeping it around, but I don't think such things ahould be kept indefinitely as a rogues' gallery or permanent scarlet letter. But that's a policy question for another time, since this clearly is an ongoing situation. Thatcher131 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RE:Checkuser clerk?

Thanks for contacting me, but at the moment I am far too busy to be of any use. I have removed my name from the list. Viridae^Talk 03:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Travb again

Sadly I am back and asking for your help, Travb has found himself at an MfD for a noticeboard I participate in, small world isnt it. He also found himself on 3 I believe so far AfD's related to that noticeboard, again small world. Anyway he is now deleting my comments from the AfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard [28] [29] [30] This is starting to get old with Travb and you can notice the threat on AN/I in the first summary, and here is the subsequent AN/I post: [31] --NuclearZer0 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Did we not agree not to post on eachothers talk pages? [32] I am getting tired of these actions that I see as baiting. Notice the "first step in resolution" comment. --NuclearZer0 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobs

Not sure it is him, the ip is possible, but not a match. Fred Bauder 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the editing is slightly different too; same topic, but factual, not hysterical. Fred Bauder 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)