User talk:Thatcher/Archive5

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Your RfA

After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA to match when the RfA is posted to WP:RFA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 18:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: earlier discussion: If you want to post it to RfA tonight after you've completed everything, feel free. You need not wait until Friday. Up to you. --Durin 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll see it's up now. Thanks for a terrific nom, and I hope I never disappoint you. Thatcher131 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt you will. You've gained quite a reputation for yourself here as a fantastic contributor to this project. Your RfA is off to a swimming start at ~~12-0~~ 16-0. I think you can relax now, and not worry about your RfA being a meat grinder. :) --Durin 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thatcher131 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like this is going to more stressful than it should be. For what its worth, I think your comment that Rory cited was spot on. SPUI is a divisive editor with a loooong history of blocks to his name. That he was blocked three times under the related ArbCom ruling should shed all the light necessary for someone to understand the context under which that comment was made. You were spot on. I've made similar comments to people before, doing so as a last resort to calm a situation down. 99 times out of 100 I'll use water, but sometimes fire is needed. Your application of fire in this case was spot on.
Neverthless, I am concerned this could torpedo the nomination because behavior at RfA is typically to pile on oppose votes if someone finds a single diff that is disturbing. We were at 21-0 before Rory's comment. Since then, we've had 6 supports and 7 (now) 6 opposes. I've contacted four oppose voters to reconsider their comments (example). One has changed from oppose to neutral. I only contacted those whose basis was just Rory's comment, as this is precisely the sort of pile-on vote that will happen. --Durin 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to being somewhat bemused at the comments of pschemp and freak that I am too much a stickler for process, given the recent feelings on the noticeboards that too many admins are ignoring process. One thing is for certain, though. I am who I am (which means, in part, having an advanced degree and a child older than a member of Arbcom), and if I don't have the temprement to be a Wikipedia admin today, I never will. I appreciate you (and JoshuaZ) defending me so vigorously and so well, and let's see where process takes us tomorrow. Thatcher131 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would appear our defense has given something for people to chew on. Since my comments above where the voting had gone 6-6, it's now gone 10-1. I think it's quite clear how the comments were misconstrued by Rory. --Durin 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that your RFA is not going as smoothly as anticipated. I had some very negative comments on my RFA but was promoted with 93% when it was all said and done. Respond politely using good logic and you will persuade some users to support you that might have not otherwise. --FloNight 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've said about all I can say on the current issue without appearing combatitive. If anything else comes up I will definitely respond with care and thought. Thatcher131 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You're one of less than 5% of all admins who have had at least 100 people in support of their RfAs. :) Looks like things are going pretty well now on the RfA. It's certainly not over, but I think you can relax. Opposition comments have been slow in coming over the last two days. --Durin 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the WP:100 isn't what is used to be :) . Three more days. Thatcher131 05:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the time period for the RfA to close has officially ended. It's currenly at 117-25. Though, five of those oppose votes came just today, much to my surprise. The RfA should clearly be in the "pass" realm. I'm sorry this became such a meat grinder for you. I tried my best to find everything I could that might create problems for you in the RfA and I feel as though I let you down in not finding the cite that Rory noted, and addressing it before the RfA was made and handed off to you. My apologies. Hoping that its not premature, congratulations on becoming an admin! I am quite positive you will be a fantastic admin. I expect I'll see you with checkuser rights sometime within the next year too. --Durin 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for nominating, supporting and defending me. It certainly has been a stressful 7 days but I don't blame you for that. Everyone sees things through their own eyes, so I'm not surprised someone found something negative to focus on. I am curious, to say the least, about the 5 opposes that all came in in the last few hours, within a few minutes of each other. But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Thanks again, and I'll see you around the neighborhood. Thatcher131 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo's subpage

FYI, here's an archived version of Terryeo's page that has been deleted as an attack page. [1]

Versions of that page were up for a long while: he initially listed "suppressive person" editors, then changed it to "critical person" editors when somebody threatend to delete the page. I haven't followed it closely enough to know whether there were significant changes between the archived version and the one just deleted--at least, this gives you the flavor of the thing. --BTfromLA 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline to look at that for now, as I'm pretty tired and preoccupied with another matter. In general, a listing of "unhelpful" editors with diffs would be ok with me, but labeling them SPs is definitely a personal attack, since SP has a specific and highly loaded meaning within the CoS. I'm pretty sure "black hats" is in the same category, but it's been so long since I dealt with CoS issues that I don't remember the details. (I was active on a.r.s. during the Dennis Ehrlich/SCAMIZDAT era.) In general, statements about an editor's editing record should be ok no matter who is making them, but personal characterizations and assigning motive ("you oppose me because you are a ______") ought not to be tolerated. Thatcher131 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Squeakbox and Hagiographer

Hi, sorry it took so long apparently there hasn't been enough attention on WP:PAIN. But what you reported seems like a very debatable issue, maybe this is why it was allowed to stay unattended for so long. Has the issue been resolved by now? If not I recommend moving the report to WP:AN/I where it can be properly discussed, the WP:PAIN is really for more obvious personal attacks not needing discussions as far as I see it. Cheers.--Konstable 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Thatcher131 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographer and MJGR are the same editor, so all remedies should apply to both. The evidence that MJGR was behind the Zapatero/Zapatancas attacks is no better or worse than it was for Hagiographer - that is, a geographic correspondence, but nothing more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just extend, but you could always bring it to the noticeboard as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom appeal

Thanks for getting in touch. If I was sure that Dmcdevit was going to recuse (as he most definitely should), then I would remove that section. But as he attacked my first appeal without declaring his involvement, I felt I had to spell it out. David | Talk 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden Notice

Just a heads up that the arbcom notice you are using links to Requests for adminship instead of Requests for Arbitration. Geedubber 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. Thatcher131 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add specific comments to cleanup tag

Hi Thatcher131 (talk),

I believe your specific comments for the cleanup of the article Commitment ordering have been met by 8 September 2006 (UTC).

The tag that you have put in the article is now too vague to provide guidance, and requests the addition of more specific comments, if needed. Please advise. Thank you.

