User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Unfortunately, I am very busy and forced to bring work home nearly every evening for the foreseeable future, so I have cut back on my participation. Comments left here will be archived rapidly, responses are possible but not guaranteed. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.

Tajik-Professor (talk · contribs)

You blocked Tajik-Professor (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Tajik (talk · contribs) based on checkuser information, but a recent checkuser suggests otherwise. Do you still stand by your assertion based on other information? -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly any technical evidence is too stale to check. I obviously don't have any basis to dispute whatever private evidence Deskana has seen. I would probably like to see Deskana and Dmcdevit get in touch with each other to see if Dmcdevit will change his opinion. At this point I don't have any basis to either rescind to confirm the block. Thatcher131 11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, can you please, look into this [1]. I am tired of these attacks and open insults by socks of User:Tajik. Thanks. Atabek 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week. In future cases like this you should be able to get the individual IP addresses blocked by making a complaint to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Some admins are quicker than others to dismiss apparent content disputes so it will be important to note in your complaint that the IP is from the same ISP and geographic area that was previously confirmed, that the IP focuses on this one issue (and is therefore probably not an unrelated person with a coincidental interest in the topic) and that the user is banned. Hopefully this will work for you. Thatcher131 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher, I will take a note of that. Atabek 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:

• Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
• Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
• With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
• Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
• 7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
• Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).

Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. --84.58.177.136 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• One thing I am is sick of the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Iranian dispute, i frankly don't even know what side Atabek is on, and if I answer complaints at WP:AE I try to be as fair as possible. If it seems that I favor Atabek over other editors maybe that is because he is less disruptive than some others. I blocked Tajik-Professor based on a checkuser finding from Dmcdevit; I lack access to the underlying data so you will have to take it up with him. Thatcher131 01:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek is known for having multiple accounts. He is not only writing politically and historically wrong articles in Wikipedia, but also in various other pages, including Iranian.com. He is a Turkish nationalist and Pan-Turkist, and all of his articles are aimed at promoting this ideology. That's the reason why he is always in conflict with Greeks, Armenians, and Iranians - the traditional enemies of Turkish nationalists. The reason why Atabek hates Tajik (and why so many others hate Tajik, not only here, but also in various political forums), is because Tajik is an educated Afghan, educated and trained in the West. He uses scientific sources for his articles. Tajik has written many articles for various newspapres (recently in Der Spiegel in regard of Afghanistan's Independence Day). Some people think of him as a Persian nationalist, but he is not even Persian, he is from Afghanistan. He has written various good articles in the German and English Wikipedia. In fact, he was also interviewed by a local radio station in German and the situation of Afghan and Iranian refugees and immigrants in Hamburg (Tajik himself is a German citizen). Atabek is a tricky contributer. He pretends to be a user with general good faith toward other users. That's because most of his opponents are not comparable to Tajik. They are usually nationalist teenagers, from Iran or Amrmenia, with no special education. Tajik, however, is a professional historian and scholar. He is at the University of Hamburg, along with admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Atabek wanted him banned, because - in this case - he is no match for Tajik. And still, Atabek does everything to ban him. Tajik is smart enough not to use socks. He is a very experienced Wikipedian of the German Wikipedia, and some Wikipedians want him as an admin. Atabek's English is superior to that of Tajik or many other from Germany. But unlike Atabek, Tajik does not live in an English-speaking country. Banning Tajik was a big mistake - your mistake. Or maybe it was your intention, as I believe. I have contacted many others, including Jimbo Wales who will (hopefully) take a look at this case. Tajik has also asked one of his friends, a press reporter, to write a short story about this. I know that reporter personally, and I will ask him to mention YOUR name in that article, because all odds in the story point to you. YOU accused Tajik, YOU banned him, YOU prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom (the funny thing is that the ArbCom was not needed, since the two parties had already agreed to respect each other), and now YOU have been exposed. It's time for you to explain your REAL intentions. Stop accusing IPs and other Wikipedians. Explain WHY you banned Tajik without ANY proofs, and WHY you support a known vandal and sockpuppet-user such as Atabek. --84.58.177.136 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tajik agreed to mediation, then postponed the mediation to go away on a trip or someting, and then IP addresses associated with Tajik were, according to Dmcdevit, used to continue the edit war Tajik was involved in. (In addition to blocking, I notified ArbCom by private email and asked them to take whatever action was appropriate. Out of 15 Arbitrators plus former Arbitrators plus Jimbo on the ArbCom mailing list, many of whom are checkusers, no one unblocked.) Also note that Tajik was indefinitely blocked by Dmcdevit after being blocked many times before with the reason Immediate resumption of edit warring with E104421 after unblock; this user will never be a constructive member of the community. and was only unblocked to participate in mediation, which he promptly avoided by saying he was going away. Tajik may be a professor and have good English language skills, but his block log and arbitration case suggest he is not able to interact constructively in this community. The anonymous IP user who knows so much about Tajik should perhaps contact User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, after all, any admin can overturn a ban if he has the confidence that it is the right thing to do. The anonymous IP user who knows so much about Tajik should also consider whether Tajik in any way contributed to his own blocks by his behavior, or if the eleven blocks before mine were all the work of admins playing favorites.

