User talk:Thatcher/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Talk archives
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10

11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20

Contents

DRV, peripheral prior involvement

A deletion review has opened following speedy deletion of Agent M under WP:CSD#A7. You had previously declined a speedy deletion tag, so you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Agent M. GRBerry 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trolling"

"Trolling" is a bad-faith effort to cause disruption by deliberately posting inflammatory messages with the intent of provoking an angry reaction from others. Is that how you would describe my role in Werdna's RfA? If so, were Yandman, Majorly and Miltopia "trolling" as well? —David Levy 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you set out to stir up trouble and were successful. Thatcher131 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I think that you need to read WP:AGF. I didn't spend two years working on this project as part of a dastardly plot to one day "stir up trouble" at an RfA.
2. Again, were the three other editors who restored the question also "trolling"? Is anyone who disagrees with you acting in bad faith? —David Levy 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not participate in Werdna's RFA nor in the discussion that followed regarding Phil's actions. I'm sure the initial posting of the question was in good faith; I think the subsequent edit war and blocking was the result of bad judgement on all sides. In making my suggestions to NYbrad, I was outlining a possible case, based on reading the tea leaves and arbitrator Kirill Lokshin's workshop comments in the case. I don't know why he would bring up ED unless he wants to partially excuse Phil's actions or also sanction, or at least admonish, the others involved. (In fact, I don't know why the arbitrators continue to review voluntary desysoppings at all.) Trolling may have been an inappropriate word and I didn't mean to single you out. My outline was a rough and quick sketch. If I were to formally suggest any findings of fact I would be careful to be comprehensive, precise in my language, and to back them up with diffs. At this time, I do not plan to become involved further in the case. It really doesn't hold interest for me; Philwelch is desysopped and the principle that admins who voluntarily resign "under controversial circumstances" need to go through an RFA rather than just ask for their bit back seems well-established and non-controversial. (It may be the only non-controversial thing to come out of the Giano case.) I was simply responding to Brad's request for advice above on this page. Thatcher131 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, I appreciate your comments on my page and am sorry if I embroiled you in a controversy in the process. (For what it's worth, in this context, my personal opinion is that the term "trolling" is inflammatory and should not be used.) Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your acknowledgment that "trolling" was (or at least "may have been") an inappropriate word, but your belief that my goal was to "stir up trouble" still concerns me. Whether I was right or wrong, I was acting in good faith (and I've said the same of Phil, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with his actions). I realize that you aren't a party to this dispute, but I don't want to leave any member of the community with the impression that I set out to harm the project. —David Levy 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
How odd... Konstable asks a question, Cyde removes it, someone restores it (yandman I think), I modify the censored portion, Philwelch removes it, David Levy restores it (repeat a few times), I restore it. I'm so glad Konstable's question provided such a wonderful opportunity for David Levy, Majorly, yandman and I to all simultaneously carry out dastardly plans to undermine Wikipedia and "stir up trouble". Strange that we all got this destructive urge at the same time, isn't it? Well, maybe not for a lil' ol' troll like me, but strange that three admins all got the urge to up and troll like that. Milto LOL pia 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf review to voting

If you could do this, I would appreciate it. I'm probably done making proposals. Fred Bauder 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thatcher131 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Happy belated birthday! I hope yesterday went well for you. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I know I am limited to one username for the purpose of editing, but who would i request a second ID if its sole purpose was to vote on AfD's. I do not like dragging an angry mob wherever I go and find it quite a problem when I do vote and the gang appears shortly after. --NuclearZer0 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I am cautiously open to the possibility. It would be an interesting experiment to see if the problems you have at AfD are because of what you say or who you are. In addition to the general rule about alternate accounts "not crossing the streams," I would like you to get the agreement of a second admin that this acceptable, at least for a trial period, and for you to inform at least two admins of the alternate identity. Understand that the alternate identity would be subject to your probation, just not openly, and if there started to be lots of reports about User:AtomicZed acting up at AfD, you would be held responsible. The goal here is to eliminate conflict, not to merely divide it between two accounts, and if the second account starts being a dick, "Thatcher said I could" isn't going to cut any ice. You should probably also disclose on the user or talk page that it is an alternate account created for AfD and that you understand and will follow the rules for legal sockpuppets, because otherwise the AfD regulars will jump all over you anyway. Thatcher131 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will consider the idea more and of course obey all the rules associated. I will try to participate in AfD's under my normal name for some time more and see how that goes. If I do create the account I will let you know and 2 other admins as reccomended. --NuclearZer0 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments from Discussion Page of topic in probation

Thatcher,

I am sorry to report that user Bksimonb is removing comments from the BKWSU discussion page, a topic under probation, by way of attempting to control not just the article but even discussion of it.

"17:19, 9 February 2007 Bksimonb (Talk | contribs) (Rv Banned user. Thanks for the "mediums" reference. However you are banned. If you have any more tips email me instead since you are not entitled to either edit or discucss on Wikipedia now.)" [1], [2]

Thank you for your attention. 218.138.12.8 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered here. Thatcher131 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar again

[3]. Is your view on the community ban still the same? - Aksi_great (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional Controversial Claim

Hi Thatcher, I have added a discussion to Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding the controversial Sathya Sai Baba sex changing claim, please give your feedback. Wikisunn 9th February 2007

First of all, I admit that the sex change claim is exceptional, but it was made independently by quite a lot of sources and is reported by reputable sources, including one university press peer reviewed article that was agreed to be a reliable source during mediation See User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Nagel_as_source
See also Nagel's article home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/Paper%20'Shiva-Shakti'.html (not a reputable source, but lists several reputable and non-reputable sources describing the claim)
It will be clear that I disagree with removing information sourced to multiple reliable sources, only because it sounds too crazy to be true. I had read this claim about 15 years ago, but then dismissised it as ridiculous and had largely forgotten about it is. But I had to change my opinion when I received personal confirmation of these reports.
Andries 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The sex change claim is made by former followers, not by current followers. I am aware that the sex change claim weakens the case of former followers. So you accusation that I want to ridicule SSB ~by inclusion of this claim is completely untrue. Andries 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, you wrote
"What is interesting is that Andries fights for removal of some ridiculous claims (that kirlian photography shows he has a divine aura) but fights for inclusion of other ridiculous claims, like gender changing"
There are number of differences in quality of sources
1. a. The Kirlian/Aura claim is only mentioned in devotee sources
b. The gender change claim is mentioned in several neutral sources
2. a. The Kirlian/Aura claim hinges around the reliability of one person (Frank Baranowski)
b. The gender change claim were reported by many young men over a long period of time, starting in 1976 in the book by Tal Brooke Avatar of the Night
3. a. The kirlian/aura claim is not reported let alone evaluated in secondary reliable sources
b. The gender chang claim was reported and evaluated in Nagel's 1994 university press article.
Andries 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

I paused for a moment too long deciding whether to summarily revert the frivolous request, and you beat me. Once again I am sadly disappointed in the lack of tree frogs. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Pardon me, I was only correcting it since the link appeared garbled, sorry. Uninsureddriver 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

“ I'm afriad you have a misunderstanding about the use of checkuser. Checkuser is a tool that can identify the IP address that a registered user has used, to compare if more than one registered user is coming from the same IP address. In your requests, you already know the IP addresses of the editors who are causing you problems. You should report the problems to admin intervention against vandalism or the admin noticeboard to get the IP addresses investigated and blocked. Thatcher131 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ”

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. Regards. Wiki Raja 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