CC: Article discussion

Comps 12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text

RfC Help Please

Would it be at all possible for you to assist with the format for this entry from approx a couple weeks back which you removed for incorrect format:

Vendar

- User:Vendar aka User:71.56.142.123 - :Appears to be trying to remove all references to (former?) partners Blue Blood from multiple Wiki entries. Already been reverted in some places by User:Stormie More contributions from this user have now been reverted by User:Iamcuriousblue

Tried my best to get it correct, but never had to do this before. Help from someone more experienced would be wonderful. 24.127.62.7 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I created the RFC page for you; the full page name is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vendar. You need to fill in the sections on Statement of the dispute including a basic description, evidence (diff links from the contribution history showing disputed behavior), and indicate which policies you think have been violated. Then sign the statement, after which you can list it on the RFC page. You should notify people on their talk pages, both Vendar and people who you think might support your view.
It seems this is not yet a serious enough problem for an RFC. The two accounts only have a couple dozen edits, and Vendar's talk page is blank, so it looks like there has been no effort to discuss the issue prior to filing the RFC. Without some effort at conversation, it may not get much support or the second certification it needs. If you have tried to discuss the issues with Vendar on the article talk pages, rather than just reverting, you should mention this in the section "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute." Good luck. Thatcher131 11:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I checked the history of the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser page and hadn't seen any contributions from UninvitedCompany in the past 500 edits on the page and thought it was a case of vandalism. I didn't realize he was a checkuser who was going to fill in. Thanks for the revert. Neil916 (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. These days most of the checkuser edits are on the /Case subpages; the main page is mostly edited by requesters and clerks. Easy mistake. Thatcher131 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. Normally I inform new Admins of the useful forums, but in your case I believe the list is unnecessary, being that you are already acquainted with the Admin-related forums.
Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge. Redux 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try not to embarass myself ;) Thatcher131 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket RFA thanks

Thanks for commenting on my successful RFA. If you supported me, I can never sufficiently express my appreciation. If you opposed me, I have taken your comments into consideration and I will do my best to earn your trust and respect in the future. Thatcher131 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Guinnog 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Thatch! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Congrats! Naconkantari 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, now run over and help us with the CSD which has a backlog. :) JoshuaZ 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for becoming admins. Daniel's page ☎ 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now go and block those checkuser identified sockpuppets. --Kevin_b_er 03:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, 2 hours and I have a Honey-do list here, too! Thatcher131 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, Kevin, I went over to CSD to try out the new tools and found an article tagged as nonsense that needed to be worked on instead, so there! Thatcher131 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your honey-do list! -- *nae'blis* 22:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the success of your re-adminship application. Like all reapplications, you ran into all that opposition you built up during your previous admin tenure as well as the general presumption that admins are corrupt. But hey, you made it :).
What, it wasn't a readminship? Well, it sure felt like one ;). NoSeptember 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a little wierd. Thanks for supporting me. Thatcher131 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Sockpuppets beware, Thatcher is about! ;) --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats indeed on your well-deserved RfA. Happy editing. Jonathunder 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congratulations and all the best! If you ever need anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Syrthiss 12:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! You trying to set a record for most active new admin or something? :) Good show! --Durin 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing with the buttons. Thatcher131 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Now get back to work! Bucketsofg✐ 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and enjoy your promotion! JungleCat talk/contrib 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to offer you my humble congrats on your recent success. Enjoy your new tools and hope that you would point out my editing mistakes from time to time. All the best for the future and hope to hear from you soon! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Thatcher! Have fun with your new tools! --Nishkid64 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I join in the congratulations. Also, thanks for the note you left on my page. As for the last line of said note ... we'll talk sometime. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath The Gun

Hi, I noticed that you just pulled the speedy off of Underneath The Gun, a deathcore metal band, on the grounds that the group had released one album on a label. I didn't add that speedy, but I was looking into that claim at the exact same time. If you click on the band's website, it's clear the "label" is their own (it has produced no other acts, nor does it appear to be distributed). This looks to be the standard stick-our-band-up-there article, just a little better formatted than most. I think there's no real assertion of notability here and that the speedy was appropriate, both for this and for the article on what is, admittedly, their demo ("You Prepare the Bodies, I'll Get the Ice"}.

Congratulations on your adminship, by the way. --Pleather 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are quite possibly correct. My philosophy (developed at AfD and elsewhere even though I am obviously a new admin) is to be very conservative with A7 claims, which are the most troublesome and most often misused. If you tag it again, maybe use db-reason and explain that the EP is self-published and not distributed, another admin will very likely delete it. Until I get more experience I will probably be more conservative than most. Thanks for the feedback! Thatcher131 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Brad/Foundation contact

On the talk page of WP:CHILD, you mentioned that you were going to email Brad Patrick about the proposal. Radiant has been questioning whether you actually did. Would it be possible to stop by the talk page and clarify? Captainktainer * Talk 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okely dokely. Thatcher131 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Parsons

Hi there; no, leave it in. When I tagged it, some five minutes after the title was saved, it contained no text. Perhaps he had to go make the coffee.--Anthony.bradbury 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wikifying the opening (only) sentence and I edit-conflicted with the second paragraph. Thatcher131 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments don't belong here

Warning: Please do not make personal attacks on other editors, such as this one [2]. You were advised on LindaWarheads' talk page that you should not be using active categories in your sandbox pages. While it would have been nicer if she had asked you to change it first, that does not justify continuing to bother her days later. Please leave the personal out of it. Thatcher131 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the victim and not the instigator.

Remove this garbage. This serves no useful purpose to better any article. Others keep restoring this for unknown reasons.

GrumpyAC 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little warhead has done nothing constructive either. I took the issue to the instigator and kept the topic current on that talk page. Should I clutter this page with that garbage also?

The term "blame the pencil for spelling errors" is used in my world to denote people that can't find the truth when it stares you in the eye.

I don’t have time for chit-chat debates nor ‘flame wars’. I’m trying to create informational source in hostile PC territory.

GrumpyAC 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think there is very little value in repeatedly restoring warnings, and I wish people wouldn't do it. There is a discontinuity between the user talk page guidelines and the vandalism guidelines, with vandalism patrollers keen to make sure warnings can not be removed. You obviously saw it; that's enough for me.

