User talk:Thatcher/Archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Hi, I noticed that you were responsible for the block of Lukas19's account when he got a year ban. There is an editor to the White people who I believe to be a Lukas19 sockpuppet, it's really blatant. I have had numerous dealings with Lukas19 and am very familiar with him. The user is User:KarenAE contribs I am suspicious because:

  1. his edits,[1] [2] including info that Lukas19 contributed. No one else seems to want to include this info, only KarenAE and Lukas19
  2. claims that other editors are acting "unilaterally" and starts to edit tendentiously [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] just like Lukas19, untill I point out that the only editor that is acting unilaterally is KarenAE andf that his edits are suspiciously similar to Lukas19's [9] [10] at which time at least the tendentious editing stops, though the similarities in talk page discussion continue.
  3. style of writing, [11] [12] (note the mistakes in English, Lukas19 was not a native speaker (though had an excellent grasp of English), similar mistake here with a preposition missing "add yourself". Also note here the term "counter argument", Lukas19 used this term a lot)
  4. turn of phrase,[13] (use of the term "counter argument" by KarenAE this time), I have been struck by how similar their language is and could probably provide more evidence if you think it is necessary.
  5. arguing style, (see any talk page discussion for either of these editors)
  6. use of wikipedia procedures (he has just started an RfC imediatelly someone disagrees with him rather than have a proper discussion), [14] so there is no attempt at resolving the dispute by talk page discussion, but imediately wants to go for an RfC, this is like Lukas19 as well
  7. appeals to the talk pages of people he thinks have authority [15] [16] [17] (this mediation involved Lukas19 on the one hand and all other editors on the other, now KarenAE seems to want to resurect it after two months)
  8. Interest exclusively with thw White people article, this was Lukas19's "favourite" article, though he did later "branch ouyt" into other "race" related articles. [18] [19]
  9. Making comments about other's edits, especially derogatory comments. [20] [21]
  10. Seems to have a very detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures for a "newbie", discussing RfC's in their very first few edits. [22] this was KarenAE's fourth edit.

This user may be editing from California, [23] [24] whereas Lukas19 claims to have edited from Nova Scotia. [25] So it may be that these IP addresses are different, though this does not mean that these are not the same person. Anyone can move from one end of continental America to the other for work etc. What do you think? I'd appreciate your help. All the best. Alun 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I have reported this person as a suspected sockpuppet. Sorry to bother you. Alun 14:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm willing to look into it, but Suspected sockpuppets is probably the better place. User:Stevertigo was mediating White people and he might have a feel for Lukas' style. Thatcher131 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74....

Your rationale for speedy deletion of the article is improper by citing DMCA. Although it might violate DMCA by using the code to crack the protection of a DVD, the article is discussing the leak of such code and legal threats of such leak. Obviously, it is not a DMCA copyright violation and is possibly a legitimate topic. (This is why I chose to AfD it.)

I request you to reconsider your deletion. SYSS Mouse 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for an encyclopedia article about a particular hex string; there are multiple exploits around DVD and HDVD copy protection and they can be discussed, subject to the usual rules of reliable sources and so forth, in articles about the format. Much like we have an article, or should, about the rootkit used in the recent controversial CD copyprot scheme, but would not have an article title containing the code of the rootkit. Thatcher131 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
“Rootkit” is a laughably invalid description of it... Besides, we have articles on Pi, 42 and many other numbers. — 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even know a wikipedia article could get removed for DMCA violation... -- 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should ammend WP:CSD to include "There is no reason for an encyclopedia article"... but I don't see where it is in the current policy, if its there could you point it out to me? Monty845 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Wikipedia:Deletion review of 09 F9 11 02 9D 74... Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SYSS Mouse 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Thatcher131 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed parts of 09 F9 11 02 9D 74... (see [26]), as without removing a spam filter didn't allow editing. Onefortyone 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And I was beginning to think

[that clerks had no sense of humour.]--Tbeatty 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category tagging

Old arb cases that you are tagging keep showing up on my watchlist. How many more are left? If there's a significant number, I think we can put in a bot request instead of doing it manually. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of them were already tagged, but for some reason it wasn't kept up. I started with the oldest and got up through July 2006. I don't know much about bots and can't use AWB as a mac user, but I don't really mind. It's a simple edit and there can't be much more than 50 or so left after I've already done over a hundred. Thatcher131 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if that's all you might as well just go ahead and finish them up. For future reference, though, Wikipedia:Bot requests, or I have a couple of wiki-acquaintances with category-tagging bots who have been asking around for something to do. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Artaxiad attempted to communicate with me through Wikipedia email, trying to make a case against what he saw as biased edits, and asking me to make edits on articles. When I made it clear I would not, he proceeded to spam me - again through the Wikipedia mail system - by clicking 'send' 20 times.

I think it's clear at this point that a year in the penalty box will not 'reform' him; if there were no arbitration against him, I would have blocked him indef just now. Is there a way to remove his access to Wikipedia email? Sure, I could redirect his emails to the spam folder - and I have - but if he's going to do this against me, who didn't speak against him at his arbitration, I have no doubt he will harass others until he either runs out of Wikipedians, or finds someone who will act as a meatpuppet for him; both are bad outcomes. --Golbez 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a developer issue. I think there is no way to turn off wikipedia e-mail for blocked users, although it has been suggested many times. I'm sure that eventually someone will get around to extending Artaxiad's ban to indef, and he will continue to sock through open proxies, which at least has one redeeming feature. Thatcher131 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification here: [27], but this brings up another question. Does block evasion by Artaxiad constitute a violation of 5 block threshold, as there are about 20 socks of his banned as of now? --Grandmaster 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the 5-block threshold relevant to someone who's already banned? Newyorkbrad 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, the 5 block threshold doesn't apply to someone who is banned for a year. If he doesn't quiet down, someone will eventually move to make Artaxiad's one year ban permanent. Thatcher131 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Thatcher. Could you please have a look at the dispute I have with User:MarshallBagramyan? I know you must be tired of this, but I would appreciate an input from a neutral person. The dispute is on the fork article that he created, which is called Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan, and it is about the resettlement of population of Nakhichevan by Shah Abbas I, the ruler of Persia, in 1604-5. Marshall reverts my edits to the article, which are based on reliable sources (including Armenian ones). He claims that the resettlement affected only Armenian people, while I provided many sources to attest that the entire population of Nakhichevan province (including Muslims, Jews and Christians) was resettled south of Araks during the Ottoman – Persian war. Marshall goes as far as blackmailing me, threatening to start an RfC on me, etc, in response to my request to reach agreement on talk for his controversial edits. In particular, he says: I'm not going to answer any further, the only answers you'll obtain about this is from a RfC filled against you. You are wasting my time. [28] I don’t think that such behavior is acceptable. I would appreciate if you could check the sources and tell us what you think. That might help to settle the issue. Regards, Grandmaster 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, you threatened Eupator to do the same on the Paytakaran page. Everything else will be discussed in the RfC. I'm truly sorry Thatcher that this case keeps popping up on your talk page.--MarshallBagramyan 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I never threatened anyone. If you want to start an RfC on me, go ahead and do it, I don't care. As for the article, another admin joined editing, so it should be Ok now. Grandmaster 09:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for blocking those sockpuppets.

Do you mind if I move the sockpuppet templates to the userpage rather then the user talkpage?

JFD 00:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I guess not. I don't really follow the technical minutia of such things. Thatcher131 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I asked is because the user talkpages were showing up on Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom skies instead of the userpages. Thanks. JFD 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin

Please stop adding the Giano case to my and Kelly's self-desysoppings. I desysopped voluntarily and at no time was I ordered to do so, nor was it suggested to me that I should do so by Jimbo or any arbitrator. As far as I'm aware this is also the case with Kelly Martin. --Tony Sidaway 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At least on that page, the footnote does not mean "desysopped by arbcom", it means "must go though RFA". I'm just trying to document why some former admins are tagged with that footnote, and the Giano case clearly states that for both of you. Isn't it sort of conventional to provide links in such cases? Certainly User:PMA voluntarily resigned; do you object to my linking to his RFC? That being said, I don't really give a crap and if someone else wants to bother, they can. Thatcher131 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point, although in my case and Kelly's there seems to be a very firm impression that we were desysopped or asked to do so. I won't make any more of a fuss over this, I've had my say. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I am being Harassed by Grandmaster, Atabek, and Elsanaturk. They go around reverting me, making comments on talk pages without even knowing what the discussion is about simply to attack me, making contradictory reverts just to revert my edits (as in I write something in an article based on their own source, and just to harass me, they revert me, they remove dispute tags from articles or sections (even though there is a dispute) and in another article, they contradict their own reason for reverting me on the other article). I have the diffs to show it. I still fail to see why these users have been allowed to stay (especially Atabek and Elsanaturk, who even used personal attacks and broke 1rr). I will provide the diffs if you want me to.Azerbaijani 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. As you had done some minor investigation in his case, can you take a look at this ANI report that I made. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. Unfortunately, my password was hacked and my admin powers stripped. I started with Wiki years ago and at that time did not even think that someone would want to hack into the Pedia to do some harm. Since then the Pedia has grown and is subject to such childish behavior of these hackers. I have changed my password, but would like my admin powers returned. I have never abused them and only used them when there is a persistent vandal. I invite you to look at my user page and you can see my dedication to the Pedia. Is there a place or someone to whom I can go to to request my Readmin? Tony the Marine 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned at ANI, WP:BN is the place to start, but I expect a day or two of general discussion at a minimum before anything happens on any of the desysopped accounts. NoSeptember 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost article