In any event, this discussion was about Tajik-professor, about whom I have no opinion at this point, and will happily leave the decision to others. Thatcher131 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Against the brunt of accusations and personal attacks brought up against me by these anon IPs connected to User:Tajik, I can only say that I don't hate anyone. Hating a person in virtual world isn't possible in general, one may dislike others' position, but not an unknown personality. My position is that the letter of ArbCom decisions should apply strictly to everyone. If User:Tajik is banned from editing, he should not be editing, period, regardless of his contributions, positions, views, etc. Also, addressing some interesting points:

• "He is not only writing politically and historically wrong articles in Wikipedia, but also in various other pages, including Iranian.com" -- this last claim was made by User:Ali doostzadeh at Talk:Safavid dynasty, perhaps not in bad faith, as I respect him as a generally reasonable contributor, yet still unsubstantiated. As I said there, I can't take responsibility for someone using links to our discussions or edits at places outside of Wikipedia.
• "That's the reason why he is always in conflict with Greeks, Armenians, and Iranians - the traditional enemies of Turkish nationalists." -- most of my edits were related to Azerbaijan, not Turkey. I don't remember having a conflict with Greeks either. I would love to also see when Turkish (country Turkey) nationalists were ever interested in articles related to Iran.
• "The reason why Atabek hates Tajik ... is because Tajik is an educated Afghan, educated and trained in the West." -- brilliant! I think this is an "unbeatable argument", would love to see how myself, Turkish, Azeri or whatever background User:Tajik associates me with, is related to Afghanistan some 1000 miles away in order to make me hate an educated Afghan.
• "Tajik, however, is a professional historian and scholar." -- a professional historian, scholar claiming that I hate him because he is educated Afghan :), whose main (perhaps the only) source in Wikipedia is either Encyclopedia Iranica or Encyclopedia of Islam.
• "Atabek's English is superior to that of Tajik or many other from Germany. But unlike Atabek, Tajik does not live in an English-speaking country. Banning Tajik was a big mistake - your mistake." -- interesting to see the logic or relevance of this argument by a proclaimed "historian and scholar" here.
• Finally, "Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then" -- it's clear as a day from the history of User:Tajik-Professor here [2] that the User:Tajik-Professor started in Wikipedia on April 25, 2007, in the middle of User:Tajik ArbCom case, with editing the same set of articles as User:Tajik from the same IP range. Besides why would a contributor name himself User:Tajik-Professor (extension of User:Tajik) in such case, why would User:German-Orientalist (notice also with a hyphen in username) appear in the same way as other socks, using the same arguments and sources at Talk:Safavid dynasty again from the same IP range in Germany and all of these contributors would be vigorously defending User:Tajik and aggressively verbally attacking anyone who reported sockpuppetry. Atabek 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know User:Tajik because everyone who is into political discussions about him knows him. User:Beh-nam knows him, and User:Ariana310 knows him (as a side note: both users were accused by Atabek of being sockpuppets, and - like always - he was proven wrong). He is one of the most famous contributers in Afghanistan websites, and he has direct contact to Afghanistan's current government (for example, he knew that Afghanistan's former king, Zahir Shah was dead, 3 months before the event became public!). He goes by many nicknames and IDs, but still, everyone knows him. Usually, it's nationalists and racists who oppose him. At the same time, he is more or less cheered by the intellectuals and by Western observers. I do not believe Thatchers accusations and claims, especially not that he has assumed good faith. Dmcdevit is known for his aggressive character, and he loves to ban people he does not like. He has even proposed to ban certain IPs without checkuser confirmation, only based on his own assumptions (he claims that he knows the person behind the IP). But his is actually exposing himself, because User:DerDoc is using an IP from Vienna in Austria (1200km away from Tajik), and he was still banned as a suspected sock. Tajik never tried to evade the ArbCom. He has explained many times that he was absent, in Berlin. Only once, he used an IP from Berlin, writing a short note in a discussion. However, when he was back, he was suddenly banned with the claim that he is User:Tajik-Professor, a nickname that is linked to User:NisarKand, a Taliban militia from Pakistan, now living in Holland. Go and check the IPs and Tajik-Professor and NisarKand, and you will get the same IP range: Amsterdam in Holland. It is also funny that people like to talk about the ArbCom, but noone likes to talk TO Tajik's supposed opponent of the ArbCom; noone actually dares to ask him, someone who - despite many conflicts with Tajik - fully supports him! So does User:Sikandarji, an academic and scholar from Oxford University who has written the article Babur with Tajik's help. It does not surprise me at all that User:Atabek is still claiming that Tajik-Professor was Tajik. User:NisarKand is known for choosing names of his opponents. He even had the nick "Tajik rat" (go and ask admin User:Khoikhoi). Atabek has no idea of the articles editted by Tajik-Professor. All of his edits were opposed to Tajik's edit, so that User:Beh-nam complained to various admins to check that user's IP. Without knowing Tajik-Professor's edits, Atabek continues his wrong accusations, despite the fact that an admin has confirmed that Tajik-Professor was NOT Tajik. Even more interesting: Atabek has started to work together with another sock of NisarKand (see above). It is very clear that Atabek is coordinating his edits with thoise of NisarKand, as both users detest Tajik. Both users try to defame Tajik, and both users accuse other Wikipedians of being socks - without any proofs. A name is not enough to accuse a person, but Atabek's entire argumentation