From what I saw, she was technically correct to remove the active categories from your sandbox articles. Encylopedia categories should not lead into user space. I would have asked first, and I would expect that someone would ask me before editing in my space. However, that does not justify additional remarks of a personal nature. LindaWarheads posted a vandalism complaint to intervention against vandalism. Your remark was not vandalism but it was unnecessarily personal. I suggest leaving her alone from now on, and if she continues to instigate against you, you could drop me a note and I will look into it or ask for comment on the administrators noticeboard. I suppose I should remove the warning for you to prevent more conflicts with overzealous patrollers. Thatcher131 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 Your a good one.

Keep up the pace. I like that term; overzealous patrollers. I seem to have attracted a few. At least they have kept their crayons in the box and limited themselves to tiny errors.

GrumpyAC 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warn Templates

OK I will use them from now on --Kyle G 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for going easy on User:80.6.32.80 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It seemed excessive to list a new user for changing spellings from one acceptable version to another. Cordless Larry 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV

Usually when there are a lot of autoblocks attributed to the same user, it means that user was editing from a IP range (e.g. AOL proxies) and those autoblocks are going to cause a lot of collateral damage (of which I'll usually remove those autoblocks). If only a handful of autoblocks are attributed to the same user then I'll usually not remove unless an unblock request coming from an established user to remove an autoblock that is affecting him/her.--WinHunter ^(talk) 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out with the backlog

Hi there and congratulations on your brand new sysop flag. Now that you are an admin, you might want to help the community in a way you weren't able to before. The obvious example is clearing out the Category:Administrative backlog :-) You might want to start with Wikipedia:Requested moves which I find the easiest to deal with. You don't need to spend a lot of time there, if every admin (we have 1000 of us!) spent just 1 minute a day clearing backlogs, we'd have no backlogs at all! If you have any questions, just drop me a note! Enjoy! :-) --Dijxtra 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

Hey, your apology is accepted. Pity you ruined my empty block log though ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the best mistake to make as a new admin heh. :P – Ch acor 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes those buttons are slippery. Thatcher131 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least you noticed immediately and fixed it. No real harm done.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, and to think I "strongly supported" this guy. :) Newyorkbrad 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting versions

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

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

For example:

Delete User:Thatcher131

Undelete one or more edits

Move the page to User:Thatcher131/delete

Delete User:Thatcher131/delete

Undelete User:Thatcher131

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

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

Move User:Thatcher131 to User:Thatcher131/temp

Delete User:Thatcher131/temp

Undelete one or more edits

Move the page to User:Thatcher131/delete

Delete User:Thatcher131/delete

Undelete User:Thatcher131/temp

Move User:Thatcher131/temp back to User:Thatcher131

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

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

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

Reply

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

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

I always do.. and have done, using sources such as BBC, VH1, Amazon, Walmart, The Guardian, Wikipedia, About.com, Quizilla, All Music Guide, iTunes, MTV, eMusic, AOL, Windows Media Player, Yahoo!, Musicmatch Jukebox and others... those are some of the sources Evenfiel blanked along with over 30% of the article.[3]

I try to make sure, not to violate any revert policies. And outside of making one revert, I only remove edits which fall under simple vandalism such as And as for Tony Fox, he is hardly a neutral party. [4] As the two have exchanged messaged and become friends a few days ago. Of course he is going to agree on such a stance.article blanking, spam, etc .. which in the official editing policy it states, is an outlined exception to the revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert.

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the third edit wasn't just a direct revert of simple vandalism[6]... please check different versions before making an incorrect asumption. I had also stated in the edit summary "..adding some information provided by Evenfiel on the talkpage".

And as for Tony Fox, he is hardly a neutral party. [7] As the two have exchanged messaged and become friends a few days ago. Of course he is going to agree on such a stance. I was just going by what is stated in the official editing policy.. yet I am been made out to be the party in the wrong here for trying to follow it?.. the edits you are refering to were blanking of most of the article to previous versions favoured by that editor. Not "trimming down to new variations"... it was removing of other sourced information which had been added (not just refering to Led Zeppelin, either.)

But anyways... regarding the article in question, there shouldn't be anymore problems, I think its sorted out now with a compromise edit... I've agreed on an edit that is trimmed down and doesn't have a header where Led Zeppelin are concerned, but have kept the sources from prominent websites in.[8] So as of that edit it is NPOV but not too long in regards to mentions of the single band. - Deathrocker 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lost

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

Weill Cornell Photo

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

Regarding RFCU

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

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

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

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

Overdue thanks

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

User:Mrpainkiller7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you take a few moments to review the request for investigation?[9] I've expanded on it a little. Probably nothing you haven't seen yet, but it might clarify some things for all involved and can't be a bad thing. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Partly, be nice is in my general repertoire of responses. I posted the same message to all of you, although the advice may be more needed in some corners than others. I have not reviewed the history of the article, but apparently what set of Mrpainkiller's vandalism was your and Neurophyre's editing his talk page to reinstate your warnings. You did it twice (actually, the comment you added here [10] is quite good), Neurophyre did it a lot more. If you (but mostly Neurophyre, it seems) were not so gung-ho on forcing Mrpainkiller to display your warnings, he might never have turned around to obvious vandalism of your user pages. In fact, if Neurophyre had used a proper edit summary, there would be no need to revert the warnings [11] because it could have been said in a verbose edit summary that no blanking could remove.

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

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

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

I expect you saw this comment [12] I made on Jean-Philippe's talk page so I will just add, it is not vandalism to remove warnings from one's own talk page but it may be vandalism, and certainly is edit warring, to fight over keeping them there, no matter what the templates say. I understand you did this in good faith based on the templates but now you know better, so don't do it again. Keep the warnings on the article talk page where it really will be vandalism if he removes them. Please use one of the dispute resolution methods to solve this problem. Thatcher131 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shivers & Buell

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

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

Tom Meny

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intangible

Hi, I posted this on User talk:Intangible. In all three articles, I've done some suggestions, which Intangible didn't agree with, so I asked him to come forward with suggestions of his own. He doesn't seem to respond, leaving the discussion in a deadlock.