As you'll have seen, I opened Free Republic. On a different RfAr page topic, what do you think of the new practice of moving non-party comments on pending applications from the main RfAr page to a talkpage. Unless the comments are unusually lengthy, I think it's not a good idea; when I or I presume anyone comments there, it's to provide input to the arbitrators and/or to the parties to the dispute, and I don't think any of them are likely to hop over to a talkpage (even with the benefit of a note to look there, which I was thinking of adding but as usual you beat me to it). I see it's an arbitrator who made the change so I figured I should get at least one other person's input before raising the question. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to respond here, looks like this is being discussed on RfAr the talkpage. :) Newyorkbrad 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing the RfArb title to "Pakistani Nationalism"

Hi, I notice that you have changed the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow (See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his interlocutors as somewhat rabid nationalists. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It now looks as if India and Pakistan are at war :). - Aksi_great (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And? Thatcher131 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom again

Not asking you to get in the middle of the dispute, just provide an answer if you have, or give a statement since you been witness to both my wrong doings, and others. [4] --NuclearZer0 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple of comments left here and there. Try not to forum-shop, though. Thatcher131 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

I thought that I would, for practice, try opening the Free Republic case into a user subpage: User:David.Mestel/Free Republic et al.. I would be extremely grateful if you could look over it and tell me of the doubtless numerous glaring errors. Of course, if I were really opening it, I would notify the parties, list it on arbcomopentasks, and remove the request from RFARB. TIA, David Mestel(Talk) 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to open Notability Guidelines at about nine o'clock tonight (which is 24 hours after the fourth accept vote), if no-one else does so first. Oh, and one general question: do motions require an overall majority (the support of more than half of active arbitrators) or only a simple majority (more supports than opposes to pass)? David Mestel(Talk) 09:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Is it OK to open it later to-night, or should I wait until to-morrow morning (getting up at 3AM not being a practical option)? David Mestel(Talk) 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you've got India-Pakistan. At 4-0, a few hours early is probably ok. If it was 5-1 or one of the arbitrators had expressed some doubts I might want to wait to make sure. Thatcher131 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

India-Pakistan

Done it. Now to count the mistakes... David Mestel(Talk) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I have raised the bickering level at ARbcom

Not my intention. Tbeatty 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I agree I probably overdid it, but just as a matter of information, avoiding this sort of misunderstanding is why I was including "(Assistant) Clerk" in my notifications. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

You wrote: '"'Warning:' If you do this, or anything remotely like it, again..." I don't think you understand. Tbeatty a) reverted an old deleted pic twice b) created a talk page about the pic. He obviously was interested in the pic. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link - FAAFA 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And obviously the Gannon link was in the spirt of offering friendly help. If two users want to poke each other with pointy sticks, eventually someone will come along with a bigger stick. Cut it out. Thatcher131 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the bright side - I almost posted a link to the uncensored version! ;-) - FAAFA 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And you have the link to the uncensored version ready at hand... why? Jinxmchue 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's called Google Image Search - try it, you'll like it! - FAAFA 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pahuskahey

I am sorry to burden you with this, but please take a look when you have a moment at User talk:Pahuskahey. I had hoped the entire situation with Husnock et al. had been resolved, but it appears likely that it will wind up heading back down the miserable road of a renewed sockpuppet investigation, arbitration enforcement, etc., and I would welcome any creative input into how this can be addressed without that. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Arbitration Again

I'm sorry to bother you about this but recently there has been an increase in the placement of Starwood links by Rosencomet. Should I wait for a decision by Arbcom and just note them for now? I'm hesitant to take any action that might be interpreted as heating up conflict but I am concerned and we need some resolution to this. --Pigmantalk 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration does not force you to limit your editing activities. However, avoiding conflict would not be a bad idea. Perhaps some members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism who have not yet been involved in the case can give a fair evaluation on whether the links are appropriate. Thatcher131 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent work on the Arb page. It's helpful to know your general thinking on proposed decisions. While I think it's a good idea to try to get WikiProject Neopaganism members involved in the evaluation of appropriateness of the links, I should note that this has already been discussed a bit there over the months. I believe that's where I first learned of the links. However, the project is, to put it delicately, not very active. There was fairly good participation (signed by 14 editors) in the outside view on the Mattisse RfC which asserted: "Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM." Because Rosencomet has essentially dedicated his entire Wikipedia time to placing and defending these links, some people have just stopped editing them because it's just too much trouble to continually argue about them.
Um, perhaps I shouldn't be placing this on your talk page, this seems more like dialog for the Arbitration page. Still, your point is taken. --PigmanTalk to me 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the remedies banning him from editing Starwood et al. (but not the talk pages) and from adding links are likely to pass. So you could just wait and deal with it later. If you do deal with it now, be polite and courteous. Thatcher131 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I like to believe I've been polite and courteous throughout this process. However extensive detailing of evidence and making recommendations of limitations on other editors' actions feels inherently rude and discourteous, no matter how justified or necessary it seems in my opinion. Again, thank you for your input and feedback, to me and to this case. My apologies for essentially duplicating info above which is more properly appropriate for the arb case pages. Your talk page is not the proper forum. My judgment can be a little faulty sometimes but I'm working on it. --PigmanTalk to me 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just have to comment on this, although if you have been reading my text on the arbitration you have already heard my side of this. I think it's misrepresentation to say "recently there has been an increase in the placement of Starwood links by Rosencomet". I have not added ANY new links. However, I have replaced links that were just taken down in some cases. For instance, when one was taken down related to a quote in the Timothy Leary article, with the note saying the editor took it down because there was no citation for the quote, I replaced it with the citation. That seems to have satisfied the editor (though probably not Pigman).
Also, it is misrepresentation to say "Rosencomet has essentially dedicated his entire Wikipedia time to placing and defending these links". I have created over 40 new articles and contributed to many more; not just links, but text correction (for grammar, spelling, etc), bibliographies, discographies, and much more. One needs only actually look at my contributions instead of just at the names of the articles I've contributed to. Lately, I've been doing a lot of Comic Book editing. I do admit, however, that a lot of my time has been taken up trying to stop what I think are unwarrented edits by Kathryn and Pigman; and they have spent a great deal of time making them. And I wish the others in project Neo-paganism would weigh in, but they're probably scared to; it seems that everyone who supported me has been blocked or pressured into retiring, and I don't have the luxury of a tag-team like Pigman, Kathryn & Weniwediwiki, who somehow never get criticised for protecting their "territories" or overly-aggressive editing no matter how many people complain. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I just read Jefferson Anderson's farewell, and then your assurance here to Pigman, and watched these three edit away work of mine on nine articles and plan the severe editing of more.
I put a lot of time into gathering 3rd-party citations and other material because I was told by them and mediators that this was what was needed to make my work acceptable. I wish I had been told I was wasting my time. Rosencomet 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Philwelch

That's because I'm not done with it yet. :-) I had to ask a question on the list, and I'll finish it up later. Thanks for pointing it out, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request that you separate your charges against Ben and me in to 2 distinct sections in each case, and not comingle them. In some sections you charge 'FAAFA was....' in other it's 'FAAFA and BenBurch were' Very confusing, and as you do not ask for relief against us as a 'duo' for you to list article where you contend we acted as a 'duo', is an improper laying out your charges. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. - FAAFA 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AND Why do you keep putting my FR ( FREE REPUBLIC ) findings of fact in the Peter Roskam Section????!!! Please leave MY edits alone. - FAAFA 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to build a train of thought. For some reason I thought you were replying to the Roskam section. I've moved your proposals to a Free Republic section, we may need to deal specifically with that issue some more. Thatcher131 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

enough is enough

I've been insulted before because of my efforts to improve our project, however, I find this particular insult to be way out of line and I'm expecting some sort of action. It's not the first time, and there was an ArbCom about Mongo's behavior… enough is enough. Lovelight 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some peculiar technical difficulties, namely, it appears that when I'm logged in, I'm not logged entirely. That is to say, when I try to edit September 11 attacks (article/talk page) I'm suddenly logged out. Really not sure what the cause of this, but it is puzzling… hmm, could you kindly look into this, or if you are unwilling, point to someone else who could check out this anomaly. Thanks. Lovelight 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear on things, I cannot log to the mentioned talk page at all. Lovelight 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh cool. I have the same problem. I found that if I go to the history page, I can select the current version and I don't appear tobe locked out. Not sure why though. If I go directly to the project page, I appear to be logged out and since it is semi-protected, it's uneditable. Tbeatty 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
as an added bonues, you can see my contributions have an edit to it [5][6], but it doesn't show up in hte page history or anything. Sounds like a page caching problem on the server side. --Tbeatty 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