If you can cover the compromised accounts story, that would be great. --Michael Snow 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, FYI, claims to be AndyZ on ANI. NoSeptember 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I see AndyZ's bot account has confirmed the above. As for Eagle101, if I knew you were going to add him to the article I would have pointed out his desysopping, it has been listed at User:NoSeptember/Desysop since shortly after it occurred. Given the short amount of time you had to put the article together, I must say you did an excellent job. Kudos! :-). NoSeptember 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I added Eagle after someone pointed it out on IRC (it was very late and my memory is foggy). There seemed to be a concern that the incident had hit some blogs as "5 Admins vandalize WIkipedia" so we should explain all 5. I think I'll have to do an update next week. For now, AndyZ seems to be confirmed but his account is still blocked, and it will take some time to see whether the others can get readminned as easily as Marine. Thatcher131 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section on Wikipedia:Security. That isn't an essay but a proposed policy. The main purpose (and the effect) is to "emphasize personal responsibility for password security" so I've added that in. Please copy edit, delete, whatever. --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine. Thatcher131 12:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the article together, by the way. --Michael Snow 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Glad you're unblocked and back in working order. Can you please either confirm that ActWonActToo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is your account, or tell us that it is an imposter so it can be blocked? Thanks. Thatcher131 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes it is my account. I'll make that known on it's userpage. KOS | talk 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thatcher131, once again thank you. Your actions in this whole issue have been for the good of the Pedia. I now realize the harm done by my weak password and as you already know I accept my faults and blame no one else. As you also already know, my adminship has been restored. It was my darkest hour in the Pedia, but the amazing support and realization that I have many people who do like me and value my work here have brighten things up for me once more. Take care. Tony the Marine 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some problems with Elvis related topics

User:Northmeister repeatedly removed quotes that included some critical remarks on Graceland from the Graceland article and included material that praises the National Historic Landmark in its stead. I do not think that this in line with NPOV. It is very interesting that User:Northmeister, who claims on his user page to be an Elvis fan, reappeared on the scene at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of User: Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on Elvis related topics. See [29]. Interestingly, Northmeister has not only removed material from the Graceland article but also the entire critical section on the "Elvis cult and its critics" together with many other sections from the Elvis Presley article. See [30] etc. Some of his edits may indeed make sense but others are not NPOV, as they clearly endeavor to suppress critical remarks concerning the subject. Just one example. Northmeister first removed this passage from Graceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitute this one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See [31], [32]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see [33]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removing these passages from the article. Similar tactics were also used by the sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. I would say this is not O.K. Do you have an idea what I can do? Could it even be that Northmeister is somehow related to the sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo? To my mind there is some suspicion that a group of Elvis fans is endeavoring to whitewash Elvis related Wikipedia articles. Onefortyone 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some additions. To my mind, User:Northmeister is identical, or somehow related to, my former opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW, who also edited under the IPs, and These IPs frequently deleted commentaries they didn't like from the Elvis talk page (see [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]), etc., so that administrators were forced to restore the talk page. See [42]. Soon after, the same passage was again deleted by IP (see [43]), shortly before Ted Wilkes appeared on the scene for the first time with these edits, presumably because his IPs were blocked for vandalizing the Elvis talk page: [44], [45]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes frequently used capital letters in many of his commentaries in order to make a point such as Northmeister does. See [46]. Northmeister (re)appeared contributing to Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (who, to my mind, is also identical with my former opponent Wilkes) were banned for repeatedly removing my contributions (see [47]), and Northmeister also removed large blocks of well sourced material from the Elvis Presley article (see [48]) similar to the material the sockpuppets would usually delete. See [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. By the way, these sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, primarily created to harass me, also used IPs for their contributions, such as IP (see [57]).
What is more, the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister (see [58]), which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs! How should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not deeply involved in the dispute at that time? Significantly, the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP alias Ted Wilkes. See [59].

Interestingly, IP claimed to be someone who knew Elvis all of his life. See [60]. IP said that he is "in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family." See [61]. Furthermore, the same IP is somehow related to entertainment reporter Bill E. Burk, who runs a fan site on Elvis, and to Elvis's former friends, the members of the Memphis Mafia (MM). See [62], [63]. Significantly, Northmeister says on his user page that he has been "a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." He is attacking me when I endeavor to restore passages of text he has removed, calling my well-sourced contributions, without evidence, "trivial, dubious, incorrect quotations" and claiming that I "have some sort of agenda", as Wilkes and his many sockpuppets frequently did in the past when they deleted sourced material that was not in line with their personal opinion. See [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. This is certainly not a coincidence. All this suggests that an Elvis fan such as multiple hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW, or perhaps a small group of Elvis fans under his leadership, has reappeared and is trying to whitewash the Elvis article by removing several well-sourced, but more critical, contributions. I think this is not O.K.

I haven't been around long enough to recognize Wilkes, although you make a good case that they are at least behaving similarly. Unless you can find somone who is familiar with DW/Wilkes from before who will agree with your allegation and support a ban, you will have to deal with this user through the normal dispute resolution method, starting with RFC and mediation and possibly ending up at arbitration. Thatcher131 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


What the hell is this about? Andy Mabbett 11:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the ban you've handed out to Andy is somewhat inappropriate. I have no position on the composer/infobox issue, and I note that Andy's edits in that area may well be unacceptable. However, most of his work at the moment seems to be on geocoding and microformat work in infoboxes. I suggest that, if you think a ban is appropriate, you should restrict that ban to composer / opera infoboxes; alternatively you should justify the wider ban in light of information about Andy's other editing activities. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I think this this is a sensible and proportionate proposal. From the little I have seen (I have been trying to avert my eyes in the hope that it will just go away) some of the geocoding "work" has been as controversial as the infobox "work". Pigsonthewing should consider this as an opportunity to do something else for a change. (Indeed, I see his contributions have continued unabated today, with, as far as I can see, no infringement of this ban.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A topic ban that is too narrow is probably more harmful (for the project overall) than one that is too broad. Probation is a last resort measure for editors who have been so disruptive for so long that arbitration was the only remaining remedy, and should be enforced as soon as there are signs of disruption—there is no need to make editors go through yet another cycle of attempted discussion, RFC and so forth. Ultimately the topical ban gives him the chance to edit other areas productively, which a straight block does not. Thatcher131 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to revert this vandalism, but you've prevented that. You've also apparently ignored my reply to your last comment on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"I see his contributions have continued unabated today" Far from it; I have a number of infoboxes waiting to be updated to output microformats, and had planned to do so today. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You may make suggestions on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Which would mostly be a waste of my time. You have banned me from editing pages completely unrelated to the current dispute, on the say-so of an abusive sock-pupeteer; and for no good reason. I still await your reply on my talk page, BTW. Andy Mabbett 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"I still await your reply on my talk page" - still waiting. Andy Mabbett 09:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting. Andy Mabbett 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting. Andy Mabbett 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett - do you really think this kind if incessant chivvying (5 reminders in 7 days) is likely to trigger any kind of useful response from Thatcher131? Worldtraveller was criticised for this kind of behaviour (of a lesser magnitude - his comments to InShanee were much less frequent, and spread over a much longer period of time) in the InShaneee ArbCom case.

I guess you are asking for a response to your comment here, asking whether Thatcher131 is "aware of the history of those debates" (presumably "those debates" are the several discussions on ANI recently about your conduct in relation to infoboxes) and your invitation for Thatcher131 to "review" his "arbitrary, unwarranted and unjustified action".