I'm a bit wary in implementing my suggestions if Intangible refuses to discuss any further, with all the talk about reopening the ArbCom case and involving me in it. It's not a good time to make mistakes... --LucVerhelst 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfcua

I was looking at your User contributions page (to see if you were active at the moment), and I noticed you tried to change Template:Rfcua.

What went wrong is that you mistyped the first tag of <noinclude></noinclude>. You typed <nocinclude>, with an extra "c" after "no".

(You also might want to put the category at the top of the page, since the template doesn't seem to have a noinclude end tag.)

Hope you don't mind this intrusion ? --LucVerhelst 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The template itself needs an unclosed noinclude; it's closed by {{Rfcub}} at the bottom of the closed checkuser case, so even if I had spelled it right I would have broken it. I'll see if putting the statement at the top works. Thanks for the suggestion. Thatcher131 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi Zhdripi

I just proposed an outright ban. This guy is just going too far. Thanks again, Asterion^talk 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to stay out of the case so I can be neutral on the arbitration enforcement page, but I'll keep my eye on the case. Thanks. Thatcher131 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand that. Asterion^talk 12:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on episode lists

Are fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with.

I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:

Well I personally think they improve the article, and I've followed certain Featured List Candidates involving fair use images, and opposers have always stated that images should be in relation to the text, much like any other image, and not there for decorative purposes. H ig hway ^Daytrippers 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the images, and so many articles have it, I think it's accepted. —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images.

We are also having problems with the Template:Pokepisode , but the two users above are using Template:Pokepisode 78893179. Note not all of the images are on one page, A Man in Balck seperated the pages into six seperate pages so mostly all of the images are up to 20 - 30 a page.

Please note the difference:

Without images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_episodes_%28season_1%29

With images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobabobabo/works&oldid=78493055

Please help me.

(Yugigx60 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In my opinion, no they are not and stop spamming me. I have answered in more detail on WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Cheers. Thatcher131 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yugigx60

Please make him stop. Ryūlóng 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

00:45, 2 October 2006 A Man In Black (Talk | contribs) blocked "72.177.68.38 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Inveterate edit warrior)

You've been blocked for carrying on a one-man crusade against the consensus at WT:PCP. I've only blocked anonymous edits from this IP, however; if you want to log into one of your two usernames and discuss this at WT:PCP, you are free to do so. Edit warring while logged in, however, will lead only to that username being blocked as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not my business, but it isn't the consensus of the PCP, it's the consensus of A Man In Black. There isn't a discussion about images at all. H ig hway ^Daytrippers 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion about images, I am content to let others work out a solution. Yugigx60 is being extremely disruptive, from edit warring to spamming talk pages to revert warring on his checkuser case page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bobabobabo and I am not going to allow that to continue. There are many appropriate ways to discuss inclusion of images and he needs to learn to use the processes correctly without disruption. Thatcher131 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that full well. But AMIB is partially at fault here too, he's blaming the new user for breaching PCP consensus, when it boils down, it's just his opinion of the article. H ig hway ^Daytrippers 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he hadn't first spammed me and then started disrupting the checkuser page, I never would have known about it one way or the other. If you think AMIB has acted inappropriately you have options as well (mediation, RFC). Looking at the arbitration case on Highways naming as a guide, I would say that picking one format and sticking with it, while discussing alternatives, is much preferred over warring over the alternatives, even if the version that you get "stuck with" during discussion is not the one you prefer. Thatcher131 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, the point I was trying to make is that everything isn't clear cut. H ig hway ^Daytrippers 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: Featured article

		The Lost WikiProject Award
		Thank you for your help stepping in as a replacement mediator at the Lost mediation. You got us through a tough time, and Lost (TV series) is now a main page featured article! --Elonka 00:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case#Z. As mentioned next to "Zephram Stark" entry, an experienced clerk, who knows what the hell is going on in that page, needs to sort out the listing. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 00:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=79227817#Nota_bene. Can you sprotect it from the IP trolling? Daniel .Bryant 11:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section btw. Getting worse... – Ch acor 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not sprotect the whole ANI page so I rangeblocked the troll instead. Seems to be coming from a San Diego dialup with a limited range of IP addresses (if I can trust WHOIS). Let's see what happens next. Thatcher131 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, nice call. By the way, like the new WP:RFCU/A? Daniel .Bryant 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. It doesn't make the page any more functional, and makes adding pages slightly more work. It is prettier, though, and I don't have strong feelings either way. Thatcher131 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new name

You wrote on User:NuclearUmpf/ User:Zer0faults new page:

Regarding your suggestion to have your new name logged privately, you would have to ask an arbitrator (via e-mail I guess, to keep it private). The point of excercises like arbitration is to make it easier for admins to deal with problem users rather than having to go through the whole mediation/RFC/arbitration process all over again only to find out, it's Lightbringer again, or whomever. That can't be done if you don't tell anyone, and new user names avoiding arbitration are the commonest form of garden variety abusive sockpuppets.

With that out of the way, arbitration is also not supposed to be a club to beat you over the head with indefinitely. If you are not contentious and disruptive (at least, no more so than is usually acceptable) then you shouldn't have to deal with other users following you around trying to hang a scarlet letter around your neck all the time. I don't know that Travb is doing that, but I'm willing to look into it. (It can't be until tomorrow night probably.) If you feel your conduct is improved and you are being unfairly targeted, you could also try an editor review to get some opinions on your current behavior and whether Travb is overreacting to you. Hope this helps, and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thatcher131 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to edit under this name and see if Travb continues, if he does I will contact an Arbcom member to see about having it logged privatly. Thank you again for your quick reply and handling. --NuclearUmpf 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thatcher131. I have never met you before today. I have been a wikipedia editor for just a year now. I edit mostly history articles, but am also interested in Russia, Colombia, and sociology articles.

Can I please ask, are you a checkuser? Have you confirmed User:NuclearUmpf is indeed a sockpuppet? I have never done a checkuser like this before. It is only my third checkuser. What happens now?

As you mentioned to User:Zer0faults.

You can look at my bootlog, I have about 7 boots. In each of those case I learned from my mistakes, and changed my behavior, sometimes dramatically. I can even have admins such as User:Duk attest to this. Unfortunatly, I don't see the same willingness to change from User:Zer0faults.