  • At this point, enough time has gone by, and more reputable citations given on the talk page, that it might make sense to unprotect the Robert Priddy article, or at least open it up to established users and leave it semi-protected... Yours, Smee 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Why not? Thatcher131 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll see how this develops... Smee 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

MONGO harassed again

MONGO is being harassed regarding the ED speculation regarding his employer is again. The offending edit is here. The request that the edit be retracted is here. The hostage-holding (deny where you work or I will not remove my speculation about where you work) is here. The offending user is under arbcom sanction, as I suspect you already know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

India-Pakistan

I need advice. How can I prevent the India-Pakistan workshop page descending into a mire of insults, wars along party lines, etc? David Mestel(Talk) 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Start by reminding them that everything they say there will be read by the arbitrators, and ask them to look at the Hkelkar cases's workshop page. It's generally a bad idea to get involved in a fist fight in front of the jury while you're on trial for assault. If necessary, you can remove disruptive comments. As a last resort, we can ban participants from editing the page, enforceable by blocking, but don't do that on your own. Thatcher131 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Check your e-mail. David Mestel(Talk) 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it OK to move some of the longer and more pointless arguments to the talk page, leaving notes saying where to find them? David Mestel(Talk) 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not exactly off-topic - more of a re-hashing of the issues of the case, in a rather uncivil manner. David Mestel(Talk) 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User rights

Is there a log I don't know about aside from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=username

or

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=username@enwiki

(replace username with old name of person in question?) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's there. Thatcher131 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller

Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit[7]. Already it's been vandalized. I also think someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. I posted to AN/I but I thought you might have a more direct link. I'm surprised this isn't front office protected. --Tbeatty 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation seems to be well in hand. The article is protected and several edits have been deleted (though not oversighted yet). Danny seems to be aware of ths situation as he has edited the article in the past; I wonder if a checkuser was run at some point, otherwise how would Zoeller know whom to sue? Thatcher131 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed it must have been IP edits from the law firm's computers, since I don't think the Foundation would give out a user's (even a bad user's) IP information without a subpoena. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I posted to ANI and they were pretty quick about it. I think this is a John Doe lawsuit against anonymous IP address which belongs to the lawfirm. --Tbeatty 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article mentions at least one username. I wonder if they really would hold out for a subpoena. #6 here looks like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Thatcher131 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My read of the article is that they sued the law firm based on the IP and added additional "John Does" whom they hope to identify through a subpoena. I guess we'll be reading a lot more about this. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) In fact, a link to the Complaint is here. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

changing title to India-Pakistan

Just to let you know the change of the Arbcom case title to India-Pakistan is fine with me.--Nadirali نادرالی

Your revert

Hi T,

I reverted your deletion on the FR RFAr talk page. I hope you can understand that I feel there might have been a political aspect to that deletion (no insult) - when much of this disagreement IS over 'left - right' battles on Wiki. If Brad wants to delete some or all of it, I'm A-OK with that. Cheers - FAAFA 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the material Thatcher131 deleted and agree with him that it is unnecessary, inflammatory, and has no chance of doing anything other than exasperating the arbitrators, so I've reverted to his version. I will add that Thatcher131 is the head clerk for ArbCom and has deleted similarly irrelevant or inappropriate material from other cases several times in the past, so there is no basis for suggesting that his doing so here was political or for any other inappropriate reason. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is at least the second time that Newyorkbrad has referred to Thatcher131 as head clerk, but this is not reflected here. Also it seems no new clerks have been promoted recently. The page has not been edited in more than a month - is it up to date? NoSeptember 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Head clerk" was my coinage and may not be an official title that's been conferred (as it was on Daniel.Bryant over at RfCU), but Thatcher has definitely been coordinating clerkly efforts at RfAr for several months now. I myself, I'm proud to add, was just promoted from "unofficial hanger-on" to "clerk trainee." :) Newyorkbrad (adjusting his beanie), 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be that other clerks frequently defer to me, but there is no head clerk as such. (The original idea was that the head clerk would be an ex-arb and would make policy and appoint clerks.) I've rewritten WP:AC/C to reflect that fact. There are a number of people "in training" (Cowman109, Eagle 101, David.M and Newyorkbrad) but the committee makes official appointments. I've asked to have Cowman and Brad promoted on the AC mailing list but I expect it's a lower priority than the umpteen cases they have going right now. Thatcher131 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should add a list of the "trainees", if there is a true distinction being made between them and the ArbCom groupies ;). Also, are the active/inactive designations accurate? - normally you'd expect people to go back and forth between those categories from time to time. NoSeptember 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to avoid excessive hierarchies. Besides the ocassional picture frame-straighteners, a couple of people have opened cases or closed simple cases through coordination at the clerks' noticeboard, and there are "official" trainees in line for the next formal appointments. Some of the logic for this is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. The participants in the cases that David and Brad are watching seem to have accepted them without any official badges from me. Should they be questioned, I'll provide any back-up needed. With Srikeit on wikibreak and Drini now a steward, if I really updated the list there would only be one active official clerk. I'd rather wait for my appointment requests to be approved and then do it all together. Thatcher131 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I see Essjay has taken an interest in the inactive status of Arb clerks and updated the list. NoSeptember 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I did so because I knew the two new clerks were being appointed, and wanted to make sure the list was up to date when the appointment was announced. Essjay (Talk) 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is good to see ArbCom moving forward with the 2 clerks, 1 oversight, and 1 checkuser today. It looks like something really does happen behind the scenes ;). NoSeptember 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing! There is no secret cabal headquarters, it certainly does not have ultra-soft leather couches in it, and there is no truth to the roumor of the chocolate fountain, grape-peelers, and ultra-soft leather couch bearers! FNORD! FNORD! ;) Essjay (Talk) 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint:

Ekantik has pushed his POV too far by trying to act like admin. He is threatening to block me for disagreeing to his edits.

He is keen on adding “Sexual abuse allegation” subcategory to the Criticism section. So far kkrystian and myself are against adding this subsection heading. Andries has taken a neutral stand and suggested about changing the section “Criticism” to “Criticism and replies”. I agreed and changed the section heading. Ekantik is the only editor insisting on adding this subsection category to the article, although there is not a single case of Sexual abuse allegation in the contents. SSS108 has disengaged from wikipedia and may not comment on this. Freelanceresearcher has been on and off wikipedia I don't know when she will respond to this comment.

Now Ekantik has threatened to block me in my userpage. He is acting like admin and pushing his POV too far. How can a user block another user for differing in views? Could you please look into this issue? Please let me know your response. Wikisunn 23nd February 2007

A spurious and hysterical complaint that completely misrepresents the whole issue. First of all, I am not an admin therefore I cannot block anyone. Due to Wikisunn's repeated introduction of stylistic errors into the Sathya Sai Baba article, I have placed three template warnings on his talk-page here as per procedure. As those who are familiar with this issue know (and the ArbCom case is still open), Wikisunn has a history of disruptive editing on the page, often blanking content (arguable vandalism) because he disagreed with it. Despite this, I and other editors have tried to patiently coach and explain to him why his edits are non-viable and against WP policies, but he continues to introduce them and justify his actions with explanations that defy WP policy conventions, often edit-warring. For a short history of the issue, please see: Wikisunn's edits, Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title.
After I took the step of placing the necessary warning templates on his talk-page (after patiently trying to explain to him why he is wrong), he has now come out as openly threatening and hostile in his behaviour, accusing me of incivility and personal attacks when I have been nothing but civil to him. I'm afraid that Wikisunn has now pushed everyone's patience too far and I am frazzled, I don't see any point in working with editors who have a serious problem with non-comprehension of Wikipedia policies, what to speak of repeatedly using the article talk-page to engage in continued hostility and personal attacks instead of addressing the matter on editor's talk=pages (and being told to do so repeatedly). It should also be noted that Wikisunn's recent behaviour largely consists of personal attacks that partially replicate SSS108's arguments, for which SSS108 has been blocked indefinitely.It won't be too long until the ArbCom is over and we will see what happens then. i shall of course be updating my evidence on this matter. Ekantik talk 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ekantik, this whole issue started with your insistence on adding the Subcategorytitle "Sexual abuse allegation" to the article and there are enough proofs to show what happened. Don't misrepresent the facts. These were your edits: [8], [9], [10] although none of the editors agreed with you. When I edited your wrong WP:MOS and also added a discussion on talkpage you added the 1st warning in my talk page [11]. Then after Andries suggestion I renamed the Section "Criticism" to "Criticism and replies" you added the second warning in my talk page saying I disrupted the article and threatened to block me giving second warning [12]. That's when I decided to complain to Thatcher. You cannot warn other editors because they differ from your views, by the way none of the editor agree with your views so are you going to warn everybody about blocking. This is pushing your POV and misusing wikipedia policies for pushing your POV. I also see you added links about discussions we had in talk page such as "Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title". These are discussions which every editor participated and gave their views, these are discussions for consensus and has nothing to do with my edit warring as you complained. Don't keep bringing up sss108 he is not even involved in this discussion and his userpage says he has disengaged from wikipedia.
So far I have never had any problems with any other editor but you have had problems with every editor kkrystian, sss108, freelanceresearcher and now me. You find fault with every editor who don't agree with your views, if anybody disagrees with you then you accuse and criticise them and now you have started adding warning for disagreeing with your edits. I request you to be more civil in your behaviour with other editors and not to wrongly use wikipedia policies for pushing POV.

Wikisunn 24th February 2007

Perhaps we should have a childish little school-playground argument about "who started it". I have already responded here, which shows that Wikisunn made the first controversial edits without consensus and is now trying to misrepresent the issue by claiming that I want to introduce stylistic errors.
Ho hum. I still find that this complaint has been made on a hysterical basis by an inexperienced editor who is still unfamiliar with the issues at hand and still refuses to accept good advice, instead presenting hostile and threatening behavior which is why I have chosen to withdraw from this argument. And for the record, I have never had any problems with any editor on any article except those involved with Sathya Sai Baba who have gone out of their way to make my life hell on Wikipedia with their unceasing defamations. I am only responding here because Wikisunn insists on dragging on his crusade on the talk-page of other editors/admin and I have a duty to make sure the facts are presented with evidence. If anybody wants/needs to discuss this further, please feel free to leave a message on my talk-page. Ekantik talk 03:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ekantik, you threatened to block me in my userpage for not agreeing with your edits, now you are calling me hostile and threatening. There is no point in this discussion with you. You will never agree that you misused wikipedia policies, issued warnings and tried blocking coeditor who did not agree with your edits although there are enough proofs to prove it. Wikisunn 25th February 2007
Maybe that's because I never made any threats, because as I've already explained that the "threats" are templates? Which Wikisunn would never have received if he hadn't made any bad edits and is being bitter about it? This is a frivolous complaint and as I keep repeating myself, Wikisunn is an inexperienced editor who does not fully comprehend or interpret Wikipedia policies properly, even after they are explained to him at length just as I have done. As a matter of fact, all editors have a responsibility to edit responsibly; Wikisunn introduced massive changes without consensus (proof) and when I try to change it back, he starts edit-warring and making wild accusations about how I "edit war" with editors who "disagree" with me, issue warnings (which any responsible editor should do), and misuse Wikipedia policies. Ridiculous, since I am the one who has explained them at length to Wikisunn and which he repeatedly ignores.
I have already stated that I am not an administrator and thus cannot block anybody, but Wikisunn still doesn't understand and still accuses me of threatening to block him. This guy will just not understand and refuses to understand. For the third time, I withdraw from this debate after just writing here to make sure the facts are present. Wikisunn is now openly engaging in trolling behaviour and thus he is subject to WP:DENY as far as I am concerned. I cannot make it any more clearer.
Even after I mentioned that other editors' talk-pages are not to be used as a venue for airing gripes and that Wikisunn's or my talk-page may be an appropriate venue, he still does not get the hint after indulging in the same behaviour at Arbitrator Charles Matthews' talk-page. Wikisunn, this is my last message to you for the foreseeable future: please stop trolling me. If you continue to act in an irresponsible manner then that is your lookout, not mine. Now please leave me alone. Ekantik talk 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt wheel war evidence page

An SPA (presumably an existing editor wanted to be anonymous) called Marcus has posted some odd evidence on the Daniel Brandt case's evidence page. It's been suggested on ANI that a clerk remove that evidence and/or semi the page. What do you think? Newyorkbrad 13:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the evidence by Thebainer and some of the new proposed principles being added in the case, it seems to me that there should be more parties to this case. Or at least that some of these editors be invited to participate. NoSeptember 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The scope of the case as I opened it was defined by the referral from Jimbo. Any expansion of the case beyond that would have to come from him or from the arbitrators. Any editor, as you know, can comment on the talkpage, present evidence, or make workshop proposals. If there is someone who's been mentioned that you think should be made aware of the mention, you or anyone should feel free to let them know. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't assume that Jimbo looked into more than the admin logs of the article, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. And ArbCom did expand the scope of the Pedo wheel war case last year. That said, my purpose was to make sure you guys have considered the issue of additional parties, and now I will assume that you have. These cases have a life of their own beyond my control ;) and my interest as usual is primarily in the principles of desysopping and resysopping, more than in the specifics of the case. NoSeptember 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We are certainly aware of the general events and the evidence presented. If the arbitrators wish to consider other admin actions besides un/deletions, that will become apparent in the workshop, or through their questions to the parties. Either they or we will notify anyone else who seems to be in the line of fire and give them a chance to respond. Thatcher131 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it possible I can add this? Or where?

Socks or Block evasions:

Have a look

Per your request, I've fiddled with the RFAR header. Have a look at the dummied up version in my sandbox and see what you think. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gordon Watts RfAr

Hi Thatcher. Would it be possible for you to move some of Gordon's statements onto the RfAr talk page? Specifically, his "rebuttal" sections seem to be growing longer by the minute. Thanks, ChazBeckett 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It will probably have to wait until after work. Thatcher131 14:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your Wikimedia checks aren't paying the bills? ;) Sounds good. Thanks, ChazBeckett 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Smileys

In response to your edit summary at WP:ANI, if you're interested in the fate of the smiley templates, the relevant discussion are:

Yours, WjBscribe 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose they aren't very encyclopedic. Oh well. Thatcher131 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your response. I was just trying to make the case easier to follow for those of us not not privy to private information. Open disclosure of such information should be in the interests of the community. I will be resubmitting my evidence by email per User:ElinorD's suggestion. Catchpole 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find an email address for the Arbitration committee mailing list. Could you please point me in the right direction? You may also want to look at reformatting the various ArbComm pages to make this easier to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catchpole (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
I think the AC doesn't want their private mailing list address to get flooded with spam and trolls. Most of the ArbCom members list their own addresses at WP:AC; you can e-mail any member and ask that it be forwarded to the rest of them. Thanks. Thatcher131 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Email

Please see my response. Daniel Bryant 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AIM only. Work for you? Thatcher131 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope...but I like /Temp. Daniel Bryant 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to take the heat off of you

I took the heat off of you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=111553107&oldid=111552666#EMERGENCY_reply_to_Thatcher

I did the best I could to take responsibility -if not blame -and do what I could to minimise any hard feelings or damage to your reputation. My reputation, however tarred at present -will be OK if I do nothing stupid -I think -because I have the truth on my side on all of my arguments -except maybe the one regarding consensus about the talk page. I may have been initially wrong there ,but that is a minor point -not something I need to bother or worry you about -since you are recused.

