User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Intangible

Hi, I posted this on User talk:Intangible. In all three articles, I've done some suggestions, which Intangible didn't agree with, so I asked him to come forward with suggestions of his own. He doesn't seem to respond, leaving the discussion in a deadlock.

I'm a bit wary in implementing my suggestions if Intangible refuses to discuss any further, with all the talk about reopening the ArbCom case and involving me in it. It's not a good time to make mistakes... --LucVerhelst 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rfcua

I was looking at your User contributions page (to see if you were active at the moment), and I noticed you tried to change Template:Rfcua.

What went wrong is that you mistyped the first tag of <noinclude></noinclude>. You typed <nocinclude>, with an extra "c" after "no".

(You also might want to put the category at the top of the page, since the template doesn't seem to have a noinclude end tag.)

Hope you don't mind this intrusion ? --LucVerhelst 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The template itself needs an unclosed noinclude; it's closed by {{Rfcub}} at the bottom of the closed checkuser case, so even if I had spelled it right I would have broken it. I'll see if putting the statement at the top works. Thanks for the suggestion. Thatcher131 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi

I just proposed an outright ban. This guy is just going too far. Thanks again, Asterion^talk 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to stay out of the case so I can be neutral on the arbitration enforcement page, but I'll keep my eye on the case. Thanks. Thatcher131 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I understand that. Asterion^talk 12:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Images on episode lists

Are fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with.

I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:

Well I personally think they improve the article, and I've followed certain Featured List Candidates involving fair use images, and opposers have always stated that images should be in relation to the text, much like any other image, and not there for decorative purposes. Highway ^Daytrippers 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like the images, and so many articles have it, I think it's accepted. —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images.

We are also having problems with the Template:Pokepisode , but the two users above are using Template:Pokepisode 78893179. Note not all of the images are on one page, A Man in Balck seperated the pages into six seperate pages so mostly all of the images are up to 20 - 30 a page.

Please note the difference:

Without images

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes_%28season_1%29

With images

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobabobabo/works&oldid=78493055

Please help me.

(Yugigx60 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

In my opinion, no they are not and stop spamming me. I have answered in more detail on WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Cheers. Thatcher131 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yugigx60

Please make him stop. Ryūlóng 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

00:45, 2 October 2006 A Man In Black (Talk | contribs) blocked "72.177.68.38 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Inveterate edit warrior)

You've been blocked for carrying on a one-man crusade against the consensus at WT:PCP. I've only blocked anonymous edits from this IP, however; if you want to log into one of your two usernames and discuss this at WT:PCP, you are free to do so. Edit warring while logged in, however, will lead only to that username being blocked as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not my business, but it isn't the consensus of the PCP, it's the consensus of A Man In Black. There isn't a discussion about images at all. Highway ^Daytrippers 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave my opinion about images, I am content to let others work out a solution. Yugigx60 is being extremely disruptive, from edit warring to spamming talk pages to revert warring on his checkuser case page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bobabobabo and I am not going to allow that to continue. There are many appropriate ways to discuss inclusion of images and he needs to learn to use the processes correctly without disruption. Thatcher131 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that full well. But AMIB is partially at fault here too, he's blaming the new user for breaching PCP consensus, when it boils down, it's just his opinion of the article. Highway ^Daytrippers 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If he hadn't first spammed me and then started disrupting the checkuser page, I never would have known about it one way or the other. If you think AMIB has acted inappropriately you have options as well (mediation, RFC). Looking at the arbitration case on Highways naming as a guide, I would say that picking one format and sticking with it, while discussing alternatives, is much preferred over warring over the alternatives, even if the version that you get "stuck with" during discussion is not the one you prefer. Thatcher131 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that, the point I was trying to make is that everything isn't clear cut. Highway ^Daytrippers 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost: Featured article

		The Lost WikiProject Award
		Thank you for your help stepping in as a replacement mediator at the Lost mediation. You got us through a tough time, and Lost (TV series) is now a main page featured article! --Elonka 00:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case#Z. As mentioned next to "Zephram Stark" entry, an experienced clerk, who knows what the hell is going on in that page, needs to sort out the listing. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=79227817#Nota_bene. Can you sprotect it from the IP trolling? Daniel.Bryant 11:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section btw. Getting worse... – Chacor 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not sprotect the whole ANI page so I rangeblocked the troll instead. Seems to be coming from a San Diego dialup with a limited range of IP addresses (if I can trust WHOIS). Let's see what happens next. Thatcher131 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, nice call. By the way, like the new WP:RFCU/A? Daniel.Bryant 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the fence. It doesn't make the page any more functional, and makes adding pages slightly more work. It is prettier, though, and I don't have strong feelings either way. Thatcher131 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your new name

You wrote on User:NuclearUmpf/ User:Zer0faults new page:

Regarding your suggestion to have your new name logged privately, you would have to ask an arbitrator (via e-mail I guess, to keep it private). The point of excercises like arbitration is to make it easier for admins to deal with problem users rather than having to go through the whole mediation/RFC/arbitration process all over again only to find out, it's Lightbringer again, or whomever. That can't be done if you don't tell anyone, and new user names avoiding arbitration are the commonest form of garden variety abusive sockpuppets.

With that out of the way, arbitration is also not supposed to be a club to beat you over the head with indefinitely. If you are not contentious and disruptive (at least, no more so than is usually acceptable) then you shouldn't have to deal with other users following you around trying to hang a scarlet letter around your neck all the time. I don't know that Travb is doing that, but I'm willing to look into it. (It can't be until tomorrow night probably.) If you feel your conduct is improved and you are being unfairly targeted, you could also try an editor review to get some opinions on your current behavior and whether Travb is overreacting to you. Hope this helps, and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thatcher131 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to edit under this name and see if Travb continues, if he does I will contact an Arbcom member to see about having it logged privatly. Thank you again for your quick reply and handling. --NuclearUmpf 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thatcher131. I have never met you before today. I have been a wikipedia editor for just a year now. I edit mostly history articles, but am also interested in Russia, Colombia, and sociology articles.

Can I please ask, are you a checkuser? Have you confirmed User:NuclearUmpf is indeed a sockpuppet? I have never done a checkuser like this before. It is only my third checkuser. What happens now?

As you mentioned to User:Zer0faults.

You can look at my bootlog, I have about 7 boots. In each of those case I learned from my mistakes, and changed my behavior, sometimes dramatically. I can even have admins such as User:Duk attest to this. Unfortunatly, I don't see the same willingness to change from User:Zer0faults.

I welcome you looking into my behavior. I do beg that you do keep in mind, that a group of 6 independent admins came to the conclusion that User:Zer0faults should be put on probation for his behavior. After I voted on an AfD which his new sockpuppet filed, he posted an AfD on my newest article, which was quickly closed for what User:Sean Black called "trolling".

I am a little worried with your message to User:NuclearUmpf, I have been very, very careful with User:Zer0faults not to break any rules, because User:Zer0faults has a history, a very long history, of, in my opinion of bullying other users. Sigh...If required, I can get several people, probably a dozen to attest to that opinion, probably including some of the admins who sanctioned him.

I have to admit, I am a little confused, maybe you can help me understand. User:Zer0faults is sanction by 6 admin arbitrators, he then immediatly closes his account and opens up a sockpuppet, he (arguable) does the same tactics which got him sanctioned before, I then report his sockpuppet, and I get investigated.

Thanks for your hardwork and efforts. Best wishes in your investigation of this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hestitate to message or email me.Travb (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Told you he is stalking my page. Its quite annoying. Also noone is investigating you, stop being so paranoid. And finally I was not put on probation for anythnig to do with sockpuppets. Kind of odd you appeared on my AfD after I asked the WP:OR people to take a look at the allegations of state terrorism by the United States page. Real coincidence. Of all the people on Wikipedia, of all the AfD votes, of the fact that you are nto a regular AfD participant either. Your contribution log shows you rarely vote on AfD, how did you manage to find that of all things to vote on? seriously stop it already, stop following me around, stop stalknig my edits. [1]. --NuclearUmpf 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mention that in my experience, User:Zer0faults usually has to have the last word in all posts. Sigh.

In regards to stalking, I would suggest you talk to User:Sean Black about User:NuclearUmpf's, "trolling" [[2]]. I will let User:NuclearUmpf have the last word in this matter. Otherwise this converstaion may go on forever.Travb (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the disrespect I am talking about. Also if you look at the DrV [3] you can see that other admins feel Sean Black was out of line. Odd you would say I want to have the last word, yet you replied last ... unfortunatly for you I am not a child and reverse psychology will not prevent from defending myself. --NuclearUmpf 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your block of User:Velten

I should have consulted on WP:AN about the block but I forgot to do so; I've done that just now, in fact (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Velten_blocked). If, after reading my explanation there, you still believe the block should be shortened to one week, then feel free to do that yourself straight away and I won't undo you. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf

I wrote on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf, in response to your message:

OK, I'll close this as no check needed, and I'll list your new name on the arbitration case. I'm making no judgements on either your or Travb's behavior right now, just following up on this particular request. Thatcher131 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Thatcher131, if in fact you are a checkuser admin, I will email you the evidence if necessary. Based on User:NuclearUmpf/User:zer0faults past behavior, I don't want him to know specically what he is doing to allow other users to know it is him, because based on his attitude toward the arbcom, I fear as soon as you reveal he is a sockpuppet, he will simply open another account to avoid the Arbcom ruling. I am not basing this on a hunch, that is all I can or will say in the matter. I can email you the evidence if necessary if you are in fact a checkuser. If needed, I will also e-mail it to the 6 admins who decided the Arbcom if necessary. Again as I mentioned to: User talk:Thatcher131, User:NuclearUmpf/User:Zer0faults always has to have the last word, so unless you respond to me here, or someone else comments here, I won't respond, otherwise this wikipage will get really big. Travb (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

re: User:Leyasu

I noticed your intervention on my ANI request and thanks. I also noticed your RCU on me. I have absolutely no problem with that. Best to keep things even across the board. I stumbled across the "Leyasu issue" by accident a few months ago. At that time, with the assistance of admin Circeus, several IP socks were tagged. I keep those "Leyasu flavoured" articles on my watchlist. If it's any help, as far as my RCU goes, I had problems with a linkspam troll several weeks back. At that time I had assistance from admin SoothingR. I was accused of IP editing even though the IP's in question were coming from an area 5000 kilometres away from where I live. I posted "unlogged" on SoothingR's talk page so that my IP would be shown. I don't need to do that again...I think...but if it helps I will. As it is, my conversations with SoothingR are still available on his talk page for clarification. I've never been through this process before. Once I am cleared, is it OK for me to rv the disputed article back to the version prior to Fred138's deletions? Also, will "Fred's" accusation against me be removed from ANI? Thanks for your help. Good day! Fair Deal 12:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

IM just gonna be straight up here. I didnt realise the Deathrocker issue had gotten so far out of hand. I just saw your cites on the checkuser for me, i didnt even know that he had moved onto to starting on other users now, claiming them to be soley to violate policys. Mostly ive just been keeping eye on the Gothic Metal related articles and the Pandora/Music Genome Project ones. And been reading up on random little knicks and knacks on teh egyptian articles, not suprising considering the theme of my album.

But still, there is a problem here. I dislike the sockpuppetry as much as the next guy, and i erm, only to tend to get bitchy when needs call for it. Now ive been watching over the articles, and ive seen the Fred guy. Now, i dont agree with most of what he says, coz well, its too sorta, biased. But he doesnt seem to be trying to cause a problem, he sources his edits and is going about procedure.

My concern is the way im being made out to be some mystical bad guy. It seems with a certain circle of users, that whenever they want to win an argument, or find an excuse to violate policy, they have gotten it into their heads that they can simply place a sockpuppet tag on any users page, revert several of their edits, and call them a sockpuppet repeatedly. Due to this 'hype', most people havent taken the time to do RFC's, much to my annoyance, which is why im thankfull you did do one.

The articles quality is a concern to me, but right now my prioritys are pretty much set to stamping out this 'Big bad Leyasu', 'Call him Leyasu for the win' attitude. Now, there isnt much i can do from behind a veil of numbers that isnt paticularly incriminating. Though, seeing as youve been the first nuetral party in a while, id like your advice on how best to combat this problem, or get it brought to serious attention, because as youve seen its not just me suffering, its other users as well.

So, what are my options behind this veil? And what 'can' i do to get this problem either extinguished, or at least noticed by some kind of 'authority'?

Oh, and its easier if you post replies to the Leyasu talk page, so i can find them and record them easily. Leyasu 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be the tattle tale. But i was just going through WP:HMM to look up minor jobs that need doing, and stumbled into this concerning Deathrocker. Seemingly the project has been serially vandalised, and a number of artcles too, by Deathrocker. Im not going to explore it further, but i thought you might want to use it to sort something out - after all, your the authority, not me. Leyasu 14:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

I would like an investigation into Travb's action or Arbcom member opinion on them. I have provided more dif's of him telling other users my new name and then them magically appearing on my page to harrass me, the dif's are in the Arbcom enforcement page. He is continuing to contact users off wiki in attempts to ally them against me. I am now formally requesting a hidden username that only Arbcom will know of and further I will be filing an RfC if an admin or Arbcom member tells me Trav's actions are against policy. I have a right not to be harrassed and this is becoming obsurd, all because I told him he couldnt violate WP:OR and the people at WP:OR agreed he was wrong. --NuclearUmpf 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why does NuclearUmpf - a self-admitted sock account of a user on ArbCom probation for tendentious/counterproductive behavior - have any entitlement to keep others from learning that he is indeed the same person as involved in the ArbCom determination? Isn't the situation in which he finds himself - disputes with other users, eg. accusing me of trolling and wiping my question regarding his identity, etc. - just the kind of conduct his other account was admonished for? How far backwards does the community's back have to bend to accomodate editors whose behavior goes all the way to an ArbCom case? Now he/she wants a 'hidden username'? I'm sorry but I do not understand this situation and like NuclearUmpf, I too would appreciate a fair (and neutral) assessment, pointing out how this is in the encyclopedia's best interest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have answered most of this on WP:AE. Editors under arbitration sanction don't get to have hidden usernames because that mean that only arbitrators could police their conduct, which ain't gonna happen. However, other users are not permitted to bait him, and he is allowed to edit, and even to edit in oppostion to others, so long as he adheres to the generally accepted standards of community behavior (negotiation, consensus, no personal attacks, etc). The goal of arbitration is to encourage him to conform to community standards of behavior, and to provide for admin sanction if or when he doesn't. Arbitration is not a club to beat people over the head with nor is it a scarlet letter. Thatcher131 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Understand completely and I agree with your comments completely. However, please be aware that this new user, has put a coded 'You look stupid now' message on his user page, and has already apparently been spoken to numerous times for behavior outside the boundaries you so appropriately outlined. And most of all, I still haven't gotten an answer from this user to my question asking point blank whether this user is the notorious Rex. You remember Merecat/Rex, I'm sure. A simple, good faith question that neither Zer0 nor Nuclear saw fit to deny, instead directing me immediately to Checkuser. That's certainly not good faith on Nuclear's part and on the basis of what I see of his/her conduct, I'm concerned that this account is headed just the same direction as the previous ones. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If he has put trolling/baiting comments on his user page, he should remove them, and I will ask him if you want me to. I think the Rex/Merecat saga is a dead issue. Zer0faults was checkusered 3 times with no results; I don't know whether he is being coy or sly or just irritated at the constant questions. If as Rex suggested he was being "shipped out" (I think) then there will never be technical proof, and its just one of those things that happen around here. In fact, I am a bit doubtful of the connection since I had a good relationship with Rex (in his "anonymous Texan" persona) before he got found out, and Zer0faults's last contribs were to change his vote on my RFA from support to oppose on (what I think were) pretty flimsy grounds. If Zer0/Nuclear is Rex, he will either become increasingly disruptive until he triggers his probation, or he will settle down and join the community, which will be a good thing no matter who he is. Like I said, he is allowed to oppose other editors provided he conforms to community standards of behavior; if he doesn't, make a complaint and someone will deal with it. And he shouldn't expect similar lenience should he change his name again. Thatcher131 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gratified by your response. An honest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I pointed you to CheckUser already ... [4] [5] I dont know why you are constantly asking the same question that has been proven false o so long ago, two times I might add. Please stop commenting on my talk page if you are not going to assume good faith. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 10:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll simply point out that Checkuser does not and cannot prove a negative - just that the IP Zer0 used was not consistent with those of Rex/Merecat (who claimed to be moving from Maine to Texas, in one of his last goodbye rants). It was not proven false, despite what you'd like others to conclude. You could do much by answering the question in good faith, but you've already shown you don't want to do that, for whatever reason. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not answer cause I will not entertain someone who is exhibiting trollish behavior. This is the last message I have for you on the topic. The RFCU todl you Merecat had no more socks, that they were all found, it told you specifically that I was not a sock of Merecat twice. Your inability to grasp this concept is now beyond any point of reason and I ask you do not post on my talk page your conspiracy theories any more. This is the last I will have to do with you, goodbye. --NuclearZer0 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And for the final dose of humor, I had turned over my IP and it showed I lived in NYC, which neither Maine nor Texas, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to conspiracies is it. --NuclearZer0 13:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan has been on a Rex witchhunt for a while now [6]. It is not conducive to building an encyclopedia and seems to me to be a poicy violation. I'd point out that Rex/Merecat and Zero have all been subject to many checkusers. It's getting rather old. --Tbeatty 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Uzumaki

Uzumaki is transparently Freestylefrappe. Review: 21:18, 4 October 2006 vs 18:37, 4 October 2006, somehow knows about {{unblock}} without being blocked - [7]. Revert warring over his old haunts already [8]. I belive this is obvious, and thus RFCU is not appropriate, and appeal for you to do what is necessary. If you disagree, I'll tack it on to the RFCU. JBKramer 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are my new hero

Can I beg that you trail behind me everywhere, putting my thoughts more eloquently than I? - brenneman ^{L} 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)[9]. -- 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)

STOP THE INSANITY

Please, will someone in charge here stop this insane behavior on the Coyote Shivers page. Give these women a rest and let this play out somewhere else! "Whyohwhy" is obviously Mr. Shivers and even after warnings this is still going on. Someone needs to put a block on him being able to keep coming in the history and discussion options and creating these repeated attacks. It is obsessive and cruel. Not to mention harassing and proves the point these women made in the Fox News report. Seriously, put a stop this this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.127.144 (talk • contribs)

I have left a detailed rationale on the talk page of the article. I have also blocked Whyowhy for 48 hours for leaving possibly defamatory comments in the edit summary at Talk:Coyote Shivers, and I deleted the revisions from the page history. It seems that someone added a rather personal statement, thought better of it, and removed it. Of course, it remained visible in the page history so that Whyowhy could restore it with his own comments. (The whole point of the wiki model is that every revision is kept in the history and may be viewed by anyone or even restored, unless deleted by an administrator.) The next time someone writes something so personal and then has second thoughts, he/she can ask any administrator or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard to have it deleted. Thatcher131 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Torlist

No problem, I've also blocked the few which were left which were blocked for short periods. I might take a look at some of those left later. --pgk 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've various bits and pieces. I'm not using a bot as such. Someone was writing cronbot (since withdrawn) to flag up the nodes, I pulled together some bits and bobs I had as a proof of concept like this, but didn't go for a full implementation I was going to donate anything the cronbot author thought might be useful.
I have something to check blocks for that so I just tweaked it slightly to take your list as input and strip out those which were blocked so I can run that again easily enough.
I also have a local database which I've been capturing the content of the tor directory every hour so I could map out long term trends, work out those which were dynamic etc. Just been busy since I set it up and didn't notice it was down for about 20 days, so really have just started that up again. --pgk 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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. [10] - 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)

Your post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This post contains an incorrect accusation (I did not violate 3RR), is irrelevant to the incident (you write as if it was about a single edit conflict in a single article, when I list no less than 16 incidents of behavior), contains an outright absurdity (I'm complaining, among other things, that THB is refusing to discuss his edits, and your response is "hey, you guys should be discussing your edits"), and is generally inappropriate and snotty. I find it especially surprising to see that you're an administrator. In the interest of retaining some respect among your peers (and perhaps, yourself), you should consider removing it. KarlBunker 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl, both you and THB each reverted the disputed paragraph 4 times in less than 24 hours. The situation was too complicated for me to simply block one or both of you under the 3RR rule, because THB was characterizing his reverts as "rvv" and was not discussing them, which was inappropriate, while you only requested an explanation after your second revert and ignored Davkal's opinion in support of the THB version, which was also not ideal behavior. I'm surprised you would call my comment "snotty" and I welcome peer review of anything I say or do here. Thatcher131 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes: link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Disruptive conduct, baseline [11]

THB change [12] K r1 [13] T r1 [14] K r2 [15] T r2 [16] K r3 [17] T r3 [18] K r4 [19] T r4 [20]

It's certainly arguable that both THB and I broke the spirit of the 3RR, but as your links show, neither of us broke the letter of the rule, i.e. reverting back to a single baseline version, more than 3 times over. If your charge was that I broke the spirit of the rule, you should have said that. And you haven't addressed the rest of my complaints about your post; Instead make this further incorrect statement: "you only requested an explanation after your second revert" (I requested an explanation in my edit summary), and you bring up the new issue of Davkal's "third opinion." Here is one small indication of the nature of Davkal's history with this article. Even so, if he had offered some argument in his comment, I would have responded to it; instead he only said that the edit "made perfect sense" to him.

Since you haven't addressed any of my complaints, I leave them as they stand. I don't believe that being snotty should be grounds for a legalistic action such as requesting a peer review. I do believe, however, that it should be grounds for some reflection and correction. Right now you're too busy being defensive to be convinced of the validity of my criticism; that's human nature. Perhaps in the proverbial "fullness of time" you'll engage in some actual reflection. KarlBunker 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should re-read WP:3RR, quoting, "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." The fact that there were other minor technical changes does not alter the fact that you edit warring over the inclusion/removal of a sentence from the opening paragraph. Thatcher131 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think you should reread "Right now you're too busy being defensive". Repeat as necessary; perhaps eventually it will sink in. KarlBunker 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Thatcher, I noticed your comment about me not mentioning my ArbCom case in Question #3. Would it be better if I added this on? Just wanted to let you know what you think. Regards, —Khoikhoi 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(the reason why I didn't mention it is because I honestly forgot) —Khoikhoi 01:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a bit of explanation of what you're learned from the experience, how it has made you a better editor. etc. Thatcher131 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll write that up tomorrow (it's time for some sleep now). Thanks for the advice. —Khoikhoi 06:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. —Khoikhoi 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Query on teenager's posting personal info

User:Mackensen directed me to you concerning guidelines on protecting children's privacy.

User:ThuranX inquired on my talk page concerning posting of personal details on a userpage by User:Loontheschoon. He gives his age (over 13) and other details, which is of concern to ThuranX. Do you have any advice on those over 13 posting age and location information?

— ERcheck (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I didn't contemplate placing any restrictions on 13-and-overs, and we have 14 year old admins, so clearly Wikipedia (as a community) seems to think 14 year olds can take care of themselves. There is an alternative privacy proposal Wikipedia:Privacy (more in the way of advice, really). As a new editor, he won't know about some of the past cases of harrassment. You could let him know that although most Wikipedians are generally good people, there have been a few cases of editors being harrassed in real life (and at least one case of age-inappropriate statements made by a 30 year old man toward a 15 year old girl) so he might want to give some thoughts toward obscuring some of his personal info for privacy reasons. Not much else we can do about it, though. Thatcher131 23:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

... for completing the report re blocking Irishpunktom for me. I've done the easy part and then got lazy busy doing something very important. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:23, 17 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. [21] 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. [22] --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 [23], 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 [24] [25] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [26] [27] [28], 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 [29] --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 [30] [31] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [32] [33] [34], 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)