User talk:Thatcher/Archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. 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 1 other than the sig thing 2 RFC remark 3 WP:AE request 4 Food irradiation abritration 5 Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD 6 RFC on Cberlet 7 Thanks for the message 8 Disruption at Khachen 9 MarshallBagramyan 10 Khachen 11 Azizbekov 12 Khachen and Sahl ibn-Sunbat 13 Interesting double standard 14 Bypassing protection 15 VartanM - another disruption 16 Morgellons, thanks 17 Morgellons 18 Would you please help me? 19 Azerbaijan naming dispute 20 Azizbekov, please see everything 21 A little help on User Talk:THF? 22 Clean-up of the Progress Party (Norway) 23 On Azizbekov 24 Civility 25 away 26 Sahl 27 Your input 28 Bjaodn 29 WP:AE: no actual arbitrators in sight 30 Sock 31 Commons images without attribution 32 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN 33 Signpost and BJAODN 34 Bmedley Sutler 35 A question 36 I'm concerned, too 37 Radin's other experiments 38 Will Beback wiki-lawyering 39 Is there a reason you blocked me? 40 Disappointed 41 Tbeatty 42 Note 43 user:AlexanderPar 44 Talk Page Refactoring 45 ANI thread 46 Excessive deletion? 47 User talk:Ebonyskye 48 Midnight Syndicate Arbitration 49 Way out of line! 50 IRC 51 AN/I Discussion 51.1 AN/I Followup 52 My head hurts 53 Thank ye 54 Thanks for all your good work — Shall we have a retirement party? 55 Morgellons/Archive4 56 Badgering other users 57 Arbcom

other than the sig thing

Thatcher, aside from the sig issue with Cat, I'm interested in what you think about the other things he's brought up regarding my behavior. Currently I feel it's a little skewed that he's trying to lump everything together, such as several unrelated situations that don't show a "pattern" of behavior. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The amount of respect you show to others is another problem. I see a clear incivility pattern there. I see a clear revert war on my former userpage, yet another pattern. People have been blocked indefinitely for much much less. -- Cat ^chi? 06:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The world does not revolve around you, Cat. Seriously, get over yourself. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that White Cat has posted a lot of evidence of alleged disruptive behavior that is outside the scope of his specific dispute with you, and I haven't paid too much attention to it. I did look into the close of the episode notability TfD, after Nardman brought it up in his endorsement. You may have been technically correct in that the discussion was at the wrong location, but it was a mistake to try and close a debate you were so involved in, and a further mistake to revert over it. And while I was in the history of your talk page looking at the dispute with N, I noticed a few edits further up that you were blocked for 3RR on WP:BLP, with Elonka pointing out a similar problem on Juice Plus. I am reluctant to make a blanket statement of your editing behavior based on a limited review, but it looks like you have a pattern of being unable to step back from disagreements and take a breather, consistent with your behavior toward White Cat. Could it be that when you get an idea in your head (about the proper redirect, or correct location to debate a template, or editing of archives, etc) that you get stubborn and lose sight of the need to work cooperatively and seek consensus? Sometimes you may be right but need to find a way to persuade others rather than take a brute force approach; other times you may be mistaken and need to take a breather and/or solicit a third opinion. It's just a suggestion. Thatcher131 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC remark

You stated that it was beyond the scope of the RfC for me to list every dispute Ned Scott has been in. What I was trying to provide a pattern of behavior also present in my case. My logic behind this is that if someone is committing a similar behavior parallel to my complaint towards a number of users, it is a sign of a greater problem. I have not listed every dispute Ned Scott had been to and I haven't went back really far. Most if not all of the evidence is no further back than May 2007, in other words past three months. My username from "Cool Cat" to "White Cat" change was on 22 May 2007. -- Cat ^chi? 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also find the current attitude of Ned Scott in response to my posts to be unnecessarily hostile. -- Cat ^chi? 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting an RFC filed against you sucks. A little slack is probably in order. I understand you are trying to show a pattern of behavior, but at this point you've made your point and I think you should sit back a bit and see what happens. Thatcher131 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AE request

Can you please, review this AE request [1]. It's the second time User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani violates ArbCom restriction. The previous notice on AE was not followed up upon [2] and marked as "stale". The lengthy denials by the reported party do not, or at least should not, constitute the repeal of violation or independent review thereof. Thanks. Atabek 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Food irradiation abritration

Could you provide feedback on the status of this arbitration reuqest. You seem to have removed it from the arbitration request page. RayosMcQueen 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. I think you need to refile it as a behavior dispute rather than a content dispute. Thatcher131 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I tried to heed to your proposal and posted a new request. Any feedback is very welcome. RayosMcQueen 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and feedback. RayosMcQueen 14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coaching me through the arbitration process. It seems that there are several ways of viewing things and I'll be interested in what the decision will be. It is also interesting that MonstretM has not responded or posted anywhere else. Is there a way to put an article on probation even if the abritration case is not heard? This might be the best way to proceed, regardless. RayosMcQueen 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Cberlet

Sorry to trouble you again about this. I did take the step of filing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet. However, Will Beback is protesting on the talk page that it was inappropriate to do so, and El C is threatening to delete the RFC because he says he is dissatisfied with the previous efforts made to resolve the dispute. Any advice? --Marvin Diode 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that El C has improperly deleted and delisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking in order to shield these two editors from scrutiny. --Marvin Diode 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be completely candid. Part of me wants to crusade against injustice...I would like to delve into the subject, try to find out for myself how much of a problem Berlet and King are from an outsider's point of view, and bring an effective Arbitration case if necessary. But the rest of me doubts that the several hours it would take--time out of my real life as well as editing--would ultimately be fruitful to me, or help me enjoy wikipedia any better. I also find myself thinking of possible outcomes. If Berlet and King are banned from LaRouche-related articles for poor behavior (incivility, POV pusing, conflict of interest editing) then it is almost certain that at least some of the pro-LaRouche editors would also find themselves topic-banned, since the arbitration committee examines the behavior of all side, not just the ostensible "plaintiff." I think the best outcome for all involved would be mediation. Although there are elements of your deleted RFC that are concerning (the guilt-by-association Nazi professor thing and Dking's web site come first to mind) I'm afraid I have very little enthusiasm to puruse the matter and I suspect that sanctions would fall on both sides. Thatcher131 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was seeking your advice, not asking you to participate, and your advice seems sound to me. --Marvin Diode 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption at Khachen

User:VartanM and User:Fedayee are disrupting the Khachen article. Just take a look here [3], [4] they removed the whole article with scholarly references, and left two sentences of one-sided ethnic POV/OR with links to bunch of amateur websites. I believe that User:VartanM's lack of parole on editing, is pretty much giving him a free ticket to engage in disruptions and edit warring. He essentially reverted removing the prior version supported by User:Fred Bauder. Atabek 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever stop crying? Thatcher is not going to do anything so stop whining it shows you cannot keep a debate instead of whining take part in the discussion, Thatcher please make a note on this page these pigs have bothered you too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.56.8.71 (talk • contribs)

I hope you didn't edit from your logged in account on the same proxy session you made this edit. Thatcher131 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks very suspicious, as the above anon account appears to be an open proxy, and could be the one used to make rvs on controversial articles. There have been too many such accounts recently. Grandmaster 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously, really, really and really tired. I should be the one reporting you for having reverted without justification my changes which was explained point by point. What ethnic POV... even your sources don't deny Khachen principality being Armenian. You have added a bunch of irrelevancies, assumed controversies for example on Jalil identity. And to make matters worst, you tell me that I should have explained my changes, showing that you haven't even read the talkpage before reverting. I am sceptical that arbitration will even change anything. It will end and you and Grandmaster will keep reporting for each little disagreements and I will be left all on my own. You and Grandmaster will still keep pushing editors in circular discussions. You and Grandmaster will still provoke members with this same exact behavior. I am tired, I don't even contribute much in those controversial articles to not have either of you pulling on my legs, but each time I do, I end up with the same users who add irrelevant stuff and distorting sources and assuming intentions on my acts. This is a major flaw with the system, that there is the arbitration committee but there is no system preventing this sort of disruption, when this is the same behavior (which is the real battleground mentality) that pushes honest and good faith editors to exhaustion. But obviously this disruption will again be considered as within the norms, when it is the worst of all. And for your information, Fred Bauder never approved either versions, he reverted an anon who wasn't justifying his edits. Anatol disagreed with your version but did the same regardless, this doesn't mean he approved your version either... - Fedayee 01:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan

Hi Thatcher. I know you received too many similar requests, but could you please have a look at House of Hasan-Jalalyan? User:MarshallBagramyan persistently deletes verifiable info about ancestry of this house, which he failed to quote accurately from the beginning. I added the accurate quote from Hewsen listing all the ancestors of Hasan-Jalal [5], and Marshall removed it: [6], I restored it back: [7], and Marshall immediately reverted it again: [8] I don’t understand what the point is in suppression of this info, could you please have a look? --Grandmaster 09:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This really gets out of hand. Marshall removed the quote about the origins of this dynasty third time in a row: [9] I described in my evidence to arbcom how this user was distorting and selectively quoting this source from the very beginning, [10] and now that I added the accurate quote he simply deletes it from the article. However, the original statement of Robert Hewsen (one of the leading experts on Caucasian Albania) as quoted by Thomas de Waal says: [Hasan-Jalal's] descent can be traced back to the fourth century and involves the following houses: In the male line, (1) the princes (who later became kings) of Siunik. Through various princesses, who married his ancestors, Hasan-Jalal was descended from (2) the kings of Armenia or the Bagratuni dynasty, centered at Ani; (3) the Armenian kings of Vaspurakan of the Artsuni dynasty, centered in the region of Van; 4) the princes of Gardman; (5) the Sassanid dynasty of Persia, and (6) the Arsacids, the second royal house of Albania, itself a branch of the kings of ancient Parthia. (see Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, page 157).