Except for small typos or replies -or emergencies like my reply to you -I appear to have no further input.

I'm sure your reputation will be just fine -if you continue on your steady course of duties. Best of luck and bright blessings,

--GordonWatts 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My reputation will survive just fine. Unfortunately I gave you bad advice, so I did not feel I could take any further actions with respect to the problems that UnivitedCompany had with your statement. Not a big deal in the long run. Thatcher131 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message to user:sundaram7

I just saw your message in my talk page [[13]]. I dont have any clue about this issue. I am working in a huge organisation with thousands of people working and sharing same proxies and routers. May be others are on wikipedia from same organisaton. Sundaram7 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, however I feel it is unlikely as these accounts all joined Wikipedia about the same time as you and edit the same article and no others. Thatcher131 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It could be a co-incidence that other people are also editing the pages. The message that you have put in the user talk page of user:ganeshco and user:ashokachakra are not correct. Please dont blame for the sockpuppetry. I am not them. For me it looks like a personal attack. You say perhaps and you are not sure. But you have declared that these users are socketpuppet of mine. I would strongly suggest to review this pages and review your blocking strategy. You might have seen agument clashes between useres user:ganeshco, user:ashokachakra and user:bakasuprman. But please dont drag me to this. I am trying to contribute to Wiki from my knowledge. [14] Sundaram7 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an update on my requset to remove and double check the page[15]? Here[16] you have mentioned that it is just a wanring but you have put a confirmation in the sock-puppetry page. But there is no evidances. Could you please verify and get an update. --- Sundaram7 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
You should probably make a request for reconsideration at the administrators' noticeboard, to have another Admin review the situation. While I do not feel that a serious policy violation has occurred, I think it is unlikely that several people from the same large company would all decide to join wikipedia at the same time and all start editing the same article. Whether there was a decision by several friends to all begin editing the same article or whether it was one person, either way it makes no real difference. I do not fell there is sufficient reason to unblock the other accounts. I hope you enjoy editing in the future, but you will need to stick to one account. Cheers. Thatcher131 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection Request

Hey there, could you possibly take a look at Virginia Tech Hokies Basketball and see if semi-protection is warranted? Lots of vandalism of a relatively new article by anons and the like. Thanks in advance. Arkon 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response. Looks pretty low level now, one or two a day is manageable without protection. Thatcher131 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

for your dastardly deeds!
for your dastardly deeds!

You have been awarded the Rare and Coveted Rouge Admin award for your actions in this incident. If there was a Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia, they would no doubt be proud of you!

Seriously, this is a token of tongue-in-cheek appreciation for all the hard work you do. And there is no cabal. FNORD. :D Justin Eiler 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratbags.com??

It seems the conspiracy of finding out who I am still continues to go round and round (although it should be by-the-by, I am staying out of the sh!tfight although everybody is trying to pull me in). Please feel free to email me and I can discuss with you to hopefully sort out the mess. Shot info 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant. You have some edits to Australian topics, and Ronz pointed to the song lyrics as if you were already familiar with them. But it doesn't really matter. My point is that there are a lot of editors committed to one side or the other of the alternative medicine fights, and I'm concerned that the articles will still be targeted even after Ilena and Fyslee are banned from them. If the article probation is not passed then all of us bystanders will just have to cross oour fingers and hope that Ilena and Fyslee were the only source of the problem. Thatcher131
I must admit, I find it difficult to work out which Australian topics you refer to (not saying that I haven't just cannot recall and cannot readily see them in my edit list). I presume you mean Inco (a Canadian company) and Rheebu Nuu (a New Caledonian activist group)? I really cannot comment on Ronz's comments on the particular songs other than in the context that it was a spoof site (or so it appeared). However if it isn't important, why did you bring it up? However I agree with you sentiments even though I disagree with your linking of me with a POV site. Although it is nice to see that you infer that I am not Stephen Barrett's son something that I didn't need to respond to and something that I note my main accuser has not been taken to task over yet (but this is by-the-by). Shot info 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just found this via google [[17]] in it you will note Ilena locking onto your not particularly relevent comment: "Peter Bowditch's Disguise Gets Uncovered ... Will be filling in the lies he posted for Barrett's failed NCAHF ... ". Of course this is the same person who was absolutely convinced that I was Daniel J. Barrett. Can we please stop the conjecture, which I notice is still going around the ArbCom, once and for all? Thanks Shot info 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to pursue it. I do think there is a persistent problem with single purpose editors on alt health topics (both pro and con). the arbitration comittee seems disinclined to pursue it further at this time. Thatcher131 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not make any content edits while the arbitration is in process. Thatcher131 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ObPendant

"an indefinite block (that is, a ban from editing Wikipedia altogether)"

Just to be a pedant, an indefinite block is not the same thing as a ban. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but as far as I could tell the discussion on Gordon at AN/I was really about an indefinite ban, even though the word block was used. What is the practical difference? It doen't look like those who were advocating for an indefinite block meant for some undetermined time until he behaves; it looked to me like they never wanted him back, which is a ban. Did I misread the discussion? Thatcher131 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion was about a ban, which is the word you should used instead of indefinite block. The main difference between the two is to do with how vigorously it's enforced, and what needs to be done to reverse one. As I said, pendantry on my part. But most importantly, thanks for trying. Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war case

Hi there! Can you perhaps fix principle 1 (deletion of pages) to note PROD as an alternative? Just for completion's sake. Thanks. >Radiant< 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Thatcher - I know you're a friend of essjays, and wondered what you thought about archiving or moving all the talk on his page off it - i know it's explicitly disallowed by essjay's own instructions, but i think this is a unique case, and now that jimbo's asked essjay to resign (which i have no doubt he will) i think that's the only news that matters.... I think this is what should happen, so wondered if you agreed? Best, Purples 07:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Request

Thank you for your protection of User talk:Essjay. However, given the current reference to that page by the New York Times it is probably preferable that we leave some sort of pointer showing people where the archived content has gone to so that we are not accused of covering up the situation. Would you be willing to insert the following link at the bottom of the page along with a note explaining that it is the page content prior to Essjay's message? [18] Everything after that has pretty much been either fluff or vitriol, but there was some good discussion prior to the resignation notice. --tjstrf talk 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we owe a duty to anyone but ourselves. If the NYT posted a link to a defamatory biography, are we obligated to keep the article in that state? However I will check out what the Times article actually says and links to and think about it. Are there any ongoing discussions about these events in projectspace? Thatcher131 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not for the NYT so much as because people are already shouting cover up right now and it will only get worse. As for projectspace discussions, there's Wikipedia:Administrators accountability, but that's more of one editor's rant about banning children from administration and making everyone divulge their real names. Might be something on the community noticeboard as well. Most real discussion now is at User talk:Jimbo Wales and the User:Essjay/RFC page, but that one's in wheel war flux. --tjstrf talk 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your needed intervention in the long-time disputes at the SSB articles. Perhaps now there can be an impetus for cleanup and other works necessary to improve the article to a long-overdue satisfactory presentation. Ekantik talk 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk

Thanks for supplementing my response to the inquiry on my talkpage. I had tried to keep to the basics, but I've now added a few more thoughts as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing PW...