Save for Pc1dmn's comment below, I see no reason for any kind of "review" to be required. I find it rather troubling that you are not taking this opportunity to review your own conduct, but rather continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. (I suspect you will now tell me that I am mistaken about that, but there we are.) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had a number of useful (at least to me) exchanges with Andy Mabbett, without any virtual blows being struck. I don't think there is anything controversial about his excellent work on templates (including infoboxes), and I would ask for this part of his ban to be lifted. (Ie he should be permitted to resume unrestricted edits in template-space.) -- roundhouse 10:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is now evidence of controversy going back some weeks re AM's work on templates (see here including the remarks today in the Google support subsection) so I withdraw the remarks above. -- roundhouse 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey - just wanted to say thanks for the article on Template:User committed identity in the signpost. I'm very glad people have found this useful, and it's always nice to see Cryptography get some attention. I made a few changes to the text, including replacing "key" with "commitment" (since "key" is a bad term to use, especially "secret key", for a piece of data that is actually public, and also to link to Commitment scheme which is really the technique being used). Mangojuicetalk 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was following the discussion on the noticeboard about handshaking each others' PGP keys and I'm glad this rather simpler and more elegant solution was proposed. Saves me from having to learn to use PGP for one thing. :) Thatcher131 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, user Dacy69 violated his parole, and his argument is basically that Wikipedia rules dont apply to him: [70] I dont want to have to waste my time and debate Wikipedia's rules with him. I reported him for his parole violation and the comments speak for themselves.Azerbaijani 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

After you read the Arbcom page, you may also want to read this: [71] I hope this situation can be remedied quickly.Azerbaijani 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Now these users are making more false accusations. These users are disruptive editors, they make and then break compromises, they trade reverts, they blatantly make false accusations against other users, which can be considered a personal attack, etc... what does it take for a user to get banned? Do I have to take this harassment and abuse everyday on Wikipedia? They're trying to run me out of here by continuously abusing and harassing me. what am I supposed to do?Azerbaijani 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
yes, pls. read this as a whole [72] and check sockpuppet user requests [73], [74]. The whole thing and complain was started by Azerbaijani. He once was already to put on hold for revert parole violation [75]. Page safavid Dynasty is being vandalised by several socks replacing each other whom user:Azerbaijani defend--Dacy69 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please read everything and notice how Dacy proved himself wrong on the Arbcom noticeboard, which showed that he was purposely trying to make a false accusation against me. I also explained why I defended the anon, not because I wanted to waste my time, but because I had to, because Atabek made false accusations to manipulate an Admin just so that Dacy could get away with violating his parole.Azerbaijani 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Report

Thanks very much for covering for me - I really appreciate it. David Mestel(Talk) 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thatcher131 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing?

By what divine right are you allowed to censor discussion of p*dophilia-related topics at WP:AN/I? Has the arbcom forgotten what "arbitration" means?? There is no policy that allows this. Please revert yourself. -Jillium 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be no public discussion. If you revert it I will block you. This has happened several times before and the arbitrators themselves have removed the discussions and frozen the page if necessary. Some topics are too sensitive and carry too much danger of bringing the project into disrepute to be discussed openly, not to mention disruptive. I suggest you contact Fred Bauder or any other arbitrator by email. Thatcher131 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I call bullshit. "contact Fred Bauder" == "talk to the hand", as I've contacted Bauder on this issue and gotten no response. I am certainly no defender of pedophilia, I believe my record shows that; but it is both weak and stupid to give in to moral panic on this issue. The Wikipedia is allowed to ban whomever it wants to, but there is no reason not to be public and aboveboard. Herostratus 03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Now User:Northmeister has gone too far! Sorry that I cannot assume good faith any more.

  • A devoted Elvis fan, Northmeister still removes well sourced material not only from Elvis Presley (see [76], [77]) but also fromGraceland. See [78], [79], [80]. He even denies that there is an Elvis cult at Graceland, although many sources say that this is the case. See [81].
  • What is more, Northmeister not only removed my well-sourced contributions from article pages but has now copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively in a very heated manner two years ago and placed it in the current talk page in order to harass me. See [82]. Significantly, this is exactly the same material that my old opponent, multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP alias IP frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [83], [84]. In his recent edit, Northmeister even confuses me with another user who edited under the IP and was also part of the 2005 edit war with Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP alias IP

Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit war with me at that time?

  • It should again be noted that the expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, which refers to the world-wide Elvis industry, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Wilkes's IPs!

Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? The said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP alias Ted Wilkes. See [85].

  • More significantly, Northmeister addressed me in the current heading as a user from Duesburg (see [86]). The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
  • Some additional facts concerning Northmeister's edits of 2006. As has already been mentioned, this user first appeared on the Wikipedia scene on 5 February 2006. It should be remembered that around the same time Ted Wilkes had created some other sockpuppets: User:Danny B. (usurped) and User:Cynthia B.. The history of Northmeister clearly shows that his aggressive behavior is very similar to that of Wilkes. Like Wilkes, Northmeister is very interested in Elvis Presley and, apart from some edits he called "improvements", this user, from the beginning of his appearance, frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs from the Elvis article which were not in line with his personal view. See these old edits: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. This is also very similar to Ted Wilkes's deleting tactics. Furthermore, it is very interesting that, in the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See, for instance, [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. See also these comments concerning Northmeister's accusation that User:Will Beback allegedly violated the three revert rule. [110], [111]. Interestingly, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes also frequently violated the three revert rule and repeatedly accused me of "outright fabrications" or "vandalism" in the past. Is it just by chance that Northmeister accused Will Beback of "outright vandalism" (see [112]) and of harrassing him (see [113])? Compare also these edits: [114], [115] and [116].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP alias IP 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you to have a look at this commentary. It seems as if I am now Wikipedia's whipping boy, simply because of my complaints of being harassed by the supposed sockpuppets of Ted Wilkes. This is not a pleasant feelng. 11:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Could it even be that User:Rikstar is identical with Northmeister? I hope not, but what looks very suspicious to me are some edits of 22 May 2007 concerning the Elvis Presley article. This edit by Rikstar included double content. Therefore, it was immediately removed by Northmeister in the very next edit three minutes later, as if Rikstar corrected himself by unintentionally using another user account. Significantly, all subsequent edits were again by Rikstar a few minutes later, except for an edit by User:Steve Pastor, who also seems to be somehow related to Northmeister (see above). Northmeister did only one or two other edits that day, one of them removing, as usual, sourced content from the Elvis page. See [117]. Interestingly, some hours after Northmeister had posted his negative statement about Onefortyone on 19 May, Rikstar also took the opportunity to formally register his "own dissatisfaction with Onefortyone" on the Elvis talk page, thereby (?unintentionally) removing the name Onefortyone from an edit by IP against Onefortyone, as if he wanted to add some further details to this edit of IP, but changed his mind in order to put a comment by Rikstar in its stead. See [118] and [119]. All this looks very suspicious, because all these users are now very active rearranging content and removing critical material from the Elvis page and attacking Onefortyone, simply because the latter would like to include some well-sourced material in the Elvis article that is not in line with the opinion of the fans. 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can find somone who is familiar with DW/Wilkes from before who will agree with your allegation and support a ban, you will have to deal with this user through the normal dispute resolution method, starting with RFC and mediation and possibly ending up at arbitration. Thatcher131 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi mate,

i see you´ve block me because of the trouble. Dear mate, we have no trouble more (Arian bro and me(Tajik-Professor)). He thought i am a person who claim himself Pashtun and i thought he was a Pashtun. Now it´s clear. Plz; unblock me again. Thanks and best regards -- 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale

Can you please provide a detailed justification for blocking Gwen Gale? I'd like to see the evidence. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

She has admitted it in e-mail to me after I blocked her. I obviously can not share that with you. She was prohibited from making edits related to homosexuality at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. She was also placed on general probation, and any three admins can agree to place restrictions on her editing, up to and including a one year ban, for disruption, based on the same arbitration case. I can see that she has been edit warring. I have not looked to see how or why or against whom, but edit warring is never justified. If her defense is, "I was only edit warring because I had to respond to so-and-so", that is a reason for RFC, mediation or even arbitration, not edit warring in return. She has edited in violation of her topical ban. An admin discussion on her probation is warranted, I believe, by recent edit warring. Thatcher131 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit history

I have a question: when I try to look at the edit history of an article now, the display is totally different than it used to be, and it doesn't show the two text blocks with the changes in red like it used to. I see this on all the articles I attempt to view the changes of. Has there been some major change recently in the way this is done, or did I do something that caused the display toi change? Is there some way to change it back?

For instance, I looked at many changes an editor did to Timothy Leary, and can't see a before and after version. I tried making changes myself, and can't see before and after versions of them, either, just the beginnings of a few sentences. I made several changes, but I can only view part of what I did at the very beginning of the paragraph.

Did I miss something going on in Wikipedia while working on List of Marvel Comics mutants? Rosencomet 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of has changed, and I still see the diffs (green for new and yellow for removed) above the page when I look at a diff. Try emptying your browser cache, history and cookies, then restarting your computer and logging in again. Thatcher131 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, ban -jkb-

You may remember my endless quarrel with -jkb-. You have asked us both not to import here the drama from cs:. -jkb- breached this, that's why I ask you to ban him. Zacheus TalkContributionsEdit counter 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

oh well, so see meta:Requests for CheckUser information#Cross check Commons / sk:wiki / en:wiki please (after deletion: [120]. -jkb- 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Can I just clarify his revert parole please? Given that he was banned for a year, I would have assumed any other sanctions (such as the revert parole) would apply from the end of his ban not run concurrently? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally they run concurrently. He was placed on revert parole on 9 Dec 2005, then banned for a year in a separate vote on 25 Jan 2006. Revert parole might be a very good idea but as far as I understand things it is no longer in effect. You can file a request for clarification on WP:RFAR and ask that the revert parole be reinstated. It would probably be better than selective topic bans. Thatcher131 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's how I see it [121]. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of edit warring over the infobox on Sutton Coldfield is false and defamatory. Kindly remove it. Andy Mabbett 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, no. Thatcher131 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence to support it, lest people think you're a liar. Andy Mabbett 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried. Thatcher131 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but you are a liar. Andy Mabbett 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a liar, to their face, is a clear personal attack. I'm sure Thatcher131 will not be too distraught, but edits like this are clear edit warring. The facts speak for themselves. (The fourth so-called "rv PoV vandalism" - if such a thing exists - made some different tweaks, but does not change the overall conclusion.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lie if it's backed up by evidence, Thank you for providing it. Andy Mabbett 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
These are your own edits I am quoting back to you! You directly called Thatcher131 a liar when you were well aware that clear evidence to the contrary existed. That, to my mind, falls far below the usual standards of social intercourse. I think you should apologise.
Perhaps next time you will provide some evidence demonstrating that a person has been untruthful before you accuse them of speaking falsely, rather than insisting that they provide evidence that your gross personal attack is unjustified. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biography of living persons closers

I like your idea about knowledgeable, trusted admins who perform closes of deletion reviews where Biography of living persons (BLP) is a factor. This would have to be limited perhaps to cases where BLP concerns have been justifiably and in good faith cited by the original deleting administrator.

This is an idea that would die in endless discussion if left to the community. Perhaps there would be a way in which arbitration committee could kickstart the process, at least by ruling that in areas of crucial policy the committee can appoint individuals to perform enforcement tasks. The Committee has in the past appointed mentors for individuals and for articles that need some kind of close supervision. The concept of policy mentors sounds a bit weird, but might work quite well as long as it's understood by all that the mentors can be challenged at arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

wrong allegation and unjust ban of user: Tajik

Hello. You recently blocked user: Tajik indefinably on the allegetaion that he was using user: Tajik-Professor as a sockpuppet. That assumption was actually totally wrong and if you knew these two people, like I do, its totally ridiculous. I actually know both of them personally (off Wikipedia), and they are two different people. One is a Kabuli-Tajik, the other is a Herati-Tajik. user: Tajik is an older adult, while user: Tajik-Professor is a teenager (you can tell this by their edits but I know this personally). And they do both live in Germany. So I think what happened was you did a UserCheck on user: Tajik-Professer and saw a similar IP to his because they both live in Germany. Thus, user: Tajik was banned on a assumption (that two IPs from the same country are the same person), and so he should be unbanned. He is one of the best contributers I know of, just look at his awards and featured articles he's contributed to. He really should be unblocked as soon as possible. Please try to do that soon. Thank you. --Behnam 05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if Tajik is not Tajik-Professor, Tajik himself was edit warring from IP addresses while logged out at the same time he was avoiding arbitration by agreeing to mediation and then being "unavailable" for the mediation. This is now a matter for the arbitration committee, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. You should contact the arbitration committee with your evidence, either on the talk page of the case, the talk pages of the arbitrators, or their email addresses. Thatcher131 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion of Mitch Thrower user: rwilco201

Hi Thatcher,

Thanks for the info. Here's my take on it - the Mitch Thrower article was pretty much a bio that he wrote, and I was trying to add other info. The reason that I thought the Cele|bitchy article was relevant was that he responded to it, and there was an actual quote by him on the page (as well as pictures he provided, etc.). If he put it out there, shouldn't it be cited?

Thanks for understanding that this is my first post on Wiki, BTW, and working to correct this. I appreciate your time.

--Rwilco 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

wrong allegation and unjust ban of user: Tajik

Which IP addresses was Tajik edit warring with? I have a watch on all articles he has a watch on so I would have seen it. I have seen a few IP edits which were just like user: Tajik-Professor's edits. There are no IP address edits of Tajik, I've known him for a year and he has never done that. If there are IP address which you think where his, please provide them and I will analyze their edits for you. --Behnam 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the reason he was not available to finish off the mediation was because he has a very busy occupation. Don't tell him I told you this, but he is a medical doctor so he is very busy at times. --Behnam 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The article was Safavid dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There was an edit war involving a number of the participants from the Armenia-Azerbaijani arbitration case and an IP editor. I asked Dmcdevit whether the IP editor was any of the Armenian or Azeri editors because they are all on revert parole, and he said it was Tajik (who was also editing the article under his own account and reverting to the IPs version). If you want to pursue this further you will have to see Dmcdevit or any of the arbitrators to ask them to double-check the IP evidence. Thatcher131 02:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check Safavid dynasty. Tajik is edit warring as an anon Check his contribs: [122] Grandmaster 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check Safavid dynasty, there is another anon IP sock of User:Tajik, which resurfaced. Also, could you please, remind User:Azerbaijani to assume good faith, stop being aggressive and accusing me of "vandalism" without basis. My attempt to remind him about that on the talk page did not seem to bear any fruit. Thanks. Atabek 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Atabek read the rules, how many times have I told you this? You continuously make false accusations because you are not familiar with the rules, and think people have broken them when they have not. You vandalized the safavids page by removing an entire section for no reason (your excuse was changing one sentence in a completely different part of the article if I remember correctly, which still doesnt excuse why you removed an entirely different part of the article): [123] (his removal of an entire section related in no way to what he was trying to undo) [124] (his comments on the talk page telling Kansasbear to re-do his edits, now I wonder, why remove in the first place then?!) I simply told you not to do that. If I ask you nicely will you read the rules of PA before you accuse people of attacking you? Please Atabek, read Wikipedia NPA. A personal attack would be if I commented on you as a user, rather than on your edits or a subject. I have never done so.Azerbaijani 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have proofs of vandalism, you should hold on to your anger and assume good faith, just like I and few others do, in spite of your unconstructive edit warring along ethnic lines on just about every page related to Azerbaijan. Safavid dynasty article was discussed at length and consensus was achieved. Of course, no consensus is final, but nevertheless, the user editing the page, especially an anon IP sockpuppet of a banned user, should discuss his edits on the talk page. I see no further need to respond to your ad hominem.Atabek 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just proved your vandalism...(did you read what I wrote?). Also, please show me where I'm edit warring. I have 1 revert per article per week, how can I edit war without getting blocked (LOL)? Last I check, plenty of users from the Republic of Azerbaijan have been editing Armenian related articles, so I dont see how you can tell me of all people (an Iranian Azeri) not to edit Iran-Azeri related articles. You've made so many false accusations that I've lost track...What you are doing can be considered a personal attack, because your commenting on me.Azerbaijani 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I appear to have broken the number formatting at the Badlydrawnjeff Workshop. Not sure how - any chance you could take a look? --YFB ¿ 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm. There's no particular mandate for all the proposals to be in properly numbered order, and all the numbering is manual. It can be fixed (assuming no edit conflicts). Thatcher131 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad... I was on autopilot and assuming there was a # but you're right, it's manual. Sorry. --YFB ¿ 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed the principles section. Thatcher131 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, I doubt there's much point trying to keep up with it too strictly while the edit-rate is so high. Thanks for setting me right :-) --YFB ¿ 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed it a couple of times myself but it keeps falling behind. Since proposals rarely cross-reference each other by number it's not crucial. Newyorkbrad 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Mis)use of User page

Could you have a look at User:Pete K and User talk:Pete K, please? It looks to me like a combination of a soapbox, personal web page and personal attacks - but as I am one of the people being attacked I may not be completely objective. (Just saw that you're not full-on at the moment; I'll try to find an appropriate venue for this assuming you will not get to it.)Hgilbert 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the help on the RfA template. Where was it located? Tempshill 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's normally supposed to be right where I put it, and people are supposed to copy it rather than edit directly. The last person to file a case must have edited the template directly and "used it up" without me or the other clerks noticing. I got a copy from back in the page history. Thatcher131 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that at least twice a week people fill in the template directly and mess it up. I've been trying to think of an more self-evident way for this to work, but haven't had any luck so far (the system used at RfCU, for example, is certainly more complicated, not less). I suppose one could argue that filing an arbitration should be a little complicated, as a slight barrier to frivolous filings.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Making it easier was the goal of the big pink box. Transcluding subpages like RFCU or AFD would make it even worse. Not sure there's a better solution, so we monitor and fix as needed. Thatcher131 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We could copy in a lifetime supply of extra templates.... Newyorkbrad 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You from Mitch Thrower to! Thatcher131

In fact I would love to have the entry on my name deleted! And USER:RWilco201's intent is clear as day - from his very first post.

I think Emily took most of the stuff out of the "About Mitch" section of my book which is published by Lyons Press, or other articles in business journals, or bios that are published on the companies I started web sites, etc. There is also a very detailed biographical interview that Betasway magazine ran at in their third edition- on page 59.