I think it is time someone looks into disruptive editing by this user. I would appreciate if you could check the quote and tell me if it is OK that Marshall simply deletes it taking advantage of not being restricted by parole and not even trying to explain why he does it on talk. Grandmaster 08:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How long will you perpetuate this restless members reporting? Does anyone really need to know every detail of his blood lineage of centuries or a millenia before him? Delete almost exclusively Armenian if you have a problem with that, but a long list of his royal blood to give legitimacy over various lands is unecessary, I think even Julius Cesar's article doesn't go that far. Please stop assuming ill intent each time, when editors who know the subject will right away understand Marshall's edit. - Fedayee 00:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for persistent removal of verifiable info about the ancestry of Hasan-Jalal, and I have to draw community’s attention to this disruption. I don’t see how inclusion of this information could harm the article in any way, and the fact that Marshall so far made no effort to discuss it with other involved users speaks for itself. Grandmaster 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the Hewsen papers, both on the Kingdom of Artsakh and the other one from which I have quoted. You fail to understand why this list is presented... it has no practical, neither real, value. Kings had to have a blood legitimacy on the trone for each region. This was why intermarriage between different royal people was common. The Ancient kings of Parthia for example predated near a millenium Jalal, we could draw such lineage for each and single kings. The context under which Hewsen presented the proposed lineage had nothing to do with undermining Jalal's Armenianess the way you're trying to do, but rather explain the justified legitimacy for the trone. Because Hewsen claims Jalal to have been a King rather than a Prince of various regions and legitimate inheriter. The way you are attempting to include his genealogy defies the purposes of Hewsen's presentation since he never intended to question him being Armenian. - Fedayee 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The list of Hasan-Jalal’s ancestors is verifiable info, and as such it cannot be removed from the article. It is relevant to the topic and provides additional information that the reader may use to form a judgment on the subject. Persistent removal of this info looks like an attempt to suppress verifiable info and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. I would appreciate if Thatcher could look into this issue as well, as it escalates into another conflict. Grandmaster 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you had such an intention to inform the reader, you would have presented the information in the context Hewsen presented it, rather than presenting it just after the mention that he was an Armenian, wording it in a way which misleads readers and this right in the intro. From the way you presented the information, no one would ever guess that the last Parthian King/Emperor was Ardashir I. who reigned in the third century and that Jalal ruled in the 13th century. A millenium separates those two people. No one would have guessed that the last Sassanid Emperor/King reigned in the 7th century, 6 centuries appart. No one would have guessed that Gardman was annexed by Achot II in 453 (5th century) taken from Samchwilde, about the same time as the capital of Albania was moved to Partav and the new Albanian culture emerged which Hewsen claimed was undoubtedly Armenian. No one would have guessed that the princes of Siunik maintain the line of the Bagradunis (Armenian kings). No one would have guessed that the Arsacids, Albanian and Armenian houses have the same origin, and they last ruled until the 5th century, 7 centuries apart from Jalal. The nearest non-Armenian royal blood line is not even 1/16. While The Bagraduni dynasty was founded in the 9th century, perpetuated on the 10th etc., The Armenian Vaspurakan up until 11th when it was annexed by the Byzantine Empire and then perpetuated outside of that realm, under different principalities (see Hewsen paper on Artsakh), such as Khachen, one of which princes was Jalal.

Hewsen is claiming that the royal blood lineage was almost exclusively Armenian... you're throwing of quotes out of context in the intro serves just one purpose, misleading the reader with various terms of different ethncities, without indication of date or context for which Hewsen presents the information. Had you at least presented the information in a coherent in-context fashion. You did nothing of the sort. You dumped the whole list and then when Marshall removed it he was reported. Removal of relevent sources (like you did for a long time by removing Armenian and Armenia, and never was reported for it) is unacceptable, removal of irrelevent sources presented out of context on the other hand not only is acceptable, but should be condoned. Marshall did the right thing, I would have probably removed the almost exclusively Armenian also, since it is irrelevent in the intro and brings nothing more as it is already said that Jalal was Armenian, which no one deny. Ethnicity is not genetic, we will not start drawing a genealogy tree each time we discuss about someone to question someones ethnicity because from 6 to 10 centuries ago there was foreign ethnic mix-up. But again, I have lost hope that you will even try to understand the points that I am making. Prove me wrong. - Fedayee 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the info about the origins of the dynasty is verifiable. You may have your own ideas about Hewsen’s intentions, but it is irrelevant here. You cannot delete accurate and verifiable info just because you don’t want to see it in the article for whatever reason. I would like to ask for independent review of this situation, and if Thatcher is too busy to help with this, I will ask the opinion of the wiki community. --Grandmaster 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Khachen

Hi Tatcher131, I've seen you contribute in the talkpage of the article on Azerbaijani movies. I need feedback, and I don't know where to turn. Can you please read this talkpage? I know if I fix it, it will result with edit warring, but on the other hand, Atabek shows no inclination to listen to me. Does my observations there qualify as incivility or personal attack? What should I do? VartanM 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see this: [11], an obvious sock here. --Grandmaster 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of this suspected sock User:ArmeniaArmenia is in the light of discussions at Talk:Khachen and Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat, and inability of Anatolmethanol (Fadix's sock), followed by VartanM and Fedayee repeating the same arguments as Fadix, to push certain POV against multitude of verifiable and expert sources. Notice, this comment by User:VartanM, as his last argument [12] at the related Talk:Khachen:

• "This is my last reply, I am considering fixing it, which I assume will end up with an edit war, or I can wait and wish the arbitration decision will stop these sort of disruption."

Calling my sourcing of CJF Dowsett, Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies at Oxford, and an expert on the topic, as "plagiarism" or calling my contributions including other sources, such as Minorsky as disruption, are clearly assumptions of bad faith and show inability to come to consensus in a neutral way without attacks.

The revert at Sahl ibn-Sunbat removes references to reliable and expert sources on the subject - V. Minorsky and C.J.F. Dowsett, and inserts clearly non-neutral Armenian sources. In this situation, and clear resorts to sockpuppetry, I don't see how one can encyclopedically contribute to Wikipedia articles at all. Essentially hours of work and contributions, hours of discussions, are being wasted by socks, just because someone can't neutrally and verifiably prove his point on the talk page.Atabek 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have very good tools for dealing with a determined group of people pushing ethnic points of view (from all sides). Checkuser is a limited resource and an imperfect tool. Enforcement depends on having admins who are available, willing to take on a complicated task, and interested in the situation but not too interested that they take sides. The blanket application of revert parole to any editor that is currently proposed seems like the best way of dealing with this. Meanwhile, you could always try filing a checkuser request against ArmeniaArmenia as long as you have a good guess as to who he might be. Thatcher131 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is something I proposed during the first arbcom. It is not right that some editors are restricted by parole and others are not, those not on parole take advantage of such situation and simply revert edits of paroled users without fearing of any consequences. Also sock activity is becoming alarming. Just look at how many new accounts and IPs emerged to edit obscure articles such as Sahl ibn-Sunbat or Khachen: 83.181.229.63 (talk · contribs), ArmeniaArmenia (talk · contribs), Anatolmethanol (talk · contribs), 75.51.174.156 (talk · contribs), 212.13.37.118 (talk · contribs), and this list is not complete. Urgent measures to stop disruption are overdue. Semi-protection of those 2 articles would be good for a start. Grandmaster 08:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second, when was user:Anatolmethanol used to revert edits of paroled users? The only revert in those articles I see is this which was a revert to Atabek's version. You don't need to be Einstein to suspect the rest of the socks to be Artaxiad. Anatol seems to have first been created to answer user:Flavius Belisarius who was creating havoc on the Armenian Genocide related articles rather than to contribute in those articles that you have mentioned. No one prevents Thatcher from reading those articles' talkpages on which you were contributing to which Anatol interacted judging on his own as to who is disrupting those two articles. You don't need to show for him. - Fedayee 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Anatol reverted, I said he edited the article, i.e. contributed to its talk (which he was not supposed to do either as a banned user). There are too many socks messing up those two articles, something needs to be done urgently to stop this. Grandmaster 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He only edited the talkpage of those two articles, the only edit on the article itself was a revert to Atabek's version. On the claim that he was not supposed to edit, I beg to disagree, he's the only one who could've stopped the disruptions by Flavius and his absence on that particular case was more disruptive than his presence. Something which the ban was not meant for. - Fedayee 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The rules are the rules and no exceptions are made to anyone. Fadix is a banned user and as such he is not entitled to edit Wikipedia in any form. That’s why his ban was extended by the admins. --Grandmaster 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fadix and Artaxiad are banned and are not allowed to contribute in any manner. Their edits may be reverted. However, the identification of a new user as a sock of a banned user should be done carefully and cautiously, and outside advice should be sought whenever possible. Thatcher131 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Azizbekov

Hi. Could you please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azizbekov. I agree with Atabek that Azizbekov (talk · contribs) appears to be another reincarnation of Robert599 (talk · contribs), who was using the accounts of Zurbagan (talk · contribs), Pulu-Pughi (talk · contribs) and a few others to make similar disruptive edits to Wikipedia. This is clearly not a new user, as he has good knowledge of how to edit pages here. I suspect him to be banned user Rovoam (talk · contribs). Your urgent attention to this issue would be much appreciated. Grandmaster 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an expert, I'd rather leave it to others. Thatcher131 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Khachen and Sahl ibn-Sunbat

Dear Thatcher131, I inserted POV and OR tags at Khachen and Sahl ibn-Sunbat, due to conflict at Talk:Khachen and Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat, yet VartanM removes that as well. Can you please, reinsert the tag, and I will provide explanation on the talk page. Although, to my belief, no one is allowed to remove dispute tags, I don't want to reinsert it myself as it could technically violate the parole. Atabek 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You should not add tags without making a good faith effort to explain why you think they are needed. Other editors should not remove the tags without making a good faith effort to address the issues raised (denying that an issue exists is not sufficient). When in doubt, ask for comment or a third opinion.

By the by, if I blocked all of you, would anyone mourn? Thatcher131 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting double standard

Double standard: [13]

no such country as Armenia existed prior to 1915 - it was part of Ottoman Empire, how can Bitlis be an important Armenian center?

Apparently, when it comes to Armenia, there was no nation before 1915 (dozens of sources identify Armenia prior to 1915, it was not a nation, but the region of Armenia did exist), but when it comes to Azerbaijan, despite the fact that sources are almost non-existent, it existed before 1918. Isnt that an interesting double standard?Hajji Piruz 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. This helps tremendously, doesn't it? Thatcher131 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make the double standard here clear. And yes, in my opinion, it does help. Double standards are never useful in a debate. What I see here is one of the parties to the debate contradicting himself, and therefore, the very basis of his argument breaks down, doesnt it?Hajji Piruz 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is he canvassing: [14], [15], [[16]

Thats a pretty non-neutral way of asking other users to get involved isnt it? Once again, sourced material is being called "POV and OR".Hajji Piruz 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe referring to nation historically known as Ottoman Turks and a country in every historical source known as Ottoman Turkey as someone with Persian culture or Turko-Persians is just the limit of how far WP:SOAP, trying to prove that Turks simply did not exist, can get. And I think Turkish users would be relevant here to discuss whether the country where they hailed from was or wasn't historically Persian. Atabek 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort is happening. You just made that up. A) It is a universally accepted, even by Turkish scholars, and a known and undeniable fact that Ottoman culture was Persian. Whats wrong with that? Why is it offensive to you? Its a historical fact. B) Show me a single diff where I have ever attempted to say that Turks did not exist. C) There are many ways to ask other users to get involved, you, however, do it in an un-neutral and aggressive manner, which only invites fighting and not a solution.

Atabek, this is a pure fabrication and you know it. Thatcher, why can he continuously get away with things like this and making bad faith accusations against people?Hajji Piruz 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bypassing protection

Could you please undo the fork of the material related to the Morgellons article? At the protection policy, it asks admins: "to not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute." It will help discussion at the page more if the editors come to the consensus to fork rather than an admin making this decision. Sancho 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point but I won't undo it. If necessary I believe I can justify it on BLP grounds, since I think the point of chronicling the Foundation's financial problems is to indirectly cast aspersions on Mary and the doctors associated with it. I won't be doing any more editing until its unprotected, and I will be editing the article as an editor, not an admin. I think its too long and poorly organized, for starters. Thatcher131 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM - another disruption

[17] - yet another revert of sourced material and removal of references. I am running out of options of how to deal with this contributor. Atabek 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And another revert by User:MarshallBagramyan, calling the referenced number as BS and again removing large chunk with sources [18]. Atabek 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons, thanks

Thanks for all the work you are doing on the new version of Morgellons. Although I don't always agree with ever single edit, in generally I think you are doing an excellent job in providing a NPOV, and in making the article far more accessible. A much more robust article will arise from the ashes. It is a lot of work, and I appreciate you taking the time. Herd of Swine 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons

I also appreciate your getting involved. It is not an easy article. Can you please explain your comment to me about outside advocacy? Is it not OK for me to be involved in Morgellons advocacy and edit the article? If not, is it OK for Herd to run a website devoted to debunking Morgellons and edit the article? I read the COI rules, and did not believe that that I have been violating them, but I am new at this, which is why I asked for someone to adopt me. I haven't had any takers yet  :) Thanks for your help. Pez1103 03:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Going to other forums and recruiting people to edit is generally frowned upon. In extreme cases it can lead to a flood of new editors who do not understand our culture and treat Wikipedia like another blog or message board. The key is to be a wikipedian when editing wikipedia, and an advocate elsewhere, and keeping the two very different styles from overlapping. When one starts to think that Wikipedia is HIDING THE TRUTH, it's time to take a step back for a while. (We have a lot of people who think that Wikipedia is hiding the truth, from depleted uranium to 9/11 to mercury in fillings to silicone breast implants to yada yada the list goes on.) Since I started all of 12 hours ago, both your behavior and Herd's has been entirely reasonable. (I thought this post on Herd's site was thought-provoking and very sympathetic to Morgellons sufferers.) Thatcher131 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please help me?

I appreciate your comments and would like to follow wiki rules and make the Morgellons article more balanced. If you look at the changes I made to the actual article -- they were all discussed in the discussion page and cited. I have spoken about my position on the discussion page, but not in the article. I thought that this was OK. There is a long history of edit wars on this page and people who try to advocate that the disease is "real" are generally banned. I am proposing a short concise article, well documented, that can be blocked until the CDC investigation is over, so that the editing wars can end. There is very little science here -- no real scientific research has been done at all. You have doctors who say that the disease is real, and many who say it is not -- but historically doctors have initially stated that about almost every newly emerging disease. Can you give me advice? Thanks Pez1103 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article will never be locked "until the investigation is over"; that's simply contrary to WIkipedia's core philosophy. I was drawn to the situation by a complaint from someone I generally respect who is generally a skeptic about new medical claims, which Wikipedia naturally attracts. (For example, BDORT.) I have not gone through the recent history of changes to the article to get a handle on what has been going on but I am concerned about your open advocacy. Up to a point, advocacy is permitted on talk pages but when it leads you into conflicts with other editors such as calling them "morally reprehensible" or "wiki-bullies" that is definitely crossing the line. I have read the current version of the article and it probably overrepresents and overquotes doctors from the MRF. On the other hand, I also just read Koblenzer's editorial in the Nov 2006 JAAD and found him to be incredibly condescending. (Unfortunately, Dr. Harvey's response in Apr 2007 was short on science and long on soapbox.) It would probably be better to make the article shorter and more focused; sometimes this is opposed by advocates themselves who want to be able to include every anecdote and newspaper article, or by skeptics who think that every affirmative statement must be balanced by two opposing statements.

My personal editing time is limited to an hour or so during the day and a few hours in the evenings, I'm often not active at all on weekends, and this does not put me in a strong position to handle a prolonged argument. I'll have to have a think over any possible participation, and review the history more carefully. Thatcher131 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a question here? A number of the editors, myself included, have also been concerned about User:Pez1103's open advocacy, and the effect it has had on the Morgellons article and talk page, dating back to October of 2006. A notice was placed on the COI noticeboard (here is the original diff: [19]), and this user responded with COI notices posted against myself[20] and another editor (the latest notice[21] is now under DR). Very shortly thereafter, Durova^Charge! essentially "overrode" the COI notice by placing a block for making legal threats, a block which was removed shortly thereafter, but after the COI notice had been removed by User:MER-C (diff: [22]). Effectively, then, the COI issue was never resolved. With the fork you created for Morgellons Research Foundation today, and contributions there from Pez, this is even more direct COI, since she works for the organization. Would it require a new notice in order to achieve resolution? Thanks, Dyanega 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the conflict of interest policy prohibits such editing. It advises against editing because editing where you have a strong personal interest can lead to bad behavior, but ultimately it is bad behavior that will lead to editing restrictions, regardless of whether the editor has a conflict. (If, as Pez states, Herd of Swine runs a Morgellons debunking web site, then he might also come under the COI policy.) I discussed this with Pez on her talk page this morning, now it is up to her to see whether she can adapt to our community or not. In the end, it is behavior that matters. Thatcher131 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference here. My site is essentially just a blog, where I post links to Morgellons information, and my own experiments and opinions. My debunking I try to keep neutral, and focus on verifiable evidence. I have written several articles on how Morgellons is NOT delusions of parasitosis. I have no involvement beyond this. Pez on the other hand, has spent several years actively promoting Morgellons, and seems have have been largely responsible for the involvement of the CDC. I agree it is behavior that matters, but Pez's behavior seems to constitute a direct COI with his work for the MRF. Herd of Swine 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

←Thatcher, I am a neutral editor who helped out on this article following a WQA alert. Now that you and some others are involved, I've stepped back, but when I saw the long post from Herd of Swine with the details about the off-wiki activities of Pez, I thought I should share some information with you in case you had not seen it yet.

I am not defending the actions of Pez, but I question why Herd of Swine brought it up in such detail, as if to prove that if not for Pez there would be no CDC investigation. Why do that now, when there has been excellent progress in improving the article and he could have helped with that instead?

Here is the link to the website that Herd of Swine runs: Morgellons Watch - Resources for Morgellons investigators. Skeptical analysis and debunking. I asked him about it the last time he accused Pez of COI, and his reply is here on the article talk page.

I accepted his response and assumed good faith. But after his recent post, I thought I should bring this up with you.

Although he says his debunking articles are NPOV, I've read them and they do have strong bias. At the talk page link I provided above, he listed 3 links to his own articles, to show his approach is neutral. But the articles are not neutral even though they have neutral-sounding titles, they show a red herring fallacy. I won't go into detail, they are there if you want to read them.

My reason for bringing this up is that after Herd of Swine wrote so much detail about Pez, I thought it important for you to know about his extensive off-wiki anti-MRF/anti-Morgellons activism.

As I said, I am not defending the actions of Pez, and also, I am not trying to cause any trouble for Herd of Swine. I do ask though that when you read the comments from Herd of Swine, you consider his long-standing bias and his ongoing, off-wiki conflict with Pez. --Parsifal _Hello 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent much of last night thinking hard over the details of Pez' activities regarding the CDC investigation, and I keep coming back to two statements: one above "it is up to her to see whether she can adapt to our community or not" and the one about "Don't bite the newbies". There is a history of uncooperative and policy-violating editing dating back to October of last year, over 1000 edits' worth, and I hardly think the "newbie" tag applies after having other editors explain WP policy to her repeatedly for 9 months. Why I find the CDC thing particularly troubling is that her comments about the CDC's neutrality and the suggestion that their involvement indicates that they themslves believe an investigation is needed is - all things considered - disingenuous, since she is clearly aware that the reason the CDC is involved is because of advocates like herself lobbying people into action. Clearly aware - yet she never once disclosed this, and up until Herd's posting, continued portraying her belief in the altruistic motivations behind the CDC's involvement as if it supported the legitimacy of her edits, when she knew otherwise. I cannot convince myself that she is capable of divorcing her advocacy from her editing, or willing to "adapt to our community", and the evidence is quite substantial, this CDC matter being just the latest case. Dyanega 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to attack Pez. I brought up the subject of her extensive involvement in lobbying the CDC only after she had made many, many edits regarding the CDC, without disclosing her own involvement. I have no off-wiki conflict with Pez, she has not posted on morgellonswatch since last december when we had a discussion of whether dermatologists examine the skin of patients who exhibit signs of Morgellons (See: [23] posts 82 and 84 - I post as "Margellons").

I ask you to look at my referenced post regarding pez's Lymebuster activities solely in the context of her edits regarding the CDC investigation. I apologize for posting so many quotes, but that was really only a representative sample. There are hundreds more. I have no doubt that Pez can make valuable contributions to the article, but other editors have raised COI and POV concerns before.

Regarding my site being a similar COI. There is some difference. The MRF is an organization, currently soliciting over $300,000 in donations, actively involved in lobbying. My site is simply my blog, where I give my opinion regarding the evidence surrounding Morgellons. Because I express my opinion elsewhere should not preclude me from editing here. I have no vested interest - in fact i would be delighted if it turns out that there was some treatable infectious disease. I write on my blog to reflect evidence based medicine - so yes, you could say I am biased in my blog entries, in that I support evidence based medicine, especially evidence based treatments. That's what blogs are for - expressing opinions. But I write on Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the secondary sources say regarding the situation.

Herd of Swine 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments about your COI were not intended to preclude you from editing.

However, you've written conflicting statements about your own position. You wrote just above:

I have no vested interest - in fact i would be delighted if it turns out that there was some treatable infectious disease.

But yesterday you wrote the opposite, at this diff:

Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill.

That sentence shows you have already reached your personal conclusion. You followed that with a perfunctory with "Perhaps they are not , but..." disclaimer, but the substance of your intent was clear, and matches your writings on your website.

If we combine those words with the fact that you invest considerable time in running a website devoted to proving that Morgellons is not a physical disease, it's very hard to accept your assertion that you have no vested interest. You call it moregllonswatch.com and you say it's a debunking website. How can you then say you don't have an agenda?

I don't understand why you are doing this or why you feel as you do; though it appears you are sincere and you feel you are doing the right thing.

But you are not unbiased and we should not pretend that you are.

I am not trying to limit your involvement in this discussion. My concern is that you've been focusing so much on Pez instead of the article. And at the same time, you so have an agenda to debunk the condition that the MRF where Pez volunteers is trying to research. Why don't you just drop that and do what you said you want to do: write on Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the secondary sources say regarding the situation. ?

This replies to anyone else who has been focusing on Pez as well, not just to you. If Pez violates policies or causes trouble, we will all see it and it will be resolved according to Wikipedia policies. As Thatcher said, in the end it's the behavior that matters. Discuss the article, not the editors. --Parsifal _Hello 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sorry to be blunt there but Morgellons is about a bunch of people who are trying to convince their doctors that they are not mentally ill. - how exactly is this not true? EVERY SINGLE STORY in the media portrays it as EXACTLY this situation. Perhaps you misread my intent there, I was attempting to characterize the secondary sources' reporting on the subject, in order to provide context for my having mentioned Leitao's statements about Munchausen's. Herd of Swine 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's simply not true that every media story says those people are mentally ill.

It appears you revealed your true feelings with that comment, not just what sources have reported. And what you revealed is exactly what you have been propounding on your website.

That's fine, you are welcome to your viewpoint. But it's not scientific skepticism, so don't pretend that it is. A skeptic does not assume one way or the other until the research has been done.

I have no idea of if it's a disease or not. But likewise, there is no proof that the sufferers are all mentally ill.

I suggest we drop this thread of discussion. You made your point and I made mine. I am not trying to get you excluded from editing. --Parsifal _Hello 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made my point but perhaps not clearly enough. I absolutely agree with you that the media stories do not say people are mentally ill. I did not say that either. What I said was: people with morgellons are trying to persuade their doctors they are not mentally ill. According to the MRF, 95% of people with Morgellons have been diagnosed as delusional. Those people are trying to convince their doctors they are not mentally ill. That is what the articles are about - that struggle, and all the media stories reflect that. Find me ONE that does not. I'm not saying that anyone is mentally ill. Herd of Swine 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one: [24]

You are clearly very intelligent, and I believe you are well-intended. But you do maintain a debunking website and you have written that you don't believe Morgellons is a new separate physical disease. You've written that maybe it's a combination of other diseases and/or mental illness, or both.

You could help me to see you more clearly as a neutral party if you remove the word "debunking" from the subtitle of your website and make a new subtitle that displays true open-minded inquiry. That would be an interesting development.

I'm not going to continue with this thread. I've aired the issue and see no reason to go on about it.

I acknowledge I may be completely wrong about you. But with my limitations as a person, I am unable to see a way that you could be neutral about a topic on which you run a website with a stated debunking position. Others may not agree with me; I may be wrong; but that's how I see it. --Parsifal _Hello 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unfortunately responding on your talk page, I'm sure Thatcher has had enough of this. Herd of Swine 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan naming dispute

A little help on User Talk:THF?

Thatcher, I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left? Thank you. --David Shankbone 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have wide latitude over their own talk pages, and there is no basis for forcing him to comply. I see however that another admin asked and THF has removed the comment. If something like this happens in the future, I would suggest adding a second note after the first that you withdraw your previous comment, and say the same in the edit summary which can't be modified even if he hides the withdrawal. Then leave it alone if he reverts or otherwise modifies it. Thatcher131 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of the Progress Party (Norway)

Hi Thatcher,

I noticed you too attempted to clean up the Progress Party (Norway) article. It is currently heavily politicized. The party is somehow even labeled as "radical right-wing", based on a collection of ten year old quotations from foreign authors who never studied the party, but probably heard a rumour somewhere.

Hope you will help with the article when you're back from your wikibreak!

Heptor _talk 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On Azizbekov

Thatcher, apologies for "polluting" your page. I'd just like to get your attention on User:Azizbekov who keeps on his personal attacks. He and some other Armenian users have tried continuosly harm my image calling me a sock other Azerbaijani users. This is getting really tiring. Azizbekov has been trying to provoke me with remarks on my "being a Nazi", "disregarding lives of my ancestors", etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations&diff=149920016&oldid=149918634), (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azeri_Waffen_SS_Volunteer_Formations&diff=149924287&oldid=149924146). From his edits on the article on Azeri Waffen SS[28] you will see his biased attitude where his main objective is to present everything Azeri as barbarian. Please read my explanation on talk page to better understand his edits [29]. Despite irrational remarks and "conclusions" he has been making calling me a sock of someone due to rather cheap analysis on when I appear online and when I don't, I am requesting your immediate attention on this matter and ask you to warn him to refrain from personal name-callings on me and anything related to my ethnicity. Ehud 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Hi. Please see this, I don’t think this is in line with WP:CIVIL: [30] Grandmaster 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

away

I will be away this week. i appreciate your contributions to the morgellons article and hope that it will result in a less biased article. I am concerned, however, since none of the other editors seem to believe that there is a chance that the disease may be real, without the involvement of at least one person to reference material of an opposing viewpoint, this will be difficult. Pez1103 12:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sahl

Thatcher, Sahl is Armenian. Every source I have checked says he is Armenian. Encyclopaedia Iranica says he was Armenian, Minorsky says he was Armenian, Dowsett says he was Armenian, etc...

Grandmaster and Atabek continuously remove information, no matter if its sourced or not, and violate Wikipedia NPOV all the time. They never even discuss. They simply repeat themselves over and over again on the talk page, they never address any of the points made by the other parties or any of the evidence that contradicts their claims. They are simply gaming the system by writing comments to give the appearance of a discussion, but as you saw on the Azerbaijan name discuss that we had on your sandbox, they are not actually discussing anything. Also as you say on your sandbox, sources are continuously distorted or interpreted to match a certain view point, and when proven wrong, the issue is never even addressed.Hajji Piruz 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, if you noticed, Thatcher made a thorough analysis of both Minorsky and Dowsett, and conclusion was that neither of them made any explicit statement about Sahl's ethnic origin. Same with Azerbaijan. Yet here you are again accusing me and Atabek. It is nobody's fault that you cannot get a consensus for your edits, you need to work towards a compromise and not insist that it should be your way or highway. You know that Wikipedia works by consensus, so the only way to move forward is to build a consensus on disputed issues. Grandmaster 16:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, I dont have time to explain fully right now, but I will in a few hours.Hajji Piruz 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He was handed to Afshin's troops by Sahl b. Sunbadh, an Armenian prince in 222/836-7 The Cambridge History of Iran. Par W B Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, J A Boyle, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Jackson, Lawrence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press (1968) p.506

...Babek took to flight and fell into the hands of Sahl b. Sonbat, the Armenian Patriarch who had him arrested while hunting. E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 Par M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, BRILL, (1993) p.547

...an Armenian prince called Sahl b. Sanbat,... Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board, Editors: -Oct. 1936, Marmaduke Pickthall; Jan. 1937- Oct. 1938, Muhammad Asad-Weiss. (1927) p. 23

The Mihranids were extinguished through the assassination of Varaz-Trdat II by Nerseh P¿i¬ippean in 207/822-23, and the Armenian prince of Shakki to the north of Arran, Sahl i Smbatean (Arabic, Sahl b. Sonba@tá), extended his power over Arran. C.E Bosworth, Encyclopaedia Iranica: [31]

As per Dowsett, he clearly states that Sahls family and father were Armenian:

"After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni"( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220).

Sahl Ibn Sumbat means "Sahl the son of Smbat".

Irregardless of Minorsky or Dowsett, there are other authoritative sources which say Sahl was Armenian. We have yet to see a single source which says that he was Albanian.

Its ridiculous to only base ones opinion on only two sources when there are yet other authoritative sources out there.

Did Thatcher focus on these sources as well or did he only examine Dowsett and Minorsky?Hajji Piruz 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, read and assume good faith:

C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:

• "Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl Smbatean, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."

Continue your discussions at talk page, also, read the footnote #4 in CJF's article p. 462, which says that Sahl was not a son of Smbat Bagratuni:

Daghbaschean takes Sahl to be the son of the contemporary generalissimo of Armenia, Smbat Bagratuni; this is completely without foundation and his surprise that "Sahl is nowhere called the son of Smbat the Generalissimo but merely the son of Smbat" is wholly unjustified. Smbat is hardly an uncommon name in Armenian history.

And before next discussion, please, read the article of CJF Dowsett. Thanks. Atabek 04:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why do you call everything OR? Do you know what constitutes OR (OR stands for original research)?

Its pretty funny Atabek that you are using Dowsett once more. It has been cleared that Dowsett has called Sahls family Armenia and that Albania in that context does not define ethnicity.

But hey, by all means, continue with the circular argument, feel free not do actually address anything presented by the other parties.Hajji Piruz 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your input

If you're not sick of the whole thing yet, I'd appreciate your feedback on this proposal. Thanks - Raymond Arritt 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bjaodn

I think that was a good idea, thank you for requesting it. >Radiant< 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to change the name of the case from "BJAODN wheel war" to just "BJAODN" because, as you note in your most recent comment, whether the deletion and undeletion constituted a wheel war is subject to disagreement. (And after all, as we always see, the casename isn't that important anyway, but should be neutral.) Please advise if you would have any objection to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Thatcher131 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your timeline (of edits) is correct, but misses what I was doing between edits. As I have repeatedly stated, there was no DRV or MFD open when I started off on a loop of non-edit research that took me to the eventual start of the undeletes. That research included looking at... I forget, reviewing last version before deletion history logs on twenty or so of the individual articles Alkivar had deleted, his admin logs for the last 500 edits, his edit logs to see if he was still logged in, and a couple of other things (in which I missed the AN discussion from the night before on first pass, but found it a bit later after I started the undeletes).

"Doing your homework" in something like this necessarily involved a lot of stuff that wasn't edits. One can properly fault me for not checking DRV again after the first major research scan, before starting the undelete. But there wasn't anything on DRV when I started. Georgewilliamherbert 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Thatcher131 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AE: no actual arbitrators in sight

Thatcher131, do arbitrators ever visit WP:AE? We've got several ban evaders over there which could benefit from the attention of the powers that be.Proabivouac 07:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators never enforce their decisions, they leave that to the community. Any admin can respond to concerns at WP:AE, its just that most don't. I did solo duty there for several months but I'm sick of it for now. If Betacommand is the user most hated for doing the right thing, admins who enforce at WP:AE come in second. Either the subject of the complaint is mad because you take action, or the filer is mad because you don't take strong enough action, or more frequently both. Thatcher131 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock

User:Harayarah joined just to make reverts: his contributions.

This users only goal was to join Wikipedia and revert back to Atabek and Grandmaster:

• Vandalizes article [32], that was a revert back to Grandmaster [33]
• Reverts back to Atabek twice [34] and [35].Hajji Piruz 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly it's a sock. But interestingly, we haven't seen your complaints about User:Azizbekov, who was a sock, just the opposite, a warm welcome [36]. Assume good faith and stop battling along national lines. Atabek 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another observation of bad faith by Atabek, he just attacked Hajji Piruz, and told him to assume good faith. How can anybody assume good faith after a comment like that? I see nothing wrong with his discussion with Azizbekov, how was he supposed to know that Azizbekov is going to turned out to be an alleged sock of some mysterious sockpuppeteer? --VartanM 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I would like to attract your attention to restoration of edits of a sock of the banned User:Azizbekov (who most probably is banned User:Fadix) on Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations. This article is clearly POV and OR, as there’s no source ever mentioning any formation with such a name. There was Turkestani unit of SS, where Azeris were also included along with other Muslims of former USSR. This article was recently expanded by the banned user who used a sock Azizbekov. Azizbekov has recently been banned as a sock account (please see his talk). As you know, banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, and their edits are considered vandalism and should be reverted regardless of their quality. Hajji Piruz keeps on restoring edits of Azizbekov, and it is also interesting to see that Pejman47 (talk · contribs), who never edited this article before, turned up to rv in support of Hajji Piruz. Pejman47 is known for his previous 3RR gaming, as discussed on WP:ANI, [37] and here he is again supporting Hajji Piruz on a very obscure article. If it is a coincidence, it is a very strange one, because you can often see how Pejman turns up when Hajji Piruz exceeds his rv limit. Grandmaster 05:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see youre evidence that Azizbekov is Fadix, about Pejman47 the same thing can be said about Parishan. You always see Parishan turn up when Grandmaster and Atabek run out of reverts. The only way I see this argument being solved is clarification of whos sockpuppet Azizbekov was. VartanM 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since both Azizbekov and Fadix are Canada based, obviously Azizbekov is Fadix’s sock. Grandmaster 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Canada is the second largest country in the world. Obviously you're wrong to assume that it was him by that fact alone. VartanM 08:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Azizbekov was clearly a user with very good knowledge of wiki editing, so even admins had no doubt that it was a sock. Judging by location, the only one of 3 suspects that could be his master is Fadix. With regard to Parishan, he is a prolific contributor who created and expanded many articles and who contributes to almost every Azerbaijan related article. Of course he could have many of them on his watchlist and check any activity on topic related articles. Now if we look at the contribs of Pejman, we’ll see that most of his contributions are reverts on controversial articles, often in support of Hajji Piruz. Pejman makes very little or no use of the talk page and makes very little actual contribution to the articles. You cannot compare these 2 users. Grandmaster 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Azizbekov said that he had been IP editing for a while, and your assumption that it was Fadix, just because he happened to be living in Canada is in bad faith. If I follow your logic I can assume that it was Dacy69, I can probably find thousands of users who are from Canada. Looking at Azizbekov's talkpage we see that administrators suspected him of being Artaxiad not Fadix.