...is for you, preferably. It's your case, and if you're around, I'd much prefer a clerk do it than I, especially if that clerk was the clerk of the case. See my comments on ACCN. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoot!

Thank you so much for pointing that out! I'll do it right away, totally slipped my mind :s — Deon555talkdesksign here! 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for pointing that out. — Deon555talkdesksign here! 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bozo image

I think you misunderstood my intentions there. I was trying to suggest to FAAFA that there is another way to deal with bozos. Sometimes just letting them speak is more than enough to discredit them in the eyes of others. --BenBurch 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Reply

I have not worked with Adil to do anything. If you havent noticed already, me and Adil do not exactly agree on almost any subject. Infact, we have never agreed on any article on Wiki as of yet. The reason my edits were only several hours apart in some instances is because I do not try to game the system by calculating my time. I have a routine, I edit at night, go to sleep, and then go about my day, come back on wiki, and edit. I dont really calculate anything you know? Its not my intention to game the system or make more than 1 rv per day. I'm sorry if I have, but that is not my intention, its just the timing that I'm used to editing wikipedia, you know?Azerbaijani 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a close thing, with some room for interpretation, which is why I only issued a warning. Good luck. Thatcher131 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

195.82.106.244

Rather than invest energy and attempt to build up an identity trail, why not just ask directly and we will see if we can help you?

Of course, it would be easier for us if you just unblocked our main IP address which we still maintain. I would like to put a simple case why we do not accept the decision of the arbcom. It would be a lot less waste of time, energy and mental distraction for every one if we just engaged in some straighforward discussion.

I, personally, cannot accept the decision of the arbcom due to what I consider a gross systemic failure. A failure that they really ought to consider resolving for any further cases.

The committee or a clerk, not yourself, closed the case without any warning disallowing us to make any presentation or respond to the allegations that had been made. I consider this fairly serious. Its on a par with having a court case and then closing it without any notice before one party had time to put in their evidence or counter evidence. Given that the case happened over the Holiday period, I personally, had more pressing things to do with my time.

As the individual that looked to resolve matters by the RfC, the mediation and finally two attempts at Arbitration, I feel somewhat aggrieved to have first gone through the degree of personal attack to bring about the attempts, the efforts of placing them when no one else would become involved, and then finally to have had the case shut before I responded. I pressumed that there would be some discussion to the matters as I stated at the time.

  • My suggest for improving the system is that arbcom cases run to set agendas/timeframes, e.g. 28 days, or at least that 14 or 7 warnings are given before cases are closed. At present the committee appears entirely arbitrary rather than arbitrational in its actions.

On a level of basic psychology, the decision was not in principle a good decision. Whereas you had one user that had clearly been shown to make personal attempts via a variety of usernames or IP in a dishonest or deceitful manner to control the topic, a member of the BKWSU IT Team avyakt7, the arbcom chose to punish the other other user that had not made any personal attacks but merely shown and discussed why personal attacks should not be engaged in - in the hope of stopping them. Read what I said. On one hand, a clear "crime" was commit and went unpunished, the IT team thereby rewarded and empowered; on the other, the discussion of the reason and theory behind personal attacks in an attempt to stop the former was punished.

On top of the reconcilliatory efforts I, personally put in above, this is equivalents to an individual being mugged, calling the police 4 times, then finally being arrested and incarcerated by them whilst the mugger and their team walk free. A strange kind of justice that in itself could only breeds disrepect for that authority.

OK, the muggers were willing to, or had more reason to put in the extra effort to make up a case, it still does not discount that the case was closed without any notice and with us being able to defend ourselves.


So, let me help you resolve this matter. What is it you want to know?


FYI the BKWSU in London, Simon's zone headquarters with whom he has good relationships, distributed freely books of the Avyakt Murlis to the public during at least the 80s thereby putting it into the public domain. We have an example here, entitled "Avyakt BapDada - 1983-84". On the second page of the book says "Translated and adapted for print by students of London Center". There is also a note to say that the material (channelled messages from the entities they believe to be God and the deceased Kirpalani via a medium in India) "can be freely copied and distributed".

I want to offer you this as a test to Simon's, and indeed the BKWSU's, honesty and intergrity. He is saying that the Murlis were never made public. They were. He may be legalising on whether payment by donation constituted "sold" but I feel a need to dispell the obfuscation with accuracy and citations that they were publicly distributed freely and allow him the opportunity to accurately clarify the BKWSU position on this matter. 86.137.200.131 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (added IP user address. Its just public access internet. I will come back here and respond to you. There is no point in banning it as you are only hurting the Wiki, and others, that have nothing to do with this).

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved. The case was open for a bit more than a month. You should have been watching the evidence and workshop pages for developments. The proposed decision banning you was on the voting page for about a week, giving you more time to comment. The fact remains that your conduct was not appropriate and you have been banned. Other users will have to work on the article, and if there is a period of time when it is not sufficiently balanced, well that is a result of the wiki process. Thatcher131 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Thatcher131. Thank you for renewing the semi-protection on the BKWSU page. BTW I'd be happy if you took 244 up on his/her challenge to quiz me ;-)
Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Artaxiad

Hi. I would like attract your attention to the actions of User:Artaxiad again. What he does is clearly an attempt to stir up a conflict. He deletes info and reverts the articles under the guise of minor edits. This edit: [19] which he marked as minor removed referenced info from a featured article and deleted a number of pictures. Here he did the same, but was reverted by the admin: [20] Can you please tell him to stop it? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher I suggest you block Grandmaster now he is lying check the page please now, I never did that look here, I edited this part after someone reverted it, [21] and Golbez was referring to this edit! [22] I edited it after him, Grandmaster is trying to get me blocked Its really pissing me off. Artaxiad 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On Artaxiad's behalf, yes, that revert of mine was NOT reverting an edit made by him. Someone earlier had made a major POV change to the intro with the edit summary "minor edit". It was not a revert, but an undo. --Golbez 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked again, and indeed Golbez reverted an edit one before Artaxiad, which stated that it was "minor". So my apologies for this, however Artaxiad's edit to Azerbaijani people was not a minor one, despite being marked as such. It deleted lots of info and pictures. Grandmaster 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I replied in Newyorkbrads page. Artaxiad 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Nathanrdotcom

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to understand the rationale for no disclosure of information in the Nathanrdotcom vs. Wikipedia-Arbitration Committee case. Please explain to me which Federal Law and International or Wikipedia guideline was the deciding point for the removal of Rationale for the case.

May I remind you that this hiding of Information is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 which states the following:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

However I ask you to not view this as a legal threat, I am justing pointing out that Wikipedia is in violation with terms set down by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. I, as a citizen of Earth, and as per the order given by the United Nations General Assembly, ask you to either explain why you were not able to divulge the reasoning for the block or to reveal the information to my person and other users of the English Wikipedia.

Yours most cordially and sincerely,

Booksworm Talk to me! 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I would ask, most kindly, to place your reply on my User Talk page. Thank-You

Thatcher131, in relation to the previous request, I was wondering if excessive pomposity were grounds for blocking. Kindly place your reply on my user page. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Booksworm, if you believe you have a right to know why Nathanrdotcom's block was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee, I suggest you ask them. Thatcher131 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure...