But I don't agree with everything Emily posted, and was a bit shocked to find the personal details on Wiki - so I'm happy to have it all deleted.

It is important to note however that I did not substantially edit the page - I only changed two dates and eliminated the Celebitchy article because I found it offensive to see tabloid rumors on wiki.

So your quote about the Wiki Policies made my day - because of the insistence of the Vandal on posting that site. 'Other important policies are that content must be verifiable with reference to reliable sources, and maintain a Neutral point of view. Any content from a site like "" obviously violates both BLP and the reliable source policies and should be removed immediately. Thank you for making this point very clear – I hope it sticks with the user that kept posting it.

Thanks again for your support. Long live Wiki!

Thatcher131 - one last thing - a tech group I am working with thinks they know who this user Rwilco201 is - is there anything in process where you can verify his identity, because it appears from our evidence to be a person we have identified with a personal grudge - a disgruntled person who poses threat of continued attempted slander. Can you contact me directly about this, and I can share with you the ip and trail evidence. We've collected everything he has posted here and the additional correspondence, and wonder if you have any recommendations or cases like this before that you have seen? Can you force voice to voice arbitration? My concern, as evidenced by his continued edit of the talk pages even after your strong resolve post to him today - is that he is going to continue to pop-up with his mission. A voice to voice arbitration would clear this up immidiatly. Thoughts?

  • Replied by email. Thatcher131 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mitch Thrower copyvio?

The statements above would suggest that a good portion of the article was a copyvio from sources his neighbor found. Not sure how much of that you left over when you got done with pruning it. DarkAudit 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:

I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone never know.") That's Wikipedia. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for Thatcher


Please see my post made today, Sunday, at about 9:00p.m. CA time to [Rwilco201]

He will remove it quickly, so you have to go back because he's deleted all of the important discussion items on his talk page.

My question is, as a wiki guru, what are your thoughts on my request for him to call me to verify that he is indeed not a biased party.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi, Bosniak is promoting his personal blog on the Srebrenica massacre page.[125]

I will be publishing report about this tommorow in my next June 4th-dated article, so please make sure to visit tommorow and comment at Srebrenica genocide blog.

I have no problem that he does so on his userpage but I do feel that it's inappropriate that he uses wiki article talk pages to advertise it. Please remind him. Sincerely Osli73 13:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Please be aware of this: [126] and this:[127]. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Remedy modifications

Looks very nice; thanks for catching on to the fact that I hadn't specified a notification method. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Where do I post my submission for arbitration then User:Jurriaan 18:25 10 June 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk. Thatcher131 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

respectfully I dis agree

"Apes and pigs is about as appropriate as "Coons and darkies" would be"

I have not read the article "Coons and darkies" so there is no way for me to know what it is.

Have you read "Apes and pigs" ? maybe the name is not appropriate and it should be moved to "decedents of Apes and Pigs" (I did a redirect to the shorter name.) In any case it was just pointed out that content with similar name is already included in another wikipedia article[128] so clearly the content is encyclopedic.

I suggest that the proper response is an AFD and I will vote to nerge it into the proper article. Zeq 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it

[129] - not very polite by Ali but let's not open another debate not worth it. Zeq 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He moved it up [130]. Buckets' dividing of the section into an admin-only response subsection is unusual and probably not really needed, either. but it's not worth fussing over. Thatcher131 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am more concern with Buckets' making accusations that are not founded and fdeciding by himslf, just after ArbCom had an opportunity to review all my behaviour over last year, to issue remedies that even ArbCom did not consider or voted down.

I did an edit that was in good faith. If I would have known that similar content already exist (in islam and Antisemitism) I would just redirected abnd expended there. Since I was not ware of that article I created the "apes and Pigs". As it turned out there is already a subsection about it. So the fact the subject is already covered show I was not doing anything un enecclopedic and an AFD or merge should have been in order. I fail to understand why any edit I make is reviwed with a clear assumption that I am not a good faith editor. To the cotraray - I need to comply with some of the most strict rules and observation in wimkipedia by a whole group that wants to ban me (since they don't agree with my viwes and with the fact I chalnage their views) Zeq 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • it seems that buck think that my probation forbids me to edit or create articles of 'controversial" subjects. Can you help explain to him that probation is about behaviour not content ? Tnx. also the way he divided the page make any meangifull discussion impossible. Zeq 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Thatcher,
Sorry. On wp:fr we prevent users to be allowed to write on admin sections to prevents escalation. I thought it was the same here. It seems I may be wrong.
nb: Just for infomration : it is not Ali (that sounds arabs and Baroukh HaChem, I am not Muslim), it is Alithien, which is a name I used when I was younger in roleplaying games). My name on wp:fr is fr:user:ceedjee.
My main contributions on wp:en are to come and get information from Zero and other specialists of the 1920-1950 period in Israel/Palestine.
Alithien 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zero is NOT a specialists on the 1920-1950 or anything that has to do with Israel/palestine. His field of expertize has nothing to do with the area he writes on using the Zero000 ID. Zeq 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
lol lol lol
On wp:fr, I am considered as the reference on the topic.
I am the main contributors of many articles on this topic there among which 3 featured articles : fr:protagonistes de la guerre de Palestine de 1948, fr:massacre de Qibya and fr:guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948 and there are many many others : fr:Utilisateur:Ceedjee/articles
I would evaluate my know-how of 10% of Zero0000's.
And yours, should be 10% of mine.
Alithien 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Something triggered in my memory - wasn't this what the RFCU case page move-war was about? My memory is a bit hazy, so maybe I'm getting confused. Daniel 08:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Among other things. Thatcher131 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding Tom Mandel and the talk:Systems theory page

Hi, I'm experiencing some disruptive behavior from Tommy Mandell's on the talk:Systems theory page. He uses different anonymous IP adresses, doesn't respond to remarks, gives twisted information and uses the talk page as his own sandbox.

Now I've search through different information regarding his previous behavour, and I have seen that there is a lot more to it. What I didn't understand is the decisions made by the Wikipedia Administration regarding Tom Mandel. Is he (the person) on 3 december 20006 banned for ever from making edits to scientific and pseudoscientific articles?

On the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience I have seen that you blocked user:Tom Mandel 2 months ago, so that is why I adress this question to you. I hope you can tell me some more about this, what I can do or else who I have to ask. Thanks - Mdd 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping that you could tell me anything... so now I'm trying to find out what to do next. So I was going to history of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and I found that you on 3 dec 2006 you also seem to have made added the decision:
Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
My questions remains what this means? and who I can ask for any explanation? Sorry to bother you again, but I really would like to know? Thabk you - Mdd 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
He is banned from editing the article but not its talk page. If he is being disruptive on the talk page, he may be banned from there under his general probation. I'm rather busy to get involved, you can make a request at WP:AE or WP:ANI. Be sure to include a link to the case and note that you are asking for probation enforcement. Thatcher131 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Verbal attack by sock IPs

Hi. We have a problem here [131]. User Hetoum I is edit warring using sock IPs and allowed himself a verbal attack on wiki editor: "nice try loser, quit vandalism". Your attention would be appreciated. Thanks. Zondi 07:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

James S again

Hi. You banned Nrcprm2026 (James S) from global warming for his editing there. He is (in my opinion) behaving tendentiously on the talk page there and on Greenhouse gas. Do you care to look into this? William M. Connolley 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As the user who originally suggested that the ban be extended to the Global Warming talk page, I would also appreciate your taking a look. I was not aware that he was trying to insert the same material at Greenhouse gas that he has been pushing at Talk:Global warming. Raymond Arritt 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not active enough now to be able to study and follow up on this. Sorry. Thatcher131 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister and Wilkes

Many of the unsourced images of Elvis books, movie posters, albums and DVDs, to which User:Northmeister is now desperately adding fair use rationales, because a bot said that these images are about to be deleted (see [132], [133]), were created by Ted Wilkes. See [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], etc. See also Northmeister's reaction to the messages of the bot. It should be noted in this connection that Wilkes and his alias User:DW were banned from Wikipedia for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. See also these bot messages on Wilkes's talk page. This supports the suspicion that Nothmeister is identical with Wilkes. 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

May I also ask you to have a look at Graceland. User Northmeister is still edit warring with me. He repeatedly deleted well-sourced information including historical facts concerning Elvis's mansion, the people once living there, accounts by eyewitnesses and bibliographical references. See [146], [147], [148], [149]. This is not acceptable. I did much research using several independent sources, but all this material is frequently deleted by Northmeister. What is more, this user even continues to include false information in the opening of the article, such as "Koizumi, who is the longest-lasting Prime Minister in Japanese history". In fact, Koizumi served as Prime Minister of Japan from 2001 to 2006. I have corrected the passage and moved it to another section of the article, but Northmeister still reverts to the version he prefers. Though all of my sources are accurately cited, he says on the talk page, "I will continue to revert what I consider Disruptive editing..." All this is very similar to the behavior of my former opponent, Ted Wilkes. 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf

Thanks for setting up the page. I had thought about doing this, but the last time we had a summary ArbCom action without a full case, in the Robdurbar matter, the consensus was not to bother setting up a casepage after-the-fact. I suppose this one is more likely to need to be linked to later, though, including the log if there are any violations, so I agree this is the best way to handle it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help Safavid dynasty

Thatcher, I would like to ask for your help at Safavid dynasty. We had long row of disputes on this page, and finally a more or less stable version of the page was achieved about a month ago. Now banned user Tajik creates innumerous anon IP socks and vandalizes the page, without any discussion on talk page. The anon IP edits are often endorsed only by User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani), who is engaged in heavy edit warring after ArbCom on several pages and tries hard to spoil consensus version. I posted my suspicion about one registered user, which is an obvious meatpuppet of Tajik [150], but it was declined. Immediately after, Tajik got encouraged and started another anon IP attack [151] from Can you please, help address this issue. I don't think we want to go back to point 0 on this article, just because of anon IP socks. Thanks in advance for your attention. Atabek 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent endorsed anything! On the Safavids page I was actually trying to help this guy and his buddies out, but no, he doesnt even bother to read what other people write. He also deletes peoples messages from his talk page and calls them "garbage". Atabek is fishing, going from one admin to another admin telling lies in order to get me in trouble. Just yesterday he was doing this on user Tariq's page: [152]
Thatcher, I have come to you about this harassment before, and also several admins, but no one will do anything about Atabek's disruptive behavior. Also, if you ask him to bring evidence supporting his claims against me, he never does. Atabek, bring your evidence or do not make these personal attacks! Atabek should have been blocked by the Arbcom just like AdilBaguirov as was initially suggested, I dont know why you guys changed your minds on that. This user has done nothing but make personal attacks, harass users, and go from admin to admin making false accusations in order to get me blocked.Hajji Piruz 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have requested for the attention of the administrator to a particular page. Have no time for this paranoia, intended only to attack user, and nothing more. Atabek 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom question

Hello. As you know, Atabek and I were involved in the arbcom. Is there anyway we can re-open the arbcom with just Atabek and I, because our dispute doesnt really have anything to do with the other users or Armenia-Azerbaijan things, its mostly about attacks, accusations, disruptive behaviors, etc...The reason I ask is because I was thinking of doing an RFC but it said that an RFC may lead to arbitration anyway.Hajji Piruz 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate a response, because if we cant re-open the arbcom with just me and Atabek, then I want to get a RFC as soon as possible and see where things go from there. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the real reason of this dispute, is User:Hajji Piruz editing my user space without my permission [153] and obviously trying to intimidate me. I complained about it to several administrators, which he is now trying to brand as canvassing. I am not looking for a group of people or admins to support me, I am just looking for anyone who will explain to this user something he does not understand: he should not edit my user page without my permission before hand.
Regarding ArbCom, I don't see any reason for opening it for two of us, since this is a problem based on personal attack by User:Hajji Piruz on my userspace. The problem can be solved, simply by making it clear to User:Hajji Piruz what are the limitations of his authority. If the decision, however, is made to reopen ArbCom, I would also prefer to include others, such as User:Tajik with his numerous anon IP sockpuppets, User:Vartanm and User:MarshalBagramyan, who by mistake avoided ArbCom despite fair amount of revert warring on the same topic. Atabek 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, stop canvassing and making false accusations. Thats it, I cant deal with this anymore, I'm opening up an RFC as soon as I get back, and we'll probably end up in our own arbcom afterwards if that doesnt settle it. Post the evidence or dont make the accusations. Stop canvassing. Stop making personal attacks.Hajji Piruz 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You have to first identify whether your problem with me is that of personal or content dispute. As far as I can see from your edit of my user page, it has more to do with personal than with content. If you can calm down, finally AGF, and acknowledge that instead of editing my user page for intimidation you should have instead made suggestion on my talk page, no further disputes will be necessary and we won't have to waste ArbCom or administrators' time. Meanwhile, per suggestion of Tariqabjotu, you may post comments on my talk page, if you have differences you need to discuss, in a polite manner of course. Atabek 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Husnock unblock

Apologies for that IP address unblock declined thing. I had read through the talk page, and wrongly assumed he was banned. Sorry about that. I must be more careful when dealing with {{unblock}} requests. --SunStar Net talk 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • See [154]. For some reason, a few people have a knee-jerk reaction to Husnock. Those IPs may be in computer labs or a proxy range but when they post on certain topics no one is fooled and I don't see why he continues to try. Although certain editors definitely feel he is unwelcome here, he is not actually banned. Thatcher131 12:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Thatcher131. Am I wrong to decline {{unblock}} requests or not?? I was trying to be helpful as I could, but if I was wrong, let me know. At least I know now he isn't a banned user as such. Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 12:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
SunStar Net, please see my comment in the ANI thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I'd accept. I'll be going on a wikibreak starting in three days and ending in early July, so I suppose this might affect timing. I see you've also asked David and Penwhale, and I don't want to hold them up; if my presence is required to answer any questions or something else that requires me being anywhere near an internet connection, go ahead with those two only and I'll be available again at the end of the aforementioned break. Picaroon (Talk) 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your confidence, and for generally giving me the opportunity to help out, which has been fun. I'll be away in sunny Birmingham the 16th to the 21st of July, so ditto what Picaroon said. David Mestel(Talk) 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the committee has ever previously had questions for the candidates, its a pretty informal position after all. The names circulate on the closed AC mailing list and if no one objects, eventually someone adds the names to the official list. By the way, there is a clerks mailing list, and clerks have write-access to the closed committee mailing list (bypassing the moderation queue) so make sure I have your current e-mail address. Thatcher131 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Check your e-mail. David Mestel(Talk) 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Replied to you on my talk page. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block of

Hi Thatcher131,

it seems that you blocked the IP address on October 10 2006 indefinitely with the rationale "tor exit node, anon only". I'd like you to know that this address (as the whole address range is a dynamically assigned dial-up IP of M-net Telekommunikations GmbH (a regional access provider in the south of Germany). Not very surprisingly, checking the Torstatus at [155] reveals that this IP is "NOT an active Tor server". (Well it's me using this address at the moment of writing ...)

I hope you agree that an indefinite block of a dynamic IP for being a Tor node is rather pointless and thus i formally request this block to be lifted. (Yes i know that this block is anon only and might not concern me as being logged in, but i think this block is an error nevertheless.)

Kind regards, --Rotkraut 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That IP was listed here as a tor exit node, but I agree it is no longer an exit node and I will unblock. Note that the list shows two other IPs are currently exit nodes. These could also eventually end up being blocked, at least until the IP rotates away from the user running the proxy. This will probably be an ongoing problem whenever people on dynamic ISPs run tor nodes. Thatcher131 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick response in spite of wikibreak! ☺ IPs in this range are assigned for a max. period of 24h. After this time the server disconnects. So maybe a block of 24h in case of incidents might be an appropriate rule. --Rotkraut 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree but as a practical matter this would be difficult to implement. Whenever I block tor nodes (once a month but not recently) I download the list of open exit nodes and block any that aren't blocked. If I know that an IP was dynamic with a 24 hour turnaround then I wouldn't bother to block at all. But the two M-net IPs on the list now seem to be dsl rather than dial-up. Which is still a dynamic pool but with a longer turn around time. Checking every IP manually would really slow down the process, and still not be 100% accurate. Thatcher131 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree on the practical issues. I meant it more like: we would need some tool for this task that automatically queries some dialup RBL and advices for not applying an indefinite block in the case of a dynamic IP. In the end, it boils down to what bothers you more, discriminating between fixed and dynamic IPs when applying the block or having to reply to requests for a lift of the blocks for dynamic IPs afterwards. Both will require extra work for you. And btw: sure it is DSL, as it is for But still the 24h limit applies. --Rotkraut 18:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


You have mail. Moreschi Talk 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Hi. Thanks for the lock on the article. I was wondering, I hated the fact there was a revert war going on. Is there a venue for me to report this? I would prefer that to constantly editing these things. Thanks. Ccrashh 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Requests for page protection is the place to go. I saw a note on the drudge report that the ending was allegedly spoiled so I thought I should look in on the article just in case. Thatcher131 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Am relatively new to this, and didn't want to step on toes or cause issues where none were. I also came close to violating the 3RR! Yikes! :) Ccrashh 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism can also be reported to admin intervention against vandalism. Whether to apply page protection or simply block individual vandals is a judgement call based on a number of factors; here since we had both a spoiler vandal and the color issue I thought temporary protection was better. Reverting vandalism is exempt from the 3RR rule, although reverting possibly good faith edits and calling them vandalism is a no-no. I'm not sure I would classify the color issue as vandalism but since the other books use a consistent color scheme (i.e. same as the book) the editor there should definitely explain what he is trying to do and why. Instead of risking a fourth revert on something that is a gray area (possibly but not obviously vandalism), you can just wait a few minutes; a popular article like this probably has lots of watchers and if they agree the color scheme is right they can revert too. Thatcher131 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a deletion review of TerrorStorm. You might want to participate in the deletion review. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Mabbett

Surely A Mabbett is in breach of something or other here? Or does the 1 revert per week not apply to user space? Is the material he wishes to retain 'inappropriate content'? (If so the 3 reverts rule does seem to apply to user-space.) Occuli 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

heh heh heh

I reverted the revert! I just got all confused by Moe's striking out the comments. It looks like there was no expiry date on the revert parole, and if there was a year-long one, it wouldn't be lifted until Monday. But maybe Moe saw something I didn't. I'll edit the log. -- Merope 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I sympathise fully with those wishing to seek wikibreaks. If you do have a minute, I'd be grateful if you could put a prominent sentence somewhere stating exactly what the present conditions are on user:Pigsonthewing - as far as I know these are - indefinite probation, 1 revert per week per article ... what exactly is meant by 'article', in particular does this apply in his own user space, and/or in user space generally? (Eg this between 14 and 21 June and this 13 to 20 June.) -- roundhouse0 13:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the word "Article" in arbitration remedies refers to any page in the project, including templates, policy pages, and so forth. This has been clarified in other prior cases although I can not recall a specific diff by an Arbitrator. The one place the revert parole does not apply is a user's own user and talk pages. Edit warring on someone's talk page to force him to display a warning falls under the heading of "Two wrongs don't make a right," amd here I would say that edit warring over his user page content was pointless and as inflammatory as the content itself. Regarding his complaint against Mig, the better course of actions would have been to ask an administrator to remove it. Under Andy's general probation, any three admins may place any restrictions on his editing that are needed to prevent disruption, and I would simply have removed the content as an admin and told him that if he restored it he would be blocked under his general probation until he removed it. (I would simply have ignored his later statement that he was censored and allowed it to remain. It's no worse than many other editors with grievances.) He did violate his revert parole on Mig's user page. Here again, it would have been better to get an admin to deal with the problem under his probation. It looks rather unfortunate that a number of non-admins appeared to "take the law into their own hands" and the situation was very poorly handled. Thatcher131 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I appear to have been thinking about someone else. Andy's probation allows any admin (that is, acting alone, not requiring 3 admins) to ban him from any page he disrupts for an appropriate period of time. Thatcher131 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks - in Proposed remedies (which were all passed as far as I can tell), we have "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." So, if I think he is disrupting a page (eg Tinsley Viaduct, inc Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates), do I just pick an admin? (There is also -- "5) Pigsonthewing is prohibited from reverting any article for one year; any three administrators, for good cause, may extend this ban on reverting in one-year intervals indefinitely." - this has presumably expired but finding 3 admins ought not to be insuperable.) Actually 95% of his edits are IMO exemplary, but he is so prolific that 5% is a lot of edits (these 5% mostly arise from reverting, or would not arise if he couldn't revert). He is still edit-warring, in slow motion, eg Meersbrook. -- roundhouse0 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the decision on the main case page [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Log_of_blocks_and_bans here], the revert parole is served consecutively with the one year ban that was imposed after the case first closed, so it is still in effect. Andy can be banned from any page or topical area by any admin for any length of time, and he is also limited to one revert per page per week. To enforce either remedy you can post a request at Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. For enforcement of the revert parole, you will probably get faster attention by posting to the 3RR noticeboard, making sure to include a link to the case so the admins there will enforce the 1RR rather than mistakenly decline as not a 3RR violation. Sometimes the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is underwatched so you can also contact any admin who is willing to get involved or use the general Admins' noticeboard. Thatcher131 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


It's redlink. Shouldn't you be back now? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and hope to see you actively editing again soon. By the way, thanks again for submitting our names for approval to the arbcom. Picaroon (Talk) 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim

I think this is a necessary case given Mark Kim's continued editing as an IP address. But...I suppose the ArbCom has indirectly spoken. hbdragon88 20:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You could also contact a couple of the Arbitrators and ask their advice or that they reinstate the case for consideration. I suspect they were not interested in the case because they felt it could be handled by ordinary admin action, without Arbitration. I don't believe it is formally stated anywhere but it seems to be acknowledged practice that IP editors have fewer rights than named editors. Edit warring is a blockable offense by any admin that you can get interested in the situation. Thatcher131 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Earlier, in response to my post at the ANI about Cberlet, you raised the issue of COI. I could see the possibility of Cberlet and also Dking editing these articles without violation of COI if they were civil, prudent and well-behaved. However, they are both uncivil and constantly trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them. I am concerned also that Will Beback acts as an enabler for them; the pro-LaRouche editors can be pretty vociferous, but Will only seems to notice the bad behavior coming from the LaRouche camp, while constantly thanking Cberlet and Dking for their efforts and turning a blind eye to all of their tendentiousness. I'm not sure what to do about this and I would appreciate any advice you have to offer. --Marvin Diode 06:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The first step should probably be a user conduct Request for comment documenting your concerns and seeking input from other editors. I saw at least one case on the talk page where Chip deliberately avoided citing his own work as a source, saying he wouldn't but someone else coould if they thought it was important. So he appear to at least be aware of the potential. You will need to document the alleged civility and other behavioral problems. If you can get some agreement at the RFC that there are problems, but the problems still continue, the next step would be arbitration. Thatcher131 13:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your response. An RFC sounds like it might be mortal combat with those guys, and I'm not sure I'm ready for that. I came to the disputed articles via an article RFC, and I thought I would be a good citizen, but an editor RFC sounds like it might be rather grueling. --Marvin Diode 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It is rare that an editor RFC brings about a change in behavior. However, it can be a good place to lay out your evidence and have it reviewed. You may find agreement among other editors; you may find that some of your issues are taken more seriously than others, giving you an idea on where to focus a potential arbitration case. Thatcher131 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. It looks like Cberlet has added my name to an arbcom case, so any thoughts of being a non-combatant go out the window. --Marvin Diode 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been contacted by NathanDW. I didn't realize that Cberlet had not initiated a regular arbcom case, but rather a request for enforcement, except that it really isn't a request for enforcement, it's a list of complaints that are unrelated to previous arbcom cases. NathanDW proposed that the "defendants" start an arbcom case as the appropriate response. I am uncertain as to what effect that will have. Will the arbcom automatically move Cberlet's request to the regular "requests for arbitration"? I would appreciate anything you can tell me that will enlighten me on this matter. --Marvin Diode 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
He originally posted to the main RFAR page but it appeared to be an enforcement request, so it was moved to the enforcement page. However, there are no enforceable remedies in the old case for the current editors. I suggest attempting mediation, or going back to RFAR as a new case. Thatcher131 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your advice. --Marvin Diode 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Please look at the discussion on Democide deletion [156] and let me know if I am in the wrong. I'm in a one-editor vs. the mob battle against a neologism. Abe Froman 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable nomination that could go either way. The ISI Web of Knowledge (which includes the Social Sciences Citation Index, which I find much more reliable than Google Scholar) finds 10 articles with the key word "democide". Rummel's original article has been cited 39 times, which is quite respectable. If the article is kept it wil be important to make sure it is not used as a coatrack for something else. Thatcher131 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

I hope you realize that I have been falsely accused of being a nazi by him. I want something done about this but it seems that not many people have done much about him. Kingjeff 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In this particular instance Cheiron1312's first edit [157] was extremely confrontational, and since you've neved edited Nemi ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there was really no reason for you to insert yourself into this dispute. Thatcher131 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about letting the community determine his fate. Are you insulted that community sanctions are beyond a administrator's control? Kingjeff 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am an admin, and if I thought his actions needed controlling, I would do so. Second of all, I generally have a very low opinion of the community sanctions noticeboard, which I have referred to in the past as Votes for banning. Reasoned discussion about problem users is ok, but not drive-by endorsements of bans. The idea that community sanctions are beyond an admin's control is patently takes an admin to implement any decision, and any other admin can reverse that action if he is prepared to justify and defend it. At best, the Community Sanctions Noticeboard is a way for admins to gauge consensus before implementing a community ban–it most certainly does not supplant admin action. Third, reasoned discussion about Rex's behavior is taking place on the admins' noticeboard, with three or 4 admins participating (including a separate discussion on Rex' talk page). Fourth, I have already given a detailed discussion of the situation with regard to Rex's behavior. Certainly his point of view affects his article editing, but the same can be said for many other editors, some who have been banned by ArbCom, and others who get along quite well. I see no recent evidence that the normal wiki process is unable to deal with his editing. You point to allegedly biased articles he has written; they are apparently tagged for sources or cleanup. This is how things work. If you want to fix them, do so. If you think they are unfixable, nominate them for deletion. If you really think Rex's behavior is so generally disruptive that he should be banned, make your case in Arbitration. Thatcher131 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Crystalball