Parishan is far from being the perfect editor that you painted him to be, he has wikiretaliated more than once (which I will document), has been POV pushing, few examples documented here and I intend to add more evidences myself. Tigran's evidence don't document his meatpuppeting which I will also document. Parishan has successfully POV pushed across many unrelated articles, while you removed Armenia and Armenians, he added Azerbaijani in articles including Armenian. I'm just witnessing hypocrisy, what Azaibekov did, Atabek and Dacy have been doing without any trouble. In Azizbekov's case he was banned and accused to be a sock.VartanM 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins know better. If they banned Azizbekov and said that he was a sock, then they had a good reason to do so. I stick to my opinion that it was Fadix. I did not see any massive editing history on his IP. As for your allegations, I explained in much detail in my evidence to arbcom that they are baseless. Grandmaster 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK...once again, we have Atabek and Grandmaster making attacks and bad faith accusations, and, as usual, both Grandmaster and Atabek have completely diverted attention from the subject of this section with irrelevant information...wow. Its really funny how Grandmaster and Atabek can throw around such tremendous accusations when they gang up on other users and also magically get help from IP's or "new" users whenever they need it. Interesting.

By the way Grandmaster, its really not that difficult to check the contributions of a user that you think is a possible sock and revert their vandalism. If you had checked, you would have known that Pejman first reverted this sock on History of the name Azerbaijan on August 14 and later on the article your talking about on August 15. If Pejman was reverting in my favor, than why has he not reverted your removal of sourced information on Azerbaijani people.

Have you two really forgotten assume good faith so quickly? Atabek, you especially used AGF a lot didnt you in the arbcom?

By the way Grandmaster, how about we talk about your vandalism (yes, vandalism, it is no longer borderline. You have crossed into complete and utter vandalism by removing entire articles/sections/sentences of sourced information) for a change: [38], [39], [40]

Have you and Atabek heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? Well, if you keep crying OR when there is no OR and you simply remove sourced information, then when there is actually OR, people probably wont believe you.Hajji Piruz 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, I see you again resort to assuming bad faith and accusing people of vandalism. Why don't you refer rather to your edit here [41]. I cannot find a word to explain such edit other than plain hatred and engagement along with some other contributors above and below my posting in battle along national lines. As for User:Azizbekov, he was identified as a sock, most likely of Fadix. Moreover, he continued further attacking and insulting people on this and his own talk page. Atabek 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek you should follow what you preach so much WP:AGF.

"plain hatred and engagement along with some other contributors above and below my posting in battle along national lines".

Thats a whole bunch of WP:AGF on your part. As for you accusation that Azizbekov is Fadix, I would like to see the proof. If not, an apology to Fadix is due from you and Grandmaster. Just because a user is blocked and can't defend himself, doesn't mean you have to dirty up his name with baseless accusation. VartanM 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, in Grandmaster's opinion, Canada's population consists of Fadix and the Prime Minister? I knew the damn country was sparsely populated, I didn't know it was to that degree :) --TigranTheGreat 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And Thatcher, Fadix is a Wikipedia member, and he will return after his ban expires, and continue his valuable contributions as a member. I believe Grandmaster's incessant vicious accusations against him are getting out of hand and need to stop, not encouraged. If he wants to request a checkuser, he is free to do so--he can't continually slander another user without basis.--TigranTheGreat 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous? Need I even make a response?Hajji Piruz 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons images without attribution

I spotted your message the first time around - I tagged the two images in question on Commons for deletion (Pacs1.jpg and Pacs2.jpg). Neil ム 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and BJAODN

You're listed as an involved party in the BJAODN case. The Wikipedia Signpost will be covering the events in this week's issue. Alkivar asked that I talk to him to avoid misconstruing his words, so in the interest of fairness I'm offering you the opportunity to do so as well.

I'd be happy to talk to any/all of you regarding the case, but I don't have any questions to ask at this point, and won't be able to write anything until Monday morning UTC, at the earliest. If you have any general statements you'd like to make to me, to clear up any misconceptions, or clarify your opinion, please feel free to e-mail me. Also, if you have any quotes in particular that you think best qualify your point, either published on-wiki, or sent to me via e-mail, I'd appreciate them. Since the case has many important issues that need to be mentioned, I want to make sure that I don't miss anything, or misrepresent anyone's views.

(Any uninvolved parties who wish to send me an e-mail can, of course, do so as well). Ral315 » 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler

Fnord23/FAAFA is bragging over at WR that he fed the archived CU links to Bmedley Sutler to post in my RfA, to disrupt and torpedo my RfA as payback for the deletion of the Andy Stephenson article. I tend to believe this, because Bmedley asked me "Who's Andy?" today, and if he had trolled through my several year 10k+ post archive at CU to pick out a few choice ones, he would already know who Andy was. I'm sure there's nothing that can be done at this point, but it really sucks, and it sucks hard. - Crockspot 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I trolled through dozens of your posts at CU after Bmedley linked to the one, and I have no idea who Andy is. ←Ben^B4 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A question

Is it okay if I write and edit in articles about the Scanner Scandals? Do you remember my early posts? They were about Spooks editing Wikipedia! I only had one proof but lots of suspicions, but now they have been all proofed! I was right! I don't care so much about corporations and Fox editing Wikipedia just the CIA Spooks and others like them. Is that okay? Thank you. (what does the 131 in your name stand for?) Thanks ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 03:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's okay! I've made a few edits to that article. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 04:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the "Scanner scandal" is too new and too self-referential for a good article, but you are free to edit anything as long as you behave yourself and follow the rules. Thatcher131 06:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I put an ANI on this edit.. It's one thing to add RS information to articles. Quite another to go around and asking editors who they work for. --Tbeatty 06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still not convinced any of these attacks on Bmedley are in good faith. Obviously Hypo could decline to answer, and I am certain there is no policy against merely asking people about themselves. ←Ben^B4 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The question to Hypo is a form of trolling. Like all trolling, it can be responded to or it can be deleted and the troller asked to stop. --Tbeatty 07:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors who deliberately provoke other editors generally do not last long. Thatcher131 11:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned, too

You told Bmedley, "editors who post things on behalf of banned users may also be banned for the same period." I am unable to find any mention of that in Wikipedia:Banning policy, which says only, "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing." That seems quite a bit weaker to me. I may be mistaken, perhaps what you say is policy stated somewhere else (and if it is, then it should certainly be added to WP:BAN without delay) but this, to me, seems like an idle threat made in retribution for Bmedley pointing out Crockspot's vile off-wiki statements. ←Ben^B4 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can did up diffs if I must. For one thing it is specifically spelled out in the arbitration case against FAAFA, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Proxy_users. There were clarifications in a couple of other cases that I can not put my finger on at the moment, where the arbitrators have specifically said this. And it is listed in the banning policy, although not in an obvious place, WP:BAN#Dealings_with_banned_users. Thatcher131 06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I never make "idle" threats. There is a reason that (for example) out of four arbitration cases I have filed, every one resulted in sigificant sanctions. Thatcher131 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason the statement you found is "weak" is that there is the possibility that a banned user will make a beneficial content change that other editors would want to keep. In that case, a complete blanket prohibition would be detrimental, but editors must be cautious to make sure they are making edits because they believe they are helpful and must take responsibility for them. However, the grey area is smaller than people think. For one thing, it really only applies to articles, not project space. Even in article space, there have been at least two recent cases where users who were banned from certain articles and talk pages for disruption placed the information on their user pages and asked people to copy it to the article. That is a much more clear instance of proxy editing and is clearly a blockable offense; bannable if the account making the edits is a single-purpose account with no other productive editing. This has been the position of the arbitrators when asked directly. Carrying on the disruptive activities of a banned user is proxy editing, as is the case here where FAAFA found someone to act out his retaliation against Crockspot. Thatcher131 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that; I agree WP:BAN#Dealings with banned users says what you said (and that it's not in an obvious place; perhaps "Proxying" should have its own heading.) And I'm sorry that I questioned your judgment. Now, where would you draw the line between being "tipped off," or pointed somewhere as Bmedley apparently was, and posting on another's behalf? Also, is this policy worded in an appropriate way -- if a banned user asks to have something included, does that really mean that all of the sudden everyone is forbidden from including it? If that were the case, a banned user could effectively censor just by asking to have the material he or she wishes to censor included. I'm sure that can not be the intent of the policy. ←Ben^B4 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why it says "Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing." I think you have to look at the intent of posts. Suppose someone was banned for being disruptive on articles related to Scientology. This person makes a sockpuppet and edits Scientology controversially and is caught, but in the meantime has also made non-controversial edits to their favorite TV show or something. The ban policy allows all edits to be reverted but it may be that other editors would want to reinstate the TV show edits. On the other hand, if a user was banned for being disruptive and persuaded another editor to purse the same disruptive agenda, that would be a problem. So when Bmedley posts negative information about Crockspot to the RfA and sinks it, and then posts "Crockspots, this is a message from an "old friend". He says: (quote) " PWNED ! LOL ! REMEMBER ANDY ! " " to Crockspot's talk page, that is a blockable and possibly bannable offence. (Andy Stephenson is was a democratic activists, the DU alleges that the CU used nefarious means to block a fundraising drive for needed medical treatment resulting in Stephenson's death. FAAFA and Crockspot fought over this; Bmedley had nothing to do with it as it was almost a year ago.)