is based on the fact that both users had the word "Tajik" in their name. Using his own logic, the term Atabek should be enough to lable User:Atabek as a Turkish nationalist, because it is a Turkish word. Does that make any sense?! Is everyone who has the name "Saddam" or the name "Hussein" an evil person?! Something is VERY wrong in this case, and the admins still do not admit their mistakes. Especially Thatcher. Tajik has requested an unblock TWICE, he even agreed to accept Thatcher's conditions for an unblock. But Thatcher kept quite (as one can read on Tajik's talk page). To me, it is very clear that Atabek, Thatcher, and NisarKand belong to the same group, with the sole aim to get Tajik banned. User:Ali_doostzadeh has also mentioned the fact that Atabek is writing POV in various other articles, and that he does not dare to mention other peoples' names (including Ali's). He is a disruptive Wikipedian, always assuming bad faith (so far, he has accused more than 30 Wikipedians and IPs of being Tajik or sockpuppets; in 90% of the cases, he was proven wrong; only someone with a general bad faith attitude would request so many useless and wrong checkuser files!) Maybe someone should ask Jimbo Wales to take a look at THIS discussion and to Tajik's case. It will be published in the press anyway. Especially for Thatcher and Atabek, there is no way out, because their nicknames will be mentioned in the article. 84.58.177.136 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why would someone insist: "someone should ask Jimbo Wales to take a look at THIS discussion and to Tajik's case", while continuously denying being a sockpuppet (and/or meatpuppet) of Tajik? There are many different ways to address/discuss your concerns with administrators, and I don't see how openly sockpuppeting on administrator's, user's or any article's talk page is one of them. This is simple as A-B-C, while you're a banned user, you're not allowed to edit an article, more so, in a disruptive manner as you do. I have no idea who NisarKand or Rabeenaz are, and frankly I don't care. More than welcome to checkuser me on any suspected users. I will write no more on this subject, so as to avoid overloading Thatcher's talk page with absolutely useless material, to be published in "Der Spiegel" magazine (thanks for the humour :). Don't forget to post me the link to "Der Spiegel" article, I am sure any Wikipedia contributor would be proud of being mentioned in Europe's top magazine. Good luck. Atabek 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Thatcher, if you don't know which side Atabek is on, then I think you are in no position to say he was less disruptive than some other users. Atabek has been more disruptive than most other users including Tajik. He is by far the one single user who's been able to create so much conflict with Iranian and Armenian users, as of right now he probably beats AdilBaguirov in this. Also I'm very disappointed that you choose to ignore the report about him in the Arbitrations enforcement notice board. Not a single word was added about the incident, while you removed the anon IP's comment, who knew so much about Tajik. I was actually waiting for him to tell us what Tajik ate for breakfast. And while were talking about the anon IP and his comments. I'd like to clarify that none of the current active Armenian users is a teenager. --VartanM 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? Not all Armenian users declare their age on their user pages. And I see that some users seem to have started a campaign against Atabek, but no real proof any violation has been provided. --Grandmaster 05:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The same way I know that you're not a teenager, by communicating with them. Atabeks violations were reported to ArbCom noticeboard. Welcome back by the way. VartanM 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made lists of "He's pro-Armenian" or "He's pro-Azeri" or "He's a Turkish nationalist." When (or if) I respond to a complaint, I look at the behavior cited, and try to make a fair response. Thatcher131 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, your neutral view is appreciated, but your statement that his less disruptive then some others is totally wrong. My I remind you that he barely survived a 1yr block in the A-A1 and the A-A2 was initially opened because of his disruptive behavior. VartanM 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thatcher, in my absense for last 2 days, I and my edits came under an attack of editors VartanM, Pocopocopocopoco, Fedayee, TigranTheGreat, Hetoum I on various pages, just checking the history of one of them, Khojaly Massacre page is sufficient to see what's going on [3]. In addition, User:Chaser placed me under civility ban without any prior warning (i.e. I was absent between his warning and ban). Also, Hajji Piruz is back reverting my edits on bunch of other pages. May I know, why I am being banned for 4 days, while all these editors involved in ArbCom in their clearly coordinated effort are not less disruptive, continue warring in an unrestricted manner, clearly along ethnic and national lines. Moreover, in prior case, User:VartanM was kindly warned, while I am being placed immediately under ban, without any warning. Atabek 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be warned. Any administrator may ban you from articles or even the broad topic for disruption; you are well aware of this part of the arbitration enforcement case. It seems reasonable to me. Complaints about other users can be made on the various noticeboards. Due to the extremely broad nature of this dispute and the nature of volunteer admins, perfectly even-handed enforcement is a goal that is unlikely to be perfectly achieved. Thatcher131 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this may need clarification, which I also asked User:Chaser for [4]. The wording for second remedy here clearly says that the remedies including civility supervision and supervised editing shall be applied after placing a warning. User:Chaser placed the warning first, and then afterwards enacted a ban, when I never signed in between the warning and the ban. In similar case of User:Hetoum I, only the warning was placed without a ban. Thanks. Atabek 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaghankatvatsi

Hi Thatcher. I have another request for your comment with regard to historical dispute we have about ancient historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi. Hetoum and VartanM persistently delete any alternative opinions about the ethnic origin of this person. Latest example: [5] Could you please look into this issue, this could help to put an end to another edit war? Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley

He believes that you OKd this edit. I think that is not what you intended and that it is an obvious false light libel caption. I don't believe that caption was there when you unlocked his user page. --DHeyward 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Close call. If it was a rumor, or an arrest and innocence plea with a trial pending, it would clearly be unacceptable. But Craig did plead guilty. I wish he wouldn't deliberately push so many buttons. You might want to ask a couple more admins for an opinion if you are really concerned. Thatcher131 19:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. He denies anything to do with "cottaging" and he wasn't convicted of that. Smedley is gay and we certainly wouldn't tolerate anyone calling him Bmedley "Wide Stance/Cottaging" Sutler. Why would we tolerate it for other living people? My ocncern is the caption he added. I don't care about the picture or lyrics. --DHeyward 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable viewpoint. Thatcher131 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement question

After reading this, I wonder: if a user involved in my Arb Com has recently been behaving very unfriendly, violating WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA and turning talk discussions into flames, where can I ask others to review his behavior? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that the issue of civility blocks (in the absence of an arbitration ruling) are controversial. Your problem is that there is no enforceable remedy in the arbitration case. You can pursue action in the same way any user would, by contacting an admin or posting to the noticeboard. You can also post to the "Requests for clarification" section of WP:RFAR and ask the arbitrators to deal with this issue which they did not effectively deal with before. Thatcher131 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy kindsoul

Daddy Kindsoul should be blocked for a year per his ArbCom decision under the name Deathrocker; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Enforcement_by_block_Deathrocker.

