User talk:Thatcher131/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Piggy bank
Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12

Contents

Darwinek

Wrong suggestion. I am not apologizing to vandals and xenophobes. - Darwinek 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your block of Mt7 (talk • contribs) over Koloman Gögh - are you sure about that 3RR? He made 4 edits today, but the fourth was not a revert for all I can see (mere addition of a new tag). Not that it changes much in his acting as an edit-warrior, but still... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I responded on his talk page and dropped the block to 8 hours. Thatcher131 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I was actually working on an RfC myself just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, String em up!?--MONGO 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take strong action to defend other admins who are unfairly attacked. I will also take action when I believe admins have behaved inappropriately, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PMA for example. I have found two other blocks in the last month where Darwinek blocked editors he was edit warring with. I would be happy to have him acknowledge some error and mend his ways. RFC and RFAR are drastic but sometimes necessary. I also maintain that it is a very bad idea to let editors' "common knowledge" be the yardstick against which vandalism is measured, particularly in ethnic and regional conflicts. (And why adopt Darwinek's notion of common knowledge over someone else's?) This is not much different that the Armenia-Azeri edit warring now in arbitration. (Are the residents of a town Armenian or Azeri's living in Armenia; etc etc.) Also India-Pakistan border issues and the Ecuador-Peru border disputes, both of which have ended up in arbitration. Thatcher131 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Brrr, that was fast. Shudder... And the arbs have already accepted it too. Sad that it had to come to this, but somehow I have to agree with your assessment. - Technically, this probably means we should close down the RfC when Arbcom takes over, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I expect so, although there doesn't seem to be a close procedure like AfD (unless its new) but we can delist it. Assuming Mt7's translation of Darwinek's Czech-language comment is accurate, we have an admin who can call one editor a Slovak racist and then say he can spot ethnic Hungarians by their appearance in the same comment and without a hint of irony. That can't be a good thing. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism

According to the official protection policy you should have protected National Socialism in version it happened to be currently in. I believe that you were acting in good faith, but by reverting and then protecting you misused your administrator tools. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time, National Socialism and National socialism (lower case) redirected to different places. That's just silly. Thatcher131 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a good reason why policy states "Except in cases of clear vandalism...". It may seem silly but it was a compromise I offered to solve a situation. [1]. Such solution was in line with Jmabel's comment. However, other side is perfectly happy with current solution (by your endorsement of their favored version), and has showed no will to even comment it. That means that once the pages are unprotected the dispute will continue. -- Vision Thing -- 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

Hi. It looks like User:Azerbaijani violated 1RR parole on History of Azerbaijan. Here is his first rv: [2] to this version [3], and here he restored the tags without any substantiation on talk: [4], which is partial revet to the same version: [5] Grandmaster 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of these false accusations against me by you, Atabek, and Adil! Everytime I log off and log back on, I am being reported some where for something! I did not revert any of your edits! I merely added dispute tags because sections of the article and the article itself are in dispute! Here are the edits of mine that Grandmaster reverted: [6] and here are the edits I made after Grandmaster reverts: [7] You will see that I did not revert Grandmaster at all, yet re-added the dispute tags taken off while Grandmaster was reverting me, and added to more dispute tags to specific sections. Also, I am well aware of the injunction, why would I break it?
Interestingly, when Grandmaster took off the tags, he said in his edit summary: substantiate the tags on talk
Now lets look at the recent disputes on the talk page: [8] (User Alborz Fallah disputes a section of the article) [9] (I express my confusion with what the article is actually about)
These alone show that the article is disputed. But nevertheless, I re-added those tags after Grandmaster and I had a talk on the discussion page: [10]
Me putting those tags back up was not a flagrant or malicious action at all, and why you would report me for such a minor and reasonable thing such as the addition of dispute tags shows bad faith on your part as well as an attempt to trap me (which actually now explains why you removed the dispute tags in the first place...when it was obvious that parts of the article/the article as a whole were/was in dispute).
I am sick of these attempts of sabotage against me, its now coming to a daily basis where I have to defend myself against false accusations!Azerbaijani 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not about whether you are right or wrong by making certain edits, it is about the fact that you violated your parole. Grandmaster 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WEA

  • Would an article in Forbes be reputable enough for the WEA article?? This source was also in the deleted article, by the way... Smee 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Behar, Richard, Ralph King Jr. "The Winds of Werner", Forbes magazine, November 18, 1985. (in English)