On the other hand when Bmedley restores some pictures that FAAFA took to an article FAAFA wrote (that has nothing to do with politics and is unrelated to the behavior that got FAAFA banned) [42] then it is a matter of editorial judgement whether to revert or keep them. Thatcher131 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that CU had anything to do with Stephenson's fundraising problems, and even less than no evidence that I personally had anything to do with it. I participated in the AfD for his article, because I felt he was not notable enough to have a wiki bio, coupled with the fact that the article was POV and being used to make libelous accusations against third parties. As for the clarifications of ARBCOM ruling, they are: [43], [44], [45], [46]. Absolute proof of sockpuppetry is neither possible, nor necessary. Based on past arbitration principles, there is more than enough evidence to treat Bmedley and FAAFA as the same user. - Crockspot 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Radin's other experiments

I would like to add new information about Dean Radin's other experiments which I found of interest. Since I get into trouble furnishing information, I consider neutral (He gave this information to a reporter for the Las Vegas Sun. It seems unlikely Radin would ridicule his own work and himself) but others don't. How can I do this through the proper channels? Obviously no one can make everyone happy. Please reply User:Kazuba 13 Aug 2007

I don't know the basis for this dispute. Generally if your edits to articles are opposed by other editors you can use either the request for comment or third opinion process to solicit opinions from other editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback wiki-lawyering

Hi, it's me again. As you may recall, my RfCs on Dking and Cberlet were shut down by Will Beback and El C on the grounds that I didn't go for mediation first, and that therefore the requirement for prior attempts to resolve the conflict had not been met.[47]] So, now another editor has launched Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and Will Beback is arguing that "a user RfC would be a better venue than mediation." He is also claiming that user conduct is an inappropriate topic for mediation (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles.) I am getting the distinct impression here that Will Beback is determined to block any discussion of Cberlet's behavior. Any advice? --Marvin Diode 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have tried all the prior steps so a request for arbitration might be next. An effective request will briefly lay out your concerns, with some diffs of disruptive edits, and you should point out the attempts to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by deleting the RfCs and now opposing mediation. Your own conduct will be examined as well if you take this route, of course. Thatcher131 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Marvin Diode 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you blocked me?

Hi I'm not being funny, but I was just logged in to a shared computer in the library, and you blocked me for looking at first-order logic. I didn't even edit anything. Luckily there's another computer next to that one (which apparently must have a different IP address), but if this wasn't here I wouldn't be able to edit should I wish to. I think you are a little too quick to block people, first-order logic isn't illegal or anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.32.176.6 (talk) 16:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Someone from that IP address was vandalizing the user and talk page of another editor. I have no way of knowing where the IP address is physically located. You can read articles but are blocked from editing. I will change the block to a form that allows registered users to log in and edit but I am not comfortable opening it up to anonymous editing so soon after the vandalism. Thatcher131 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

It seems that when I was in a short break, some admin has declared User:Azizbekov as sock, but what was very disappointing for me, was the comments of some users about me in your talk page. I was accused of supporting him/her and then a link about my sole block in three months ago (which was after a dispute content with Jayjg, completely unrelated to the subject of this dispute or the articles that these users have ever worked on) was given for the third time in an unrelated discussion, with a biased tone. Despite the fact that I was the one who reverted the Azizbekov in his first day of contributions [48] and did revert him two times more in coming days [49][50] and even gave him a warning about edit-warring (User_talk:Azizbekov#3rr). But, it seems reverting edits of another user (apparently another sock) who blanked/vandalized several articles (which one of them was always in my watch list); make enough justification of my support to the banned user. I even left a message in his talk page (User talk:Harayarah) and suggested him to nominate that article for deletion and gave my advanced support for the incoming AfD...

Days by day, I am getting more disappointed by this open system which turn a blind eye to almost every apparent abuse ...--Pejman47 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty

Hello, I think Tbeatty might be having a grudge against me still. Calbaer made some false charges against me on Tbeatty's page, that I called him Gay, and when I answered them, Tbeatty erased them. This is not right! Tbeatty made trouble for me last night, and lost, and now he's doing it again. It is in no way fair or correct for him to erase my answer to Calbaers false charges! Please talk to him and ask him to just leave me be! Here is the 'diff'. Link Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Users are free to remove comments from their own talk pages. If he took the time to remove them then he had the opportunity to read them. Thatcher131 11:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

In the BJAODN case, you make several references to the "undeletion policy". I think I should point out that this was merged into the "deletion policy" several months ago. >Radiant< 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

user:AlexanderPar

I have left comment on ANI and on page of one of Arbcom members. No results. Please check contributions of user:AlexanderPar. He is involved in this arbcom [51] After a break he returned back and aggresively rv'ing without discussion to meatpuppet user:Hajji Piruz edits : see his contribs [52]. --Dacy69 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Refactoring

Just a quick note to say thanks for interveining in the refactoring talk pages stuff, it really saves us such a lot of time and trouble, i'm sure your comments will do the trick, i dont think it will take extreme punative measures. It must have taken a fair amount of time for you to sift through all those edits to sort out for yourself what was going on, and not everyone took the time to do that so thanks for getting to the bottom of it ;) WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems I may have been wrong about normal peacefull editing continuing. I belive cuddlyable3 by an IP has just made another WP:RPA revert. here. My reasoning is that this IP user has signed some of their other contributions as User:Cuddlyable3 in the past and equally the IP editor seems to be active on the same articles as cuddly. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. Keep me posted. Thatcher131 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good evening Thatcher131. You have brought dispute to my page in the form of a threat to block me. Should you read my announcement at the top of my page you will understand why I remove such posts. Should you investigate what you are being told by WikipedianProlific you will I trust reach an informed conclusion. Please take time to do so. Perhaps in the process we may get to know each other better. Cuddlyable3 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All the posts I cited from Greglocock were (can be found) somewhere on on illegal_prime:talk. They were exclusively disparaging to the existence of the article, not encouraged by any other posters, and culminated in pure vandalism. I believe JoshuaZ looked into the matter properly whereas you have only picked it up recently in the wake of agitation on a different matter. FYI(1) I post in my own name that you see here. FYI(2) "competitive urination" corresponds to a crude phrase not introduced by me.Cuddlyable3 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for you to take action against someone for comments posted months ago directed at other users. This particular exhange [53] was in some measure perpetuated by you, as you replied "put up or shut up" in response to his joke, which even I understood as a joke, and I am not a mathematician. I believe you misrepresented the situation to JoshuaZ, and I have asked him to review the situation again. You should continue to rely on him, and ignore myself, Isotope23 and Hu12 (all admins) at your peril. Thatcher131 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't people just comply with admins eh? --> here he goes again with another WP:RPA revert of the fuel injection page. That WP:RPA essay is turning out to be a really nasty bit of vandal ammunition, despite saying at the top it isn't policy, oh well, thanks again for your time on all this. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked him. Thatcher131 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to WikipedianProlific's for your rapid drama-minimising assistance. I fear we probably haven't seen the last of this sort of behaviour from Cuddlyable3...he seems to exhibit some of the behavioural hallmarks I've seen in others before who persistently flout the rules and consider themselves exempt from Wikipedia policy. Hope I'm wrong. Thanks again! --Scheinwerfermann 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

I can't find the ANI thread that you mentioned. JoshuaZ 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive deletion?

Hey. This looks like an excessive deletion. There does seem to be an OR problem with the article but I assume more of it than "Dunin's descendants were eventually able to escape Poland to France and finally to the United States in the 1940s." is sourced to "Engagement of Countess Revealed", Detroit Times, April 23, 1957, which seems a valid ref. As I can't review that source, I don't know but I suggest the content be restored so the notability of the topic can be thoroughly evaluated during the AfD. WjBscribe 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But if you look, everything except the engagement and his name in a list of medal winners is sourced to Elonka's family history web site. Thatcher131 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being able to read the Detroit Times article, I don't know how much is sourced to that. Our policy does not require every sentence to have an inline citation, just the content as a whole to be sourced. Inline citations just make it easier to check. WjBscribe 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I suspect it is a generic society engagement article until proven otherwise. Significant informationt that might improve this article would be, exactly what did he do to get the decoration--how was he valorous? All we have is his name on a list and he is either one of 200 4th class winners or one of 5000 5th class winners. Nothing comes up in the Proquest database of historical newspapers (8 major newspapers like the NYT, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc, but unfortunately nothing from Detroit.) Thatcher131 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WJ, you are wrong, as I have explained on your talk. Thats not what the reference says. There are no non-trivial reliable sources for this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, would you be willing to take a look at Stanley Dunin, as well?Proabivouac 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ebonyskye

Just to let you know this user contested his block. I declined it on your and Durova's comments, but if you want to drop him a note that'd be nice :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate Arbitration

Hello, Thatcher131. I never know if I should reply on my own talk page or on the page of the editor who left me the message, so I'll do both! I just wanted to thank you for the reminder regarding the arbitration decision. I made two quick edits to remove inappropriate, unreliably sourced content from the Darklore Manor article, then remembered that I wasn't supposed to be doing that, so I stopped. Sorry about that - it won't happen again. - Skinny McGee 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Way out of line!