Should Deathrocker, using any user account or ip, violate his revert parole he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

He has been blocked 7 times before your block, with the last one being a block for a month. A week is letting him off mildly easy. — Moe ε 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He may be blocked for up to a year. I generally think that blocks of a month or longer are the same as banning since the user will become so discouraged as to quit entirely or so frustrated that he comes back as a sockpuppet, leading to more blocks and extensions, etc. I'm not ready to determine that Deathrocker is such an impediment to Wikipedia that he should be driven off entirely. If some other admin feels differently he can change the block. (Also relevant that Hoponpop69 was also a bit of a jerk.) Thatcher131 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CuddlyAble3

Hi there. I'm not sure if there's something underhanded going on, but it looks as though there might be, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. CuddlyAble3, immediately after the expiry of his latest block for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, seems to have deleted his user page while leaving his talk page up (such as it is; he continues to delete warnings and behavioural reminders). Is this kosher? It looks to me as if he's trying to conceal his behavioural problems, and the warnings he's received for them, from those who encounter his name in signed comments, etc. --Scheinwerfermann 14:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest wrinkle

I am unfamiliar with the procedure and etiquette at WP:RfAR. Did User:Picaroon act properly in deleting my statement? --Marvin Diode 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issues are similar but the case will be about THF, not about such conflicts in general. Thatcher131 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence pages

I would rather discuss this individually rather than on that guideline talk page. Could you give me some examples of the sorts of disputes in which you have developed evidence pages in your user space? I want to get a better feel for the nuance here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also talk to Tony, he shared a relevant personal experience in IRC when he made his comment there. As for me, see this potential RFAR, which I later dropped. Also see this draft evidence for a case that opened soon after. The deleted pages of User:Thatcher131/temp such as [6] have other cases that were later filed. This version contains a checkuser request and a comment in another RFAR case. Here is a statementI was considering for another case. Evidence for yet another RFAR case. Tracking a banned user. Possible sockpuppet. You are welcome to troll through my sandboxes, both current and deleted edits. Thatcher131 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea?

RE: I'm sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about. I have not appealed to administrators for help regarding the issues and I think presenting personal political opinions in a controversial subject to be trolling. and last but not least, I'm not frustrated in any way. Please restore the trolling tag This since having political debates on the talk pages can not and will not be tolerated. Thanks--Termer 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Accusing long-term contributors of being trolls is hardly civil. Even if I or another administrator determines that Irpen and Grafikm may be banned from the article under the terms of the article probation, they will not be labeled trolls.

I'm sorry why would you suggest that anybody has labeled Irpen and Grafikm trolls? The tag was there to remind everybody not to get into political debates. Therefore it should be up to every editor themselves either they wish to go on with political debates not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That’s something I cannot control. Therefore, please restore the tag since such political debates cannot be tolerated. thanks!--Termer 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:You added the tag immediately after making a sarcastic remark... I personally think all the political discussions up there are trolling. In case you insist, I can admit labeling the actions of Irpen trolling (even though I didn't have anybody personally in mind) on the related article's discussion page since he/she has not presented any evidence to support the opinions and keeps just dragging the discussion into useless political debate. And I'm not saying that he/she has been the only one. The opposing editors have not been better either. Therefore, to put a stop to this, please restore the tag. Thanks--Termer 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS.but then again, never mind. But in case this political debate starts to go on again like it seems it might, I hope you‘ll step in and help to get things back on track again. Take care.--Termer 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do I stand now?

Thatcher, what's the deal exactly on my editing permissions? I have held off on creating anything new in regards to the other Nox Arcana CDs? I started a partial article before all the stuff with Skinny McGee happened, but I only stuck it in a sandbox with the hopes that I could one day use it, or that someone else might. See what I started here and let me know if I am allowed to post it as a stub or something. I also started some of the articles for MS, just summaries, but I don't even want to touch any of that at this point. I'm still waiting for someone to look into Skinny McGee's false report against me, but I have a feeling nobody cares enough to bother. Anyway, let me know if I will be blocked for editing or what. I've been sticking to talk pages but it's not exactly productive. Thanks. Ebonyskye 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Ban_for_disruption_2. "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. It is acceptable to make suggestions on the talk page." Thatcher131 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dfitzgerald

Hi. Could you please check the contribs of Dfitzgerald (talk · contribs)? His contribs are nothing but rvs on controversial articles. I think the admin intervention is necessary, especially in the light of remedies imposed by the recent arbcom. Grandmaster 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Caucasus Germans

Hello. Can you place a semi-protection tag on the Caucasus Germans article? Some anon has been removing the word Azeri from there since May 2007 claiming the term was pejorative: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. All my attempts to reason with this person have been in vain; they keep switching IP-addresses, hence my messages on their talk page probably remain unread. Parishan 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DHeyward Trolling

User:DHeyward is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for months Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he had never edited, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him advicing him not to troll the article. [13] The facts that he won't communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacks good faith intentions on this article. There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am going to stay away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me. Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)