[23] --Durin 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, after reading that, it might be worth the thought experiment time to consider that your own RfA was very nearly torpedoed because of this social currency problem. You're blindingly well qualified to be an administrator, yet were almost prevented from being so because of social currency problems. --Durin 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Thatcher-wiki on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Thatcher131. Thanks. --Thatcher131 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes at RFCU/C

Re [24]; Thank you. At WP:CHU, the clerking system was opened up by the actions of a bureaucrat who was not directly involved in its development. The direction that Rdsmith4 took it in was a great model to follow. I am most emphatically happy that he did. Yet, what you did (which was largely similar) took considerable more courage. You've been directly involved in the clerking process for a long time. For someone in your position to be able to step back and consider a different path is impressive. This was wholly unexpected by me. I had expected I would have to take RFCU/C and the standby list to MfD, with the intent of it being replaced by a mirror of what Rdsmith4 did at WP:CHU. Thanks from me may no longer mean anything to you. But if it does, consider this a very heartfelt thank you for your actions. --Durin 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course your thanks mean a great deal. My break has very little to do with the clerks' dustup; it's been building for some time. If I didn't think your ideas were good ones, I would have started my break without addressing them. Thatcher131 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for notifying the standby list. It was late and I fell asleep on the sofa. Also, thanks in equal measure are due to Daniel.Bryant, who asked me to work on this and agreed with my thought processes on IRC earlier this week. Thatcher131 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The last thing I would want to see is checkuser collapse because the prior clerking system is no longer extant. At every step, I've wanted to improve the project. Thus, I took the step of informing the users who had been on the standby list since they might not be aware of the change. I was happy to notify the standby list. Thanks for the thanks :) I have pointed out the above thank you to Daniel, leaving him a message that it equally applies to him. For that matter, it applies to any clerk in the prior system who agreed on the change. --Durin 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage archiving

Just doing the rounds of talkpages previously archived by EssjayBot III. Just to let you know that Misza13 has created MiszaBot III to perform the same function. You can request this Bot's services at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. WjBscribe 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Essjay

Nice to see that you were engaged in the essjay hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=next&oldid=105762432. And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=107618998

Just how does your faculty feel about false credentials, and those who defend the use of them?

Toast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.39.87 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

School block

I saw the block you placed on that school account. I gather the problem was far more widespread than the incident I had caught off an ANI report. Meanwhile, I see that you can't help peeking even during your time away (I'm sure I couldn't either) ... since you are having a nice, quiet wikibreak, you certainly won't want to aggravate yourself by having a peek at this page and its deleted history. Nor will you want to help out with the emerging debate on the meaning of the ArbCom decision on this page, either. :) Enjoy your break. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Beat me!

Yeah... you beat me to this [25]. That message was popping up all over my watched pages! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

D'oh! Thanks for fixing that (I didn't know about the dash.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (And no, that was not sarcasm.)

Elsanaturk

Elsanaturk has broken his 1rr here: [26] [27] Thats two reverts just under 24 hours. He also (in an effort to tarnish my name) decided to report me for breaking 1rr when I did no such thing! Also note how the source he is using is neither third party nor credible. Here is where I gave him a chance to revert himself so I wouldnt have to report him to you, but he didnt take it: [28]. He has broken is Arbcom parole.Azerbaijani 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned. One freebie only with me. Thatcher131 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement

Can I add a statement to the Armenia-Azerbaijan page?. Since Atabek added me to the list. Vartanm 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It wasn't Atabek, though, it was Mackensen at my request. The revert parole will expire when the case is over and if the Committee finds nothing troubling in your editing behavior then you will be off the hook at that point. Thatcher131 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible

It is absolutly impossible for me to respect those restrictions. It might be easy for the others warned to do just that as they have used significantly their evidence section to defend themselves against other evidences. While my evidence section is only "brute" evidence section with no answer. The only thing I can do is remove Tabib edit summaries, but I have compressed my section way too much. Also, I would like to remind the Arbcom that TigranTheGreat and Eupator as stated at the beginning who have no time to present their evidences have permitted me to post evidences in their behalf. Fad (ix) 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm passing on the request of the Arbitration Committee. It is their expectation that they will read all the evidence and comments on a case, so they have asked that evidence be kept to a manageable length. It would be good advice to follow this as closely as you can, but in the end it is your decision. Thatcher131 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher, following your advise, I have compressed my evidence on ArbCom to 969 words (measured in MS Word) and removed your notice from above my evidence section. Thanks for the reminder. I would also like to ask you to enforce this notice on User:Fadix, most of his evidence (indeed the legthiest) is POV opinionated text, which is irrelevant for ArbCom anyway and can be compressed down to just diffs and links with short notes. Also, I think his attempts to use other users' evidence limits for himself should not be acceptable. Because if one such permission is given, I doubt ArbCom will be able to control all users. There is huge body of evidence, and word limiting it results in deliberate omission of evidence. Everyone is tempted not to follow these limits. Thanks. Atabek 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Tigran and Eupator are just more than "every users" they are major parties in this conflict and veteran users. It is not as if some new users have registered and providing me space. As for what you think of my evidences, great, leave it to the Arbcom to decide. Fad (ix) 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts, I'm sure the Committee will appreciate it. I am not prepared to enforce anything; at this time I am merely passing on their request. If as you say Fadix' evidence is largely opinion and argument, it is possible that the Committee will find little there that will be useful to their discussions. Ultimately that will be to his detriment. And I agree that his request to use the unused words of others is unlikely to be endorsed by any of the Arbitrators. Thatcher131 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I compressed my evidence to the maximum extent, from 5000 down to slightly over 2000 words. Unfortunately, I cannot reduce it any more, as it would result in loss of evidence. Considering the number of parties to the case, maybe the arbcom could allow to exceed the limit and use about 2000 words instead of 1000? There are more than 10 parties to this case, so in my opinion 2000 words is a reasonable limit, especially since not all Azerbaijani parties provided their evidence. Thanks. Grandmaster 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IP/user

Thanks, I constantly forget to add the user. :} -- Avi 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Megatren lrt2.jpg

Regarding your reversion of Image:Megatren lrt2.jpg , per Philippine copyright law#Government copyright, works of the Philippine government (as well as government controlled corporations) are ineligible for copyright. This image appears on the official web site of the Philippine government, so it appears to fall under the scope of {{PD-Philippines}}. Thatcher131 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The right tag for "works of the Philippine government" is {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, that has been deprecated because, also according to Philippine_copyright_law#Government_copyright, "prior approval is needed if a government work will be used for making a profit", which implies {{db-noncom}}.
We use {{PD-Philippines}} only for:
  1. works released into the public domain by the copyright holder,
  2. works whose copyright has expired or
  3. works ineligible for copyright.
None of those seems to be the case for this image. I'm reverting the template change. --Abu badali (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