I welcome you looking into my behavior. I do beg that you do keep in mind, that a group of 6 independent admins came to the conclusion that User:Zer0faults should be put on probation for his behavior. After I voted on an AfD which his new sockpuppet filed, he posted an AfD on my newest article, which was quickly closed for what User:Sean Black called "trolling".

I am a little worried with your message to User:NuclearUmpf, I have been very, very careful with User:Zer0faults not to break any rules, because User:Zer0faults has a history, a very long history, of, in my opinion of bullying other users. Sigh...If required, I can get several people, probably a dozen to attest to that opinion, probably including some of the admins who sanctioned him.

I have to admit, I am a little confused, maybe you can help me understand. User:Zer0faults is sanction by 6 admin arbitrators, he then immediatly closes his account and opens up a sockpuppet, he (arguable) does the same tactics which got him sanctioned before, I then report his sockpuppet, and I get investigated.

Thanks for your hardwork and efforts. Best wishes in your investigation of this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hestitate to message or email me.Travb (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Told you he is stalking my page. Its quite annoying. Also noone is investigating you, stop being so paranoid. And finally I was not put on probation for anythnig to do with sockpuppets. Kind of odd you appeared on my AfD after I asked the WP:OR people to take a look at the allegations of state terrorism by the United States page. Real coincidence. Of all the people on Wikipedia, of all the AfD votes, of the fact that you are nto a regular AfD participant either. Your contribution log shows you rarely vote on AfD, how did you manage to find that of all things to vote on? seriously stop it already, stop following me around, stop stalknig my edits. [13]. --NuclearUmpf 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention that in my experience, User:Zer0faults usually has to have the last word in all posts. Sigh.

In regards to stalking, I would suggest you talk to User:Sean Black about User:NuclearUmpf's, "trolling" [[14]]. I will let User:NuclearUmpf have the last word in this matter. Otherwise this converstaion may go on forever.Travb (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the disrespect I am talking about. Also if you look at the DrV [15] you can see that other admins feel Sean Black was out of line. Odd you would say I want to have the last word, yet you replied last ... unfortunatly for you I am not a child and reverse psychology will not prevent from defending myself. --NuclearUmpf 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your block of User:Velten

I should have consulted on WP:AN about the block but I forgot to do so; I've done that just now, in fact (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Velten_blocked). If, after reading my explanation there, you still believe the block should be shortened to one week, then feel free to do that yourself straight away and I won't undo you. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf

I wrote on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf, in response to your message:

OK, I'll close this as no check needed, and I'll list your new name on the arbitration case. I'm making no judgements on either your or Travb's behavior right now, just following up on this particular request. Thatcher131 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, if in fact you are a checkuser admin, I will email you the evidence if necessary. Based on User:NuclearUmpf/User:zer0faults past behavior, I don't want him to know specically what he is doing to allow other users to know it is him, because based on his attitude toward the arbcom, I fear as soon as you reveal he is a sockpuppet, he will simply open another account to avoid the Arbcom ruling. I am not basing this on a hunch, that is all I can or will say in the matter. I can email you the evidence if necessary if you are in fact a checkuser. If needed, I will also e-mail it to the 6 admins who decided the Arbcom if necessary. Again as I mentioned to: User talk:Thatcher131, User:NuclearUmpf/User:Zer0faults always has to have the last word, so unless you respond to me here, or someone else comments here, I won't respond, otherwise this wikipage will get really big. Travb (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Leyasu

I noticed your intervention on my ANI request and thanks. I also noticed your RCU on me. I have absolutely no problem with that. Best to keep things even across the board. I stumbled across the "Leyasu issue" by accident a few months ago. At that time, with the assistance of admin Circeus, several IP socks were tagged. I keep those "Leyasu flavoured" articles on my watchlist. If it's any help, as far as my RCU goes, I had problems with a linkspam troll several weeks back. At that time I had assistance from admin SoothingR. I was accused of IP editing even though the IP's in question were coming from an area 5000 kilometres away from where I live. I posted "unlogged" on SoothingR's talk page so that my IP would be shown. I don't need to do that again...I think...but if it helps I will. As it is, my conversations with SoothingR are still available on his talk page for clarification. I've never been through this process before. Once I am cleared, is it OK for me to rv the disputed article back to the version prior to Fred138's deletions? Also, will "Fred's" accusation against me be removed from ANI? Thanks for your help. Good day! Fair Deal 12:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IM just gonna be straight up here. I didnt realise the Deathrocker issue had gotten so far out of hand. I just saw your cites on the checkuser for me, i didnt even know that he had moved onto to starting on other users now, claiming them to be soley to violate policys. Mostly ive just been keeping eye on the Gothic Metal related articles and the Pandora/Music Genome Project ones. And been reading up on random little knicks and knacks on teh egyptian articles, not suprising considering the theme of my album.

But still, there is a problem here. I dislike the sockpuppetry as much as the next guy, and i erm, only to tend to get bitchy when needs call for it. Now ive been watching over the articles, and ive seen the Fred guy. Now, i dont agree with most of what he says, coz well, its too sorta, biased. But he doesnt seem to be trying to cause a problem, he sources his edits and is going about procedure.

My concern is the way im being made out to be some mystical bad guy. It seems with a certain circle of users, that whenever they want to win an argument, or find an excuse to violate policy, they have gotten it into their heads that they can simply place a sockpuppet tag on any users page, revert several of their edits, and call them a sockpuppet repeatedly. Due to this 'hype', most people havent taken the time to do RFC's, much to my annoyance, which is why im thankfull you did do one.

The articles quality is a concern to me, but right now my prioritys are pretty much set to stamping out this 'Big bad Leyasu', 'Call him Leyasu for the win' attitude. Now, there isnt much i can do from behind a veil of numbers that isnt paticularly incriminating. Though, seeing as youve been the first nuetral party in a while, id like your advice on how best to combat this problem, or get it brought to serious attention, because as youve seen its not just me suffering, its other users as well.

So, what are my options behind this veil? And what 'can' i do to get this problem either extinguished, or at least noticed by some kind of 'authority'?

