User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

Deleting versions

There's a tool somewhere that allows you to click all the boxes - you can then manually unclick the ones you want deleted. But I don't know what the tool is or where to look.

Generally what I do is to move the page to delete the article, undelete the revisions to be removed, move the page, delete it, and then return to the original page and undelete it. You need to purge the cache for the page to show up again though - if you don't it often looks like the deleted edits have disappeared.

For example:

Delete User:Thatcher131

Undelete one or more edits

Move the page to User:Thatcher131/delete

Delete User:Thatcher131/delete

Undelete User:Thatcher131

and, voila, you not only have deleted the offending versions, you have also hidden them from view.

One problem with deleting a page like User:Thatcher131 is that, from what I have heard, the database has to update every page linked to it if you delete it. That can slow Wikipedia down if you delete a heavily linked-to page. So alternatively, what you can do is

Move User:Thatcher131 to User:Thatcher131/temp

Delete User:Thatcher131/temp

Undelete one or more edits

Move the page to User:Thatcher131/delete

Delete User:Thatcher131/delete

Undelete User:Thatcher131/temp

Move User:Thatcher131/temp back to User:Thatcher131

This has the added advantage of hiding the deleted edits a little further away from prying eyes. Of course, I don't know for a fact that this lightens the load on the database. Guettarda 09:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think I got that. It sounds like by moving and selective restoring, you split one history into two; one all bad and one all good, deleted the all bad one and then move the all good one back. I shouldn't need it too often hopefully but it's good to know. Thanks again. Thatcher131 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good way to get rid of maliciously (or carelessly) inserted personal information. Guettarda 13:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You said you wasn't on your own computer regarding the AN comment, so incase you didn't have time to read the reply, I'd like to clear it up (incase you don't get around to going back to AN, heh)..

"Deathrocker should definitely explain his edits with reference to sources",

I always do.. and have done, using sources such as BBC, VH1, Amazon, Walmart, The Guardian, Wikipedia, About.com, Quizilla, All Music Guide, iTunes, MTV, eMusic, AOL, Windows Media Player, Yahoo!, Musicmatch Jukebox and others... those are some of the sources Evenfiel blanked along with over 30% of the article.[1]

I try to make sure, not to violate any revert policies. And outside of making one revert, I only remove edits which fall under simple vandalism such as And as for Tony Fox, he is hardly a neutral party. [2] As the two have exchanged messaged and become friends a few days ago. Of course he is going to agree on such a stance.article blanking, spam, etc .. which in the official editing policy it states, is an outlined exception to the revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert.

I've tried to explain to the user in question that article blanking violated the editing policy, but it doesn't seem to get through.. its also very difficult messaging the user in an attempt to communicate anyway, because 5 seconds after leaving him a message, its removed[3] making it very difficult to keep up with things when replying. Well... thanks anyway for your time on the matter. ;) - Deathrocker 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker tries to extend his discussion far beyond what's reasonable. The article is about the site, not Led Zeppelin. He does not want to reach an agreement, but impose his edits on other users. After he started to post in the article, not a single user agreed with him, but he still thinks that he's right to impose his view on how the article should be written. As for my own talk page, please note that I decided to keep his messages before he posted here.Evenfiel 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Impose a view"?... before I first edited it a while back, it contradicted every other article it was related to on Wikipedia, including heavy metal music's article (a featured one).. compromising the integrity of the articles as a whole.

The changes I made were always backed up by promiment sources as shown above and removed the extreme bias tone. And not, "every user disagrees" with my stance at all, you have also reverted users such as User:Vegetaman... anyway, I don't see what any of those past edits have to do do with you commiting simple vandalism purposley via article blanking the vast majority of the sourced article for no reason, but ok.. this really isn't the place to discuss it anyway. Feel free to message me on my talkpage however, if you wish to discuss any points with me....

Oh and regarding the message blanking, I made the message here before I'd seen that you were now keeping messages... I was speaking in regards to our last discussion... where it was hard to keep up because you were removing the replies 5 seconds after they were made, though it is good to see that you have now decided to keep them visable, it will make it easier to follow, thanks! - Deathrocker 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the third edit wasn't just a direct revert of simple vandalism[4]... please check different versions before making an incorrect asumption. I had also stated in the edit summary "..adding some information provided by Evenfiel on the talkpage".

And as for Tony Fox, he is hardly a neutral party. [5] As the two have exchanged messaged and become friends a few days ago. Of course he is going to agree on such a stance. I was just going by what is stated in the official editing policy.. yet I am been made out to be the party in the wrong here for trying to follow it?.. the edits you are refering to were blanking of most of the article to previous versions favoured by that editor. Not "trimming down to new variations"... it was removing of other sourced information which had been added (not just refering to Led Zeppelin, either.)