I saw the Forbes article. it certainly supports the narrative that Somary was involved in making a loan to Erhard that he probably shouldn't have, and it details some of the odd terms. It seems like that would be appropriate to add to the WEA article to help explain how it was founded etc. The WEA article doesn't seem to have a history section. You could certainly describe from the Forbes article how Erhard obtained the loan from ICF and how Forbes says he used the money to acquire his old businesses. Of course people mentioneed in other articles are still covered by BLP, but I think that noting that the money to found WEA was loaned from ICF and Somary in an unusual transaction gives the facts without the slanted impression created by a dedicated article just on Somary. Thatcher131 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you should give the bibliographic reference to the Forbes article (year, volume, issue, page, date) but not the direct link, since the mirror copy is hosted on a third party site and is a copyvio at that site (per WP:EL). Thatcher131 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. However as it is hosted at a non-profit educational site, this is purely an archival purpose. In any event, I will have to see when I shall get around to adding in that citation. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
It doesn't matter that the host is non-profit, the hosting of Forbes' text at a non-Forbes site is a copyvio and not allowed per WP:EL. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden where this was an issue. Thatcher131 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek

I assume interesting that you did not let develop Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 for longer time. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read his answers, both on the main page and talk page? He does not apologize, or admit to being hasty, or agree that he should ask for assistance with articles that he is passionate about. Basically, he does not do any of the things Piotrus suggests (and as I indicate on the talk page, I agree that if he did those things it would have been enough). Do you really think that if the RFC ran longer that he would change his mind and agree with Piotrus? In any case, I stated up front on RFAR that the RFC was only a few hours old, and the arbitrators were free to reject the case and ask for the RFC to run longer. For whatever reason, they chose to accept it immediately. Thatcher131 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am convinced about that, but things need to calm down. You are running pretty fast. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The case may have been accepted quickly, but arbitration cases typically take weeks to resolve. Darwinek and the arbitrators will all have plenty of time for reflection and deliberation. Newyorkbrad 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Malber

Hi, would you review the sockpuppetry evidence I posted on User talk:Malber please. Troubling case. I appreciate your AGF, but I'm afraid you were a bit too optimistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will review, but as far as being optimistic is concerned, I'd rather be nice to someone and later be proved wrong than be mean and later proved wrong. Thatcher131 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Good principle, no doubt about that. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this case (see here), but real-life events slowed me from heading to SSP earlier...I'm inclined to agree with Future Perfect's assessment. -- Scientizzle 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eupator

Although Eupator did not violate the 1RR injunction, he did violate other rules such as removal of properly sourced, verifiable evidence, and making false claims (such as that user:Alidoostzadeh supported him, whilst it was none other than Ali who presented the Encyclopedia Iranica link as a proof of Persian origin of Tigranes the Great and his dynasty), and misrepresentation (calling his friends such as user:Davo88, user:Vartanm, user:Artaxiad as "third-party" editors). The evidence was presented in full here [11] and here[12]. While I will add this to the arbitration case, nevertheless, I should note that when an EXACTLY similar complaint was filed by user:Artaxiad against me [13], despite it misrepresenting the facts and giving only 2 carefully selected diffs, admin Teke blocked me for 5 days (which was unblocked by another admin precisely on the grounds of unjustified block, as I was not wrong in my actions). Meanwhile, Eupator is removing and supressing all the verifiable academic evidence for months now, and that should not be allowed. --adil 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Previously, user Eupator did violate specifically the 1RR injunction but no action was taken[14]. --adil 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Probation

I'd considered something like that, actually. Given how broad the area of dispute is, though, there would be thousands of articles potentially subject to such a probation; so I'd prefer to merely leave the option on the table as a last resort for now. Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Some of them are just other users getting caught in the dragnet, I think; they're being added mostly because certain parties are keen to apply the injunction to as many of their opponents as possible. Kirill Lokshin 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek case & Czech statements

You indicated that you wanted a Czech speaker to verify a translation of a Czech statement. I suggest that you approach Mike Rosoft (talk • contribs) about this, if you haven't already done so, since he lives in the Czech Republic (and appears to be a native or advanced Czech speaker) and his involvement in this case appears to be minimal or nonexistent. TML 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/a/User_talk%7EThatcher131_Archive11_cd72.html"