Oh, and its easier if you post replies to the Leyasu talk page, so i can find them and record them easily. Leyasu 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be the tattle tale. But i was just going through WP:HMM to look up minor jobs that need doing, and stumbled into this concerning Deathrocker. Seemingly the project has been serially vandalised, and a number of artcles too, by Deathrocker. Im not going to explore it further, but i thought you might want to use it to sort something out - after all, your the authority, not me. Leyasu 14:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I would like an investigation into Travb's action or Arbcom member opinion on them. I have provided more dif's of him telling other users my new name and then them magically appearing on my page to harrass me, the dif's are in the Arbcom enforcement page. He is continuing to contact users off wiki in attempts to ally them against me. I am now formally requesting a hidden username that only Arbcom will know of and further I will be filing an RfC if an admin or Arbcom member tells me Trav's actions are against policy. I have a right not to be harrassed and this is becoming obsurd, all because I told him he couldnt violate WP:OR and the people at WP:OR agreed he was wrong. --NuclearUmpf 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but why does NuclearUmpf - a self-admitted sock account of a user on ArbCom probation for tendentious/counterproductive behavior - have any entitlement to keep others from learning that he is indeed the same person as involved in the ArbCom determination? Isn't the situation in which he finds himself - disputes with other users, eg. accusing me of trolling and wiping my question regarding his identity, etc. - just the kind of conduct his other account was admonished for? How far backwards does the community's back have to bend to accomodate editors whose behavior goes all the way to an ArbCom case? Now he/she wants a 'hidden username'? I'm sorry but I do not understand this situation and like NuclearUmpf, I too would appreciate a fair (and neutral) assessment, pointing out how this is in the encyclopedia's best interest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered most of this on WP:AE. Editors under arbitration sanction don't get to have hidden usernames because that mean that only arbitrators could police their conduct, which ain't gonna happen. However, other users are not permitted to bait him, and he is allowed to edit, and even to edit in oppostion to others, so long as he adheres to the generally accepted standards of community behavior (negotiation, consensus, no personal attacks, etc). The goal of arbitration is to encourage him to conform to community standards of behavior, and to provide for admin sanction if or when he doesn't. Arbitration is not a club to beat people over the head with nor is it a scarlet letter. Thatcher131 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understand completely and I agree with your comments completely. However, please be aware that this new user, has put a coded 'You look stupid now' message on his user page, and has already apparently been spoken to numerous times for behavior outside the boundaries you so appropriately outlined. And most of all, I still haven't gotten an answer from this user to my question asking point blank whether this user is the notorious Rex. You remember Merecat/Rex, I'm sure. A simple, good faith question that neither Zer0 nor Nuclear saw fit to deny, instead directing me immediately to Checkuser. That's certainly not good faith on Nuclear's part and on the basis of what I see of his/her conduct, I'm concerned that this account is headed just the same direction as the previous ones. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he has put trolling/baiting comments on his user page, he should remove them, and I will ask him if you want me to. I think the Rex/Merecat saga is a dead issue. Zer0faults was checkusered 3 times with no results; I don't know whether he is being coy or sly or just irritated at the constant questions. If as Rex suggested he was being "shipped out" (I think) then there will never be technical proof, and its just one of those things that happen around here. In fact, I am a bit doubtful of the connection since I had a good relationship with Rex (in his "anonymous Texan" persona) before he got found out, and Zer0faults's last contribs were to change his vote on my RFA from support to oppose on (what I think were) pretty flimsy grounds. If Zer0/Nuclear is Rex, he will either become increasingly disruptive until he triggers his probation, or he will settle down and join the community, which will be a good thing no matter who he is. Like I said, he is allowed to oppose other editors provided he conforms to community standards of behavior; if he doesn't, make a complaint and someone will deal with it. And he shouldn't expect similar lenience should he change his name again. Thatcher131 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gratified by your response. An honest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to CheckUser already ... [16] [17] I dont know why you are constantly asking the same question that has been proven false o so long ago, two times I might add. Please stop commenting on my talk page if you are not going to assume good faith. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 10:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply point out that Checkuser does not and cannot prove a negative - just that the IP Zer0 used was not consistent with those of Rex/Merecat (who claimed to be moving from Maine to Texas, in one of his last goodbye rants). It was not proven false, despite what you'd like others to conclude. You could do much by answering the question in good faith, but you've already shown you don't want to do that, for whatever reason. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not answer cause I will not entertain someone who is exhibiting trollish behavior. This is the last message I have for you on the topic. The RFCU todl you Merecat had no more socks, that they were all found, it told you specifically that I was not a sock of Merecat twice. Your inability to grasp this concept is now beyond any point of reason and I ask you do not post on my talk page your conspiracy theories any more. This is the last I will have to do with you, goodbye. --Nuclear Zer0 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the final dose of humor, I had turned over my IP and it showed I lived in NYC, which neither Maine nor Texas, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to conspiracies is it. --Nuclear Zer0 13:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan has been on a Rex witchhunt for a while now [18]. It is not conducive to building an encyclopedia and seems to me to be a poicy violation. I'd point out that Rex/Merecat and Zero have all been subject to many checkusers. It's getting rather old. --Tbeatty 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzumaki

Uzumaki is transparently Freestylefrappe. Review: 21:18, 4 October 2006 vs 18:37, 4 October 2006, somehow knows about {{unblock}} without being blocked - [19]. Revert warring over his old haunts already [20]. I belive this is obvious, and thus RFCU is not appropriate, and appeal for you to do what is necessary. If you disagree, I'll tack it on to the RFCU. JBKramer 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are my new hero

Can I beg that you trail behind me everywhere, putting my thoughts more eloquently than I? - brenneman ^{L} 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THE INSANITY

Please, will someone in charge here stop this insane behavior on the Coyote Shivers page. Give these women a rest and let this play out somewhere else! "Whyohwhy" is obviously Mr. Shivers and even after warnings this is still going on. Someone needs to put a block on him being able to keep coming in the history and discussion options and creating these repeated attacks. It is obsessive and cruel. Not to mention harassing and proves the point these women made in the Fox News report. Seriously, put a stop this this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.127.144 (talk • contribs)