Thatcher! What has gotten into you lately? This edit is absolutely not the kind of "calming" comment that I am used to seeing from you. Seriously...the last part of the comment where you attribute characteristics to Mr. Moore are really surprising...come on man. The discussion is closed now, but seriously...you're only adding meat to the potatoes with that stuff.--MONGO 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I'm trying to figure out how to do this…I downloaded ircle, but it told me my shareware registration had expired (I tried IRC once awhile back.) My e-mail is enabled, though.Proabivouac 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher131, thanks for your mail; I've responded.Proabivouac 01:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Thank you for closing the discussion with a reasonable closing note. I agree, that discussion got far to heated for AN/I. I hope such matters can be handled better in the future.--Jersey Devil 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I specifically noted the requests for a better note and for someone besides El_C to do it, so I took a shot. Maybe it will hold. Thatcher131 04:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I too support your closure. Let the powers-that-be investigate it now. --John 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think civil (which this seems to have been) public discussion about such things is helpful. Trying to stifle discussion usually seems like a bad idea to me and often makes things worse. My inclination would be to re-open the discussion and let it die a natural death. Paul August ☎ 04:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not consent to my closing comment vanishing, however. Feel free to remove your own comments. El_C 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. If it's not closed there's no need for a closing comment. I didn't think of putting it back somewhere. Feel free if it is important to you. Thatcher131 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, however, expect some more independent-thinking on your part, I do have to confess that. You are an ArbComm clerk, not cleric. El_C 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I also thought of Paul August as being one the best arbitrators we have, not one that gives in to such things. Oh well, live and learn. El_C 06:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) I respect his opinion, and the main reason I closed the discussion is that some people seemed to want it closed but objected to having you do it (for some silly reason, I didn't see an "attack" in your statement); (B) I have retired from clerking.

This is the second "I thought you were better than that" comment in two days; I must be losing my touch, or my grip, or something... Thatcher131 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to comment. El_C 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher and EL_C: I've written a preamble and which also restored both of your comments. I hope neither of you mind. I respect both of you, and I'm sorry that there is any disagreement among us about the merits of leaving this discussion open. There is a delicate balance of concerns here, and there are good arguments on either side. In my humble opinion allowing this to be discussed openly is better than trying to suppress discussion. I might be wrong. Paul August ☎ 06:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are. The Arbitration Committee should have conducted its own investigation, first, then upon disclosing its preliminary findings, we'd have this open discussion. I am disappointed that seeming persecution is passed as open debate. El_C 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that possibility was foreclosed by Cyde's block and announcement. Do you think that if the second post to the thread was Arbcom saying (in substance) "shut up while we talk about it in private" that it would have gone away? Thatcher131 11:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree EL_C, that the scenario you describe would have been best. But that wasn't a possibility once the discussion had reached the point it had. Cyde bears the responsibility for that. As it turns out the discussion has, I hope, now died the "natural death" I was hoping for above. As for the point about persecution, in my opinion, that is usually best dealt with by confronting it head on, which I think several interlocutors have done — the best response to "bad" speech is more speech. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that if members of the Committee weren't so equivocal (i.e. were able to organize so as to put on a united front for a brief time out, as well as note possible censure for disruption for the attack-site-citing author of the thread), it could have been. I'm not sure what that bad speech — more speech mantra is based on, but we should not feed disruption, we ought to deny it as a matter of principle and work ethic. El_C 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I Followup

You wrote in part:

Let me say that I have made more than one sockpuppeteer furious at me, and I have left enough clues that a determined person could figure out who I am. The first phone call or email I get, I'm retired, poof, adios. My respect in the community (if I have any), my admin status, my clean block log--none of that is worth one minute of grief in real life.

About three weeks ago, I spent 45 minutes in the middle of the workday on the phone with someone I blocked, who looked me up and tried to intimidate me into unblocking and making content changes. They'd called Mike Godwin first... It was an interesting day.

The project is worth taking some grief in Real Life. The way to deal with nuts who think that mere outing or real life intimidation attempts will work to change Wikipedia is to stare them right in the face and say "no".

Hiding behind the pseudonym and being willing to retire it if pressed is putting yourself at their mercy. They don't deserve to have any power over you. Georgewilliamherbert 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. I choose not to have to explain myself to my boss (even though it would not matter one whit in my particular situation) or to my wife, who thinks I spend too much time on line as it is. There's always the possibility that I would come back with a less-traceable account name, although the quick sysopping route used by 1=2 and Gaillimh obviously doesn't work as intended, so I would have to be a real newbie all over again... Thatcher131 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to deal with the hassle, but to me, it just ends up that it's worth it to accept the risks. It's your life to chose your path through, but I think I sleep easier knowing that I'm in the position to stand firm and say no if it comes to that.

This is part of why I advocate people not using pseudonyms, or at least not hiding their identity. I find it empowering.

Anyways... it is your choice. If you ever find yourself wanting to talk about life on the other side of the choice, drop me a talk page message or email. Georgewilliamherbert 06:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Thatcher's position is understandable, but it also leaves Wikipedia vulnerable to manipulation from outside forces. That is what disturbs me about this AN/I, as it is a product of a very slick and professional smear campaign. So it's an understandable choice and I concur with it, but very bad for the project. Wikipedia can respond by either saying "tough luck" to its volunteers when victimized, or standing by them. The choice lately has been to say "tough luck."--Mantanmoreland 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it makes individual editors vulnerable to manipulation but not the whole project. But this has always been true. An admin was desysopped for making improper edits because someone threatened to reveal personal info. Admins who were theoretically anonymous have been outed and subjected to trolling and threats, and not just SV. Individuals choose and then make the best of their choices. Thatcher131 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My head hurts

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:White_Cat_.2F_User:Cool_Cat_sig_changes.2Fpage_moves_again

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_%2801%29&action=history
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_%2802%29&action=history
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_%2803%29&action=history
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_%2804%29&action=history

I thought after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott people would finally leave me alone... A few elite set of users are the root of the problem.

This isn't even about sigs anymore.

This edit particularly bothers me intensely. It was the first and last edit of the user since the 14th as of this post. This isn't the first time user made such sneaky reverts.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank ye

18:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work — Shall we have a retirement party?

Please see my comments here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Retirement. Paul August ☎ 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons/Archive4

I accidentally put some text there. I was trying to archive something in my sandbox and I was copying and pasting back and forth between windows and just plain screwed up. Delete it or leave it if you wish. Sorry! Ward20 05:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's no big deal. Actually, it could still be used as a sandbox for practice edits. I just didn't want people to get confused because it looks like a real article. Thatcher131 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Badgering other users

Can you take a look at WP:COI/N#Sicko and provide your two cents about whether Raphael1 and 7ofDiamonds are slipping into tendentiousness by repeating over and over COI allegations that every neutral editor has rejected, including repeatedly making false factual statements about me that are rebutted in the thread? The COI guideline prohibits conflicts of interest, not points of view, and 7 of Diamonds has stated that he will continue to attack me for COI even if I am cleared of the allegations. THF 13:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I did? I came here oddly to ask Thatcher why so many people enjoy drama and find you making false statement, what a surprise. What I said is that people see you as having a COI will treat you that way.[54] I do not even edit the Sicko article, your flare for the dramatic is impeccable. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally am uneasy when people contribute to articles where they have previously expressed strong off-wiki views. For example, journalist Chip Berlet is the most heavily cited source at Lyndon LaRouche; he also edits the article as User:Cberlet, and fellow journalist User:Dking is alleged to have edit-warred over the inclusion of his personal anti-LaRouche web site as an external link. Certainly experts are encouraged to contribute in areas where they have expertise, but I believe appropriate levels of caution and deference to non-involved editors do not always exist. I suspect that if I examined this situation I would find plenty of blame on all sides, and I would probably recommend that all involved editors lay off for a while and seek some informal mediation or counseling. Right now I don't have the time, though, to do this myself. Thatcher131 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Since even my Arbitration has turned into a political circus. I have decided to leave Wikipedia. I am interested in watching how the soap opera unfolds however. I ask you post my evidence when it opens. [55] [56] Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to call it a circus, it hasn't even started yet. There is that potential, though. I'll have a current clerk post your evidence. Thatcher131 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The /Arbcom page is over 5000 words; they ask evidence to be kept to 1000 words if possible. Can you trim it to the essentials? Diffs speak louder than arguments. Thatcher131 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not think I can. There is an argument being presented that needs to be fleshed out. If they choose not to read it I do not care. I will be abandoning editing Wikipedia if I given anything short of an apology. I contributed what I feel was quite a significant amount of work for the little time I have been here. The politics of this place has been detrimental to what I can offer the people coming to Wikipedia to learn. If Arbitrators have a problem with examining evidence in full, then they should not have taken the positions they have. It is easy to say Mark and Jacob both say "X" it is not as easy to prove why looking at those issues breeds false implications. To argue against 1000 words in less than 1000, is quite difficult and I have spent much too much time on this political event. I am going to go edit some articles now without a username, where I can do so in peace and place this game behind me. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he is concerned about the possibility of Bmedley being tossed into the ring on his arbcom, which I would prefer not to see as well. If Bmedley needs to be resolved by arbcom, I would rather it be a standalone case between the two of us, or a reopening of the FreeRepublic arbitration, and I would intend to open up what happened at my RfA, and request that I be immediately sysopped as one of the remedies. I think this would definitely turn into a circus if it was shoved into Seven's proceeding. I can't say that I am not very far behind Seven in a decision to leave Wikipedia, at this point. - Crockspot 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While I was quite weary of your comments, I hope you do not leave. I believe you are more resilient to the drama posed here, however I am a bit too old for it. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no spring chicken myself, and Wikipedia is quickly becoming not worth the angina it causes. - Crockspot 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)