pls see here and comment if you want

Please see here. If you have anything to say so comment there please. Thx, -jkb- 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I responded in the talk page, for my reasons of removal more of a clean up, is it still a violation on my part? thanks. Artaxiad 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Thatcher131 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this, [29] Artaxiad 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope the Arbcom is checking the users conducts regularly during the proceeding. For example, AdilBaguirov removal of the term "Armenian Genocide" or Atabek having created the page edited by Artaxiad in question to be able to add the category on "Armenian terrorism" to justify it being kept soon after it was submitted for deletion. etc. Do I add the things being done while on arbitration, or the Arbcom regularly check users conduct? Fad (ix) 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, could the Arbcom poll administrators having delt with the members privatly for their opinions? I am afraid that since this was made to seem wrongly a conflict between different ethnicities, some administrators would be concerned to make propositions or criticise members behavior to not be accused by parties to take sides. Fad (ix) 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The description says it's been archived,[30]. I was wondering (a) where it's been archive to (b) why it has been singled out, and removed from the archive pages. --Iantresman 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive5. I archived it because it was stale, and there is no enforcement action that can be taken. If the Arbitration Committee could be persuaded to reopen the case, they might ask for a more thorough explanation about how SA's student came to vandalize your site both from the college computer SA uses and from SA's home computer. Off-wiki information is not usually used as the basis for disciplinary action due to their inherent lack of verifiability compared to a diff, for example, although SA appears not to dispute the basic facts. As I noted, now that this has been brought to his attention, there should certainly be no more misbehavior from his home or work PCs; at a minimum that would show a serious lack of judgement in continuing to work with this student. If said student vandalizes from other college IP address (such as a library or public computer room) there is nothing we can do about it at this level. You would have to persuade the Arbitration Committee that either SA was making it up, or that SA should be held responsible here for actions of someone else done elsewhere. There's simply no precedent or policy allowing action at this time. Is there any possibility of working this out privately with SA, since he has acknowledged the basic facts? Thatcher131 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, it just looked to me that it had been totally removed as it wasn't on the anticipated Archive4 page, and there were no links to it. I understand and endorse all your comments concerning off-Wiki attacks in general. I merely wanted a record of it here, just in case a subsequent issue made it relevant. And as for whether a student was involved, without the knowledge of SA, I think people can decided for themselves from the evidence. --Iantresman 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

disruptive editing

Hello, since you are somewhat familiar with my case, I guess I could ask you. Admin User:Tom harrison has banned me for 1 week from the National Socialism, National socialism and National Socialism (disambiguation) articles [31] after a complaint by User:Cberlet. Tom harrison claims that I went against consensus here [32], but another user pointed out that such consensus did not exist [33]. What should happen? Intangible2.0 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit warring over the redirect was indeed disruptive. However you are not the only offender so I have protected both pages for a week. What both sides need to do here is to put aside ideology and think about the end users of the encyclopedia. Dab pages are supposed to make it easier for readers to find information. The question to be asked is, when someone types "National socialism" into the search box, are they probably looking for Nazism or probably looking for something else? As I editor I would suggest something else, since anyone looking for Nazism would type in Nazism or Nazi. As an admin I would like to point all parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for the consequences of disruptive editing over rather minor points. Again I ask you to put aside ideology and think about this from the persective of the end user. Thatcher131 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement noticeboard

I would appreciate some indication as to why you have not responded to my latest posts on the board. If you're busy, unconvinced , whatever, please just let me know where I stand, that's all. Thanks & Regards Bksimonb 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Busy. I'm looking into it now. Thatcher131 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks. Appreciate your time & apologies for disturbing your semi-break. If you could delegate any of your tasks I would be most grateful because other disruptive and abusive editors from the brahmakumaris.info site are appearing on the page. I've posted a description on the noticeboard. Regards Bksimonb 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry

sorry, of course it happened accidentally. perhaps I clicked on something wrong or my comp did smth wrong.My appology--Dacy69 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob, stuff happens some times. Thatcher131 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Do arbitrators actually read everything in the Workshop page? BTW, I think you should read that[34], and Artaxiad is boiling as he sweared on email that he has nothing to do with those members, and I believe him as he admits for Mikara. Fad (ix) 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There have been times I've wanted to blank a whole workshop and start over........ Newyorkbrad 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed a good proposal. I thought that our task (editors involved) to present evidences and after that arbitrators will put their proposals on workshop. But it turned differently. Some users started to bring their own judgement with lengthy comments and the same accusation which was on evidence page. You should really go thru all that conversations to sort out what is right what is wrong. Not easy task now--Dacy69 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Good workshop pages may have useful proposals, or commentary and analysis, that the arbitrators can use in arriving at a decision. There are very few good workshop pages. Thatcher131 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The workshop page is a complete mess. Will anyone be reading all that's posted there? Grandmaster 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, but it was expected I think. What I wonder though, is if the arbitrators would read everything there. Fad (ix) 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why I'm not gonna post any responses there. Not much chance anyone will read it, beside me and you. Grandmaster 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It will help if you post the diff. of the personal atacks, in the process I shall post what you and Atabek have said on the very same page(worster as you are aware of). Your failed attempt to push this to seem as an "Azeri-Armenian" dispute, you only have to blame yourself about. And for your information, I told Artaxiad to stop editing on the dispute, I told him to edit things which have nothing to do about the dispute. The reason is simple, this guy is not a PhD, he is just a teen like most Armenian editors who are some teen or young adults. Me tarnishing Azeri editors? This is funny, for all the numbers of times you cataolgued editors as "Azeri" and "Armenian", and dismissed scholars based on their ethnicities, how many times did you find me doing the same? Repeat after me, a Wikipedian is a Wikipedia. ;) (OK, I appologise to Thatcher131, for scraping his talkpage too) Fad (ix) 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh as the other Armenian users, check Tigran contribution history, and see how much he was contributing before this case opens, he does not even reply to my emails. Of what are you complaining, you can prepare any evidences, they will not defend themselves, and does it seem I am defending them? Fad (ix) 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Grandmaster 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It does what, can you clarify what you mean? Fad (ix) 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that you are defending them. Grandmaster 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The evidence page speaks volume on who is justifying and defending misbehaving(a large section of your, Atabek, Dacy etc. is only on answering and justifyung misbehaving). You know that Eupator has reverted various socks, IP addresses and still does with Ararat Arev socks, yet you compare his edits against clear vandalism and trash edits by blocked users with your reverts done against established users witout prior discussion. Fad (ix) 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to continue workshop here. I just note that your post demonstrates that you defend Armenian edit warriors and attack Azerbaijani contributors on ethnic basis. Grandmaster 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then stop biting me with such claims. I did not -defend- anyone in -my- evidence page, I -removed- the defence of -me-(the only defence). I did not even refer to you or anyone as opponment, not as Azeri editors, but as editors who were misbehaving. On the other hand, I recieved answers as "Armenian editors" this and that. When I placed -my- statment for this case, it was about Adil, Dacy and Atabek, not "Azeri editors", check how many times you have used terms like opponment and Armenian editors. On the other hand, right on you have started selecting each and single Armenian editors. I was going to indeed prepare evidences against other Armenian editors like Artaxiad, but when you started shutting on "everyone" who was moving, I refrained myself doing so. You have defended Adil, who Francis, Golbez and you know other administrators would hope seing banned parmanently from editing Wikipedia. Just recently he just created a page titled "Azerbaijani Genocide" to force on another edit war. Fad (ix) 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to speak for others, speak for yourself. I know you want certain Azerbaijani users permanently banned, at the same time you defend Eupator, who was blocked for edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh on 31 January 2006, long before Adil joined Wikipedia [35] I"m stoping responding here, it is not a forum but personal talkpage. Grandmaster 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing this, don't reflect on others what you are. If you see Wikipedians by their ethnicities that's your problem not mine. Enough said. Fad (ix) 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

Riiiiight. I didn't know when it was opened. Thanks for bailing me out. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I also copied the decision to the main page of the case, which is where most people will look for it. Thatcher131 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Gracias. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Khachkar destruction

Thatcher131, I need to ask for some help here. I'm not sure what to do. Could you please look at WP:AN#I_need_help_from_other_admins and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. As the closing admin of the second AfD, I feel that I need to give some finality to the saga with this article. Would it be appropriate for me to add a statement to the Request for arbitration requesting the arbitration committee to adjudicate what to do with the article text/redirect/the AfD/etc? I am not sure how to proceed, since this has become messy. - Richard Cavell 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Listings

I think we should remove this, since this has simply been solved by an admin removing the link, so theres no significant point of keeping it, [36] Artaxiad 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)