I have left a detailed rationale on the talk page of the article. I have also blocked Whyowhy for 48 hours for leaving possibly defamatory comments in the edit summary at Talk:Coyote Shivers, and I deleted the revisions from the page history. It seems that someone added a rather personal statement, thought better of it, and removed it. Of course, it remained visible in the page history so that Whyowhy could restore it with his own comments. (The whole point of the wiki model is that every revision is kept in the history and may be viewed by anyone or even restored, unless deleted by an administrator.) The next time someone writes something so personal and then has second thoughts, he/she can ask any administrator or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard to have it deleted. Thatcher131 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torlist

No problem, I've also blocked the few which were left which were blocked for short periods. I might take a look at some of those left later. --pgk 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've various bits and pieces. I'm not using a bot as such. Someone was writing cronbot (since withdrawn) to flag up the nodes, I pulled together some bits and bobs I had as a proof of concept like this, but didn't go for a full implementation I was going to donate anything the cronbot author thought might be useful.
I have something to check blocks for that so I just tweaked it slightly to take your list as input and strip out those which were blocked so I can run that again easily enough.
I also have a local database which I've been capturing the content of the tor directory every hour so I could map out long term trends, work out those which were dynamic etc. Just been busy since I set it up and didn't notice it was down for about 20 days, so really have just started that up again. --pgk 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This post contains an incorrect accusation (I did not violate 3RR), is irrelevant to the incident (you write as if it was about a single edit conflict in a single article, when I list no less than 16 incidents of behavior), contains an outright absurdity (I'm complaining, among other things, that THB is refusing to discuss his edits, and your response is "hey, you guys should be discussing your edits"), and is generally inappropriate and snotty. I find it especially surprising to see that you're an administrator. In the interest of retaining some respect among your peers (and perhaps, yourself), you should consider removing it. KarlBunker 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, both you and THB each reverted the disputed paragraph 4 times in less than 24 hours. The situation was too complicated for me to simply block one or both of you under the 3RR rule, because THB was characterizing his reverts as "rvv" and was not discussing them, which was inappropriate, while you only requested an explanation after your second revert and ignored Davkal's opinion in support of the THB version, which was also not ideal behavior. I'm surprised you would call my comment "snotty" and I welcome peer review of anything I say or do here. Thatcher131 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Disruptive conduct, baseline [21]

THB change [22] K r1 [23] T r1 [24] K r2 [25] T r2 [26] K r3 [27] T r3 [28] K r4 [29] T r4 [30]

It's certainly arguable that both THB and I broke the spirit of the 3RR, but as your links show, neither of us broke the letter of the rule, i.e. reverting back to a single baseline version, more than 3 times over. If your charge was that I broke the spirit of the rule, you should have said that. And you haven't addressed the rest of my complaints about your post; Instead make this further incorrect statement: "you only requested an explanation after your second revert" (I requested an explanation in my edit summary), and you bring up the new issue of Davkal's "third opinion." Here is one small indication of the nature of Davkal's history with this article. Even so, if he had offered some argument in his comment, I would have responded to it; instead he only said that the edit "made perfect sense" to him.

Since you haven't addressed any of my complaints, I leave them as they stand. I don't believe that being snotty should be grounds for a legalistic action such as requesting a peer review. I do believe, however, that it should be grounds for some reflection and correction. Right now you're too busy being defensive to be convinced of the validity of my criticism; that's human nature. Perhaps in the proverbial "fullness of time" you'll engage in some actual reflection. KarlBunker 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should re-read WP:3RR, quoting, "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." The fact that there were other minor technical changes does not alter the fact that you edit warring over the inclusion/removal of a sentence from the opening paragraph. Thatcher131 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you should reread "Right now you're too busy being defensive". Repeat as necessary; perhaps eventually it will sink in. KarlBunker 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Thatcher, I noticed your comment about me not mentioning my ArbCom case in Question #3. Would it be better if I added this on? Just wanted to let you know what you think. Regards, —Khoi khoi 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the reason why I didn't mention it is because I honestly forgot) —Khoi khoi 01:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to have a bit of explanation of what you're learned from the experience, how it has made you a better editor. etc. Thatcher131 06:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess I'll write that up tomorrow (it's time for some sleep now). Thanks for the advice. —Khoi khoi 06:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. —Khoi khoi 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query on teenager's posting personal info

User:Mackensen directed me to you concerning guidelines on protecting children's privacy.

User:ThuranX inquired on my talk page concerning posting of personal details on a userpage by User:Loontheschoon. He gives his age (over 13) and other details, which is of concern to ThuranX. Do you have any advice on those over 13 posting age and location information?

— ERcheck (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I didn't contemplate placing any restrictions on 13-and-overs, and we have 14 year old admins, so clearly Wikipedia (as a community) seems to think 14 year olds can take care of themselves. There is an alternative privacy proposal Wikipedia:Privacy (more in the way of advice, really). As a new editor, he won't know about some of the past cases of harrassment. You could let him know that although most Wikipedians are generally good people, there have been a few cases of editors being harrassed in real life (and at least one case of age-inappropriate statements made by a 30 year old man toward a 15 year old girl) so he might want to give some thoughts toward obscuring some of his personal info for privacy reasons. Not much else we can do about it, though. Thatcher131 23:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for completing the report re blocking Irishpunktom for me. I've done the easy part and then got ~~lazy~~ busy doing something very important. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai anon

In considering your dealings with the anon. please review the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and the associated talk page which details most recent history. Also the leading sections of the current Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales page. You can find her reverted edits in the history of the page. I have stated in numerous places including on talk pages and at the RfC that I will revert on sight any unsigned comment and I have stated that over 2 months ago. Others have also adoped that strategy.

The anon was well aware of the RfC (it was announced on talk pages she has edited) but has steered well clear of it for the several months (since late July) it has been active.