But anyways... regarding the article in question, there shouldn't be anymore problems, I think its sorted out now with a compromise edit... I've agreed on an edit that is trimmed down and doesn't have a header where Led Zeppelin are concerned, but have kept the sources from prominent websites in.[6] So as of that edit it is NPOV but not too long in regards to mentions of the single band. - Deathrocker 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The key point in the reversions is the switching back and forth between a large block of text about LZ and the more condensed version. The fact that there are other changes being made doesn't change the fact that a significant effect of the edit is to revert the LZ dispute. However, I am very happy to hear you have worked out a compromise. That's how things should work. Thank you. Thatcher131 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Thatcher. I just wanna say thanks for your post in the Encyclopaedia Metallum discussion. Evenfiel 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost

Thank you very much for your mediation efforts.  :) As part of the wrap-up, some questions have emerged about how to implement one of the elements of the compromise, specifically regarding how to post the guidelines. A discussion about this seems to have started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost#Completed mediation, and your participation might help smooth the way. Thanks. --Elonka 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Weill Cornell Photo

Why was the photo deleted? The photographer explictly wrote on his Flickr page that we could use that photo for Wikipedia. Please clarify what was wrong with the photo.--Xtreambar 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding RFCU

Regarding your comment on my RFCU page. You might want to look at the block log of the user who filed it, as well as his long history of tendentious edits and tendency to use intimidation tactics on various users including myself before making judgement on this issue. I, together with several users, plan to file an RfA against User:Ikonoblast and I believe that this is an attempt to get me blocked before I do so by twisting the facts in his favor.Please consult user:gamesmasterg9 who has been repeatedly harassed by Ikonoblast regarding ikonoblast's edit-warring and incivility on votebank and Lalu Prasad Yadav for which he has been blocked twice.If there is any way by which I can assist in dealing with this fake RFCU then please do not hesitate to contact me. I am a bit busy because of Yom Kippur but will get back to you as soon as I can.Thanks.Hkelkar 00:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just adding a note so the checkusers who perform the checks can see the context and past history. I can guess what they'll say but I don't speak for them. Thatcher131 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, this is the fourth RFCU made on the same subject. I suggest a warning for users that create bogus RFCU's.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather let the checkusers do that. I'll consider it in my clerk role after they have had their say. I appreciate your concern but I am a clerk, mostly charged with doing formatting, cleanup and such, and I am not a checkuser and do not speak for them. But I will keep your request in mind once they act. Thatcher131 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Overdue thanks

Just wanted to drop you a word of thanks and appreciation for your excellent mediation in the Lost dispute. You performed beyond my expectations for a mediator, and I'm very happy that the result was as balanced as possible. We could not have reached accord without your participation. Congratulations and thanks again. Regards, PKtm 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrpainkiller7

I believe your removal of this user's listing from WP:AIV was a little quick on the draw. It started as a content dispute and escalated to vandalism of the userpages of myself and User:Jean-Philippe and removal of legitimate warnings from User talk:Mrpainkiller7. Further vandalism of VampireFreaks.com and another page on which User:Mrpainkiller7 had had a content dispute with User:Jean-Philippe then occurred from an AOL proxy IP. This vandalism text contained a number of misspellings that indicate it was very likely written by User:Mrpainkiller7.

Since you have blocked VampireFreaks.com nothing further notable has happened, but please be aware that this is not a simple content dispute. If the vandalism starts again I will notify you as well as (again) taking it through appropriate channels.

User:Mrpainkiller7's listing remains on WP:RFI. --Neurophyre^(talk) 23:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to block one side in a content dispute, and your actions on his talk page may have helped escalate things. Nothing he has done warrants a long block, and a short block might serve to escalate things even further. Taking 12 hours to cool off is the conservative thing to do. Waiting to make a good block is less harmful than being hasty and imposing a bad block. If he continues to harrass other users during or after this time, I or someone else will get him sooner or later. (The other article is PETA, right? SlimVirgin might be interested as well.) It's also worth waiting for someone uninvolved to look at the RFI. Thatcher131 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted User:Mrpainkiller7's blanking of warnings from his user talk page based on the text of Template:wr and others like it, linked from WP:AIV. As above, if my user page or another page is vandalized again by this user, I'll take it again through appropriate channels as I attempted to do this time. In the mean time, I'd like a pointer to the actual policy on user talk page blanking if you have one. --Neurophyre^(talk) 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some dispute about removing warnings from ones' own talk page. Currently it is not prohibited, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk page vandalism. For more info see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. Thatcher131 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a few moments to review the request for investigation?[7] I've expanded on it a little. Probably nothing you haven't seen yet, but it might clarify some things for all involved and can't be a bad thing. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied for now. I'll be out all day Saturday. If this is still a problem and no one else look at it for you I can take a look Sunday night. Thatcher131 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a minute to review your messages on my talk page. You've said I might have contributed to vandalism, personal attack and not being "nice". The only thing which I can see the merit off here, is the not being "nice" part. I admit, calling a user disruptive isn't the nicest thing to do, but I didn't like being blunt (which was necessary as a second warning) and made sure to explain my rational, with a smile even. If you have a minute, I'd like you to expand on how I could improve myself. Jean-Philippe 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Partly, be nice is in my general repertoire of responses. I posted the same message to all of you, although the advice may be more needed in some corners than others. I have not reviewed the history of the article, but apparently what set of Mrpainkiller's vandalism was your and Neurophyre's editing his talk page to reinstate your warnings. You did it twice (actually, the comment you added here [8] is quite good), Neurophyre did it a lot more. If you (but mostly Neurophyre, it seems) were not so gung-ho on forcing Mrpainkiller to display your warnings, he might never have turned around to obvious vandalism of your user pages. In fact, if Neurophyre had used a proper edit summary, there would be no need to revert the warnings [9] because it could have been said in a verbose edit summary that no blanking could remove.

I really don't think you did anything wrong, certainly not with bad intentions. It's just that the talk page mess muddied the waters. When you go back to the article tomorrow stay calm and try to discuss things on the article talk page. If Mpk won't use the article talk page, you can leave polite messages on his talk page. If after you have been polite he is still causing trouble, it will be completely obvious where the problem is. Thatcher131 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I picked up a few things from your response, I'll try to improve based on that. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 00:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind when discussing this in the future that I did not violate WP:3RR on VampireFreaks.com or User talk:Mrpainkiller7. Look at the history closely if you disagree; I did so in order to make sure that I didn't. The numerous edits to MPK's talk page were a somewhat unfortunate combination of reverting with popups, adding a subsequent warning, and then (in two cases) making a further minor edit because I forgot to sign my warning, etc. Based on the text of templates linked from the table of vandalism templates on Template:TestTemplates (linked from WP:AIV) including {{wr}} and others, I did what I considered right and within the bounds of policy by reverting MPK's talk page to make the warnings visible again. I'll read the links you provided above and avoid using popups in contentious situations in favor of better edit summaries. However, I want to be clear on the point that warning templates exist linked from pages such as WP:AIV which back my actions. --Neurophyre^(talk) 02:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I expect you saw this comment [10] I made on Jean-Philippe's talk page so I will just add, it is not vandalism to remove warnings from one's own talk page but it may be vandalism, and certainly is edit warring, to fight over keeping them there, no matter what the templates say. I understand you did this in good faith based on the templates but now you know better, so don't do it again. Keep the warnings on the article talk page where it really will be vandalism if he removes them. Please use one of the dispute resolution methods to solve this problem. Thatcher131 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Shivers & Buell

Thank you for your help with Bebe Buell -- she's much happier now. Cheers! — Catherine\^talk 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thatcher131 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Meny

Hi, I'm still trying to educate myself about Wikipedia procedures...why did you remove the speedy delete tag from Tom Meny? It seems like a clear example of a non-notable autobiographical vanity article, no? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Division 1 college athletes are more or less automatically notable. see at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I am a bit concerned about "he was added so late he's not listed on the roster." That sounds a bit like a hoax/prank. However, verifying hoax/real is not something speedy can do. If you list it at WP:AFD the contributors there will figure out pretty quickly if he is a real college footballer or not. The article needs cleanup and both his player status and the poker stuff need independent reliable sources. But in general not a candidate for speedy deletion. Thatcher131 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, you did notice that the article is clearly autobiographical, but he referred to himself in the third person on the talk page? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be a reason to keep an eye on the article; to rewrite or prune out non-encyclopedic content. It's not a reason for deletion as long as the article meets other criteria. Good point though. You can also put {{Notable Wikipedian}} on the talk page if you want to alert other editors. Thatcher131 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This just occurred to me: On Wikipedia, what matters is Verifiability, not "Truth". Even if college ball makes a person notable, he seems to be saying that he can't prove it ("not on the roster"). And the onus is on him to prove it, not on Wikipedia to disprove it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If acceptable proof is not forthcoming you can list the article at Articles for Deletion and there will be a 5 day comment period to sort it out. Thatcher131 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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. [11]. --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" [[12]]. 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 [13] 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)

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 - but 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)