Template:Crystalball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. SalaSkan 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper ArbCom actions

As a clerk in my ex-Pending ArbCom case "FeloniousMonk"[158], I just wanted to note that I consider it improper that:

  • User:SirFozzie removed my comments that presented relevant information concerning the other party and a previous ArbCom ruling,[159]. I note that it had seemed relevant for someone else to add comments on my previous ArbCom case,[160]
  • User:Newyorkbrad removed my entire ArbCom request,[161] before reaching the necessary number of votes. Whilst it seems likely that it would have been rejected, due process was not seen to have been done, and a decision by an Admin who was responsible for my banning shows a conflict of interest. (Amended comment due to my mistake described here. -- 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

And finally, I would like to note that my banning indefinitely for making complaints (not disputed) that were generally not investigated, or ignored, looks rather one-sided, and the unsubstantiated comments against me amount to Character assassination User:iantresman -- 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Community bans can sometimes be problematic, but I see a number of endorsements from people who, as far as I can tell, do not have a vested interest in the case. SirFozzie's removal of the comments of a banned user was technically correct, as was Brad's removal of the case. Although a reasonable argument could be made that since you were not banned when you filed the request, the case and comment should have been allowed to remain for the full 10 days, I do not think their removal affected the ultimate outcome. Thatcher131 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings

In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, I'd like to say that even though I disagree with you categorically in this particular case, I still highly respect your work in general. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Reasonable people can disagree. Thatcher131 10:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of NathanDW

I realize that I may not get a response to this because of your Wikibreak, but I found your earlier advice useful and I wanted to bring this to your attention. I had spoken with you about tendentious editing by Dking and Cberlet, and now I learn that NathanDW, who had approached me about their behavior, has been indefinately blocked for restoring an external link that had been removed without explanation at the article Chip Berlet. He made a request for an explanation on the talk page and made no further effort to restore the link after he received an explanation. This is amazing. Cberlet makes more questionable BLP edits in an hour than NathanDW makes in a year -- yet NathanDW gets permanently blocked, and Cberlet doesn't even get a warning. I am shocked at this disproportionate punishment. --Marvin Diode 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan's block was endorsed by two members of ArbCom and appears to be related to a long history of single-purpose editing, of which this latest incident was merely the last straw. It certainly was a blockable offense in my opinion as well, although I have not reviewed Nathan's entire history to determine if an indefinte block was warranted. If you want to try and make a case against Berelet it will have to be well-documented. He may or may not be vulnerable. Thatcher131 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or Clerks

Sorry. I had forgotten that Picaroon had joined your ranks. Thank you for the note. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oscar the Cat

I commend you for your comments, though if you read my entry we disagree on notability. At least you did not insult me like Hersford did. Quidam65 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Thatcher131 11:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs and links on the evidence page

Hi. I've asked the arbitrators on the RFAR talk page if I could edit the evidence template to be more helpful to newbies about diffs and links. The arbs that have replied have been all for it, but UC commented that the template "belongs to the clerks". So perhaps you might like to take a look at my suggestion and post a comment? Bishonen | talk 10:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar (cat)

Did you notice that your AfD nomination for Oscar (cat)] was quickly closed within the day? Your initial --~~~~ timestamps at 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC). User:Raul654 closed it at 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC), which essentially gave your AfD a 15 hour window. While it does seem that popular opinion was against your objections, I don't believe you were given the full benefits of the Deletion policy. 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It got an awful lot of comments in that time, so it was probably a fair close under WP:SNOW. I doubt keeping it open longer would have changed the outcome. Thatcher131 12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

White Cat has filed the above RfC over longstanding and unresolved issues with Ned's conduct. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


" I agree that Ned Scott appears to be stalking White Cat for reasons unrelated to editing his sig in old archives,"

Huh? Where else have I interacted with him? I can understand if you disagree with me having a reason to revert him, but in no way was I stalking him or following his edits outside of the sig changes. -- Ned Scott 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why on earth do you care? He should not have changed your archived talk pages (if he did so) and he should not have altered the content of archives (I have seen no diffs, please put them in your response if there are any) -- although one or two accidental alterations would be liveable. Other than that, why make such a fuss? Thatcher131 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one making a fuss about this, in case you haven't noticed. Again, why have you not taken any issue with User:Centrx? My point is that I was not stalking him. You said "I agree that Ned Scott appears to be stalking White Cat for reasons unrelated to editing his sig in old archives", which is completely untrue. I never seek out Cat, and his sig changes triggered my watchlist. I specifically left alone his changes to active talk pages, and my only interest was preserving talk page archives. And yet you are accusing me of following him around outside of this issue? -- Ned Scott 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bug you, but if you are going to assert that I am stalking someone then you better damn well back it up. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
At best, you have taken a small incident and blown it way out of proportion. From having a few of his edits pop up on your watchlist, you moved to revert warring over the deletion of User:Cool Cat. You continued in July, with no lesser wikipedians than Fred Bauder and Mackensen telling you to knock it off. At that point your best option would have been to back off, recognizing that in fact you had blown the situation out of proportion. Archives get changed all the time, to protect people's privacy, to fix links, to update images in subst'd templates, and so on. the idea that these particular talk archives should be sacrosanct is silly, especially if you knew how much time and effort has gone in to changing archives to ease the privacy concerns of certain banned users; certainly current users deserve at least as much consideration. I looked again at the AN/I archives of these incidents; other than yourself, Chaz Beckett and Centrx, there is not much support for your actions. Mostly the response is to note how lame this issue is (including another arbitrator, Jpgordon). Take the hint. Maybe stalking is too harsh a word but you have certainly opposed Cat's RFA on Commons, and have taken this small signature thing way out of proportion. The best thing you could say on your RFC is "I thought I had community support for the idea that archives should not be changed, but maybe I blew things out of proportion. From now on if I see any more of White Cat's edits on my watchlist, I will remain silent and let someone else deal with it." Thatcher131 10:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for a statement on the RfC to endorse, but what Thatcher131 has written is the best comment I've seen, so I'll endorse this here instead. Newyorkbrad 12:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I endorse it as well. :-) ElinorD (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very well put, and something I hope Ned can recognise is all that is desired. Just a recognition that it's time to move on from here and let others take the lead if there is a problem with a White Cat edit. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be posted as an "outside opinion" to the rfc then? Any endorsement here will unlikely to be felt at the rfc page. -- Cat chi? 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's up to Thatcher. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Moreover Ned can read it here just as well. This talk page may actually be better because it's away from the drama and grandstanding that often accompanies an RfC. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, thank you for responding. I don't totally agree disagree with what you've said, but I would like to point out (again) that the person making this a big deal and creating drama over it has been Cat. That being said, the drama he has caused makes it no longer worth the effort. What got under my skin, though, regarding your comment, was the accusation of stalking. While I might have blown this out of proportion, or have had a chip on my shoulder or not, I've made it a point to leave Cat alone. The only time I think I've interacted with him when it didn't have anything to do with me, or was something I wasn't already involved with, was on a category for renaming discussion on Commons, and I don't think there were any harsh feelings or dispute there. But your comment now puts me at ease regarding the accusation, thank you. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Stuff like this, where you moved White Cat's mediation committee application back to his original username, certainly does look a little stalkerish. You may not have actually wanted to sabotage White Cat's wishes to leave his old username behind, but that's what it might look like, and it's what it looked like to him.
You could accuse White Cat of being a little paranoid, perhaps, but then there's this. After the lolicon image discussion on commons on 7 June, you had made few edits, and then abruptly showed up, as we can see above, on another discussion in which White Cat was a participant. I know the Commons community is pretty small, but it certainly might look to White Cat as if you're showing an unhealthy interest in his edits, and taking active steps, on English Wikipedia at least, to thwart his reasonable though perhaps not perfectly expressed need for privacy. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm... pretty sure I just pointed that out to you?. As I said, I think that's the only time I've interacted with him on a situation where I was not already involved. If you look on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan, you'll see I was involved in the lolicon image discussion before the matter was taken to Commons. Likewise for an ISA image discussion, where I had been involved in a Wikipedia-side discussion before commenting on Commons. What bothers me is that Cat is finding examples of interactions, but not examples of patterns, as he suggests. At the risk of sounding "guilty", if I actually wanted to harass Cat, I would have done a much better job, rather than coming across him every few months on some minor issue. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you could just be accidentally encountering White Cat every few weeks, but it looks like a pattern to Cat, and I don't blame him really. It really does look as if you sought out some of Cat's edits deliberately to revert them. Then there is other circumstantial evidence, such as the Elonka RFA. Taken on its own that isn't a big deal, but it all adds up in one direction. The message is: please take efforts to avoid encountering Cat by accident, because it's beginning to attract attention from a considerable number of other editors who cannot easily be dismissed as paranoid. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)