I note that someone has found a cite for Yarri being mistreated. The ABC story however, also mentions This true story focuses on what may be the first act of 'Reconcilation' in Australin history. ... The rescues are an important demonstration of the common humanity and goodwill that the Aborigines maintained towards the white settlers in spite of the diseases, depopulation and social disruption they had suffered since the advent of the Europeans. For their efforts Yarri and Jacky Jacky were presented with inscribed bronze gorgets (medallions) to be worn around their necks. ... For the remainder of their lives, Yarri and Jacky Jacky were entitled to demand sixpences and other trifles conductive to Aboriginal comfort from all Gundagai residents - which demands, when in reason, were not refused. ... Although Yarri was well treated by most white people as he got older, he did not get the same respect from everyone, as an article in the Gundagai Times dated 29 June 1879 shows: (incident cited) Today there are a number of monuments in Gundagai which honour the memory of Yarri. I don't think that the current statement The community is said to have developed a special affinity with the Wiradjuri people. Although Yarri was maltreated on at least one occasion afer the flood,[5] Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation. quite conveys that contemporaries of Yarri honoured him and Jacky Jacky specifically in their lifetime, that is the mention of the incident unbalances what was otherwise previously a brief mention and the paragraph now needs to be rebalanced to present a more neutral version of the history - leave in the incident of mistreatment but refer to contemporary and later community positive treatment of Yarri also.

At present I am away from home and the modem disconnects every few minutes and most pages can't load; hence I am on a wikibreak till Monday. For example, it has taken me 7 logons to post this (and that was including editing off-line) and I cannot check the Carr Hansard reference which I think covered the reconciliation comments as well as the sesquicentenary of the flood mention. Nor can I check the article history to verify what was there before. I feel accordingly unable to edit until I return to less temperamental infrastructure.

The flood comments are merely the latest dispute in a series. Editors have been trying to work with her to establish verifiability of the "Coolac massacre" since June. They do not apparently exist. The anon editor is relying on textual interpretation of the poem to infer a massacre; textual interpretation that has also not been published. She refuses to acknowledge that this might be original research. You will find that discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1. On the current talk page there are responses to her accusations of plagiarism.

In conclusion, in dealing with this editor, while it is always good to assume good faith, please assume good faith also of those who have dealt with her before and recognise that they have been thoroughly abused for their pains over a considerable period of time. --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Twaddle From Artkos/Golden Wot

Golden wattle needs to stop causing chaos on wik when it cant have its own way. Golden wattle I wasnt ever going to give u that restricted info as you have no right to it, plus u are not worthy of it as all you have done here is be nice to try and get the info, then becoming very rude when it wasnt posted.

This ed above knows that I have the other verifying info re Coolac but because of other considerations, I cant post it. NP also know if its correct or not and as info of this kind goes onto the restricted database, thats where it is with no one here ever liekly to get access. As I have also said, because of the nonsense here that started with golden wattle getting pretty iffy when it was realised I wasnt going to hand over restricted info, I wont be posting the info at anytime. Golden wattle knows I wont be posting that info and has known for perhaps, two months at least, when she was told here that I had withdrawn the attempt to post it here and that I didnt think wik was a suitable place to put it. Some Universites through Oz know if its correct or not. The coolac massacre discussion here is long dead. This latest is about ridiculous cradle of reconcilation claims. Whether anything important goes here isnt of any importance to anyone in the world as wik isnt important given the incompetent posting and editing that happens admist ridiculous and immature power plays I have realised. Some here have turned the place into a comic book so its more suited to having micky mouse here than fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I dont think I am a wattle tree. Or a river.

Response re the Comments at the end of the Above

I only read the end of it. As Artkos/Golden wattle well knows, the Coolac Massacre area is undergoing a very lage archaeological survey overseen by the RTA etc, and as this survey isnt finished, I cant publish anything from it. I have already decided not to publish anything from it here also, when the surveys are finished as the arguemnt over it has gone on too long.

Its well known in Gundgaai that the massacre did happen and where the remains were put.

Other works such as the bible and foreign languages, are interpreted - using a variety of tools specific to their task. the same with contexttual interpretation of australian poems etc. Probably the tools needed for that though are a knowledge of arch, local landscape and history and Indigneous culture etc as well as current contextual analysis skills. Its Ok if it doesnt go on wik though.

Howcome the fully cited and very esily checked story of Yarri being kicked, cant go here though?????

Check the 'compare versions' on back of Gundgaai 'discussion' page as the stuff they removed tonight, is there (unless they remove it from there also).

The only thing holding up the Coolac Bypass is a platypus colony and the tender hasn't been awarded (The archaeological excavations should be completed last week)[31]. -- Bidgee 10:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howcome bidgee thinks the bypass is held up, when in fact it isnt ready to start as the EIS isnt completed. Then there is a process to happen post that. I guess bidgee thinks xmas is held up each Sept because the time hasnt progressed to Dec, also? Eh? Unusual reasoning.

Re Gundgaai page - They Still Delete All I Post

I just went through and replied to commeents on Gundagai talk page (veracity of cites, how bidgee can check cites very easily himself, etc), and they are now deleted. They delete anything I put up including on Rfc. They will probably delete this here.

OK TO LEAVE ME LOCKED OUT. Its the bullying worries me. if they do it to me they will to others also

Dont mind my typos. Its all par tof my charm. *laffin*

Its a bit like being locked out of the looney bin.

Anon

I haven't deleted anything the Anon has added today. The Anon has made a misleading accusation saying that and they are now deleted as I have not reverted anything by the Anon today. Also I have looked for the book the Anon has talked but and I haven't found anything but I will continue looking. -- Bidgee 10:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- So u were deleting pre that? Tsk. Why? Get over it. Little wonder wik is full of so much aggro. Give em a tool and they need to wield it. Its partly wiks fault also for letting anti social people have the tools to cause mayhem.

Its in wagga library. Failing that, ring Gundgaai library and ask them to read you the bit at the end of p.3 in Butchers latest book.

I just checked that ABC article. It was written by Brodie Asmius a child, as part of an ABC competition. I noted to the ABC the many inaccuracies at the time and they responded. It was this authors Mum wa sintergal in having the rmeins of Moonlight the bushranger, excavated from their 100+ year old resting place in Sydney and bought to Gundagai where they now promte town tourism. I will note here I am a direct descendent of survivors of the 1852 flood whereas asmius' are not though they did/do own very large areas of land here since colonial times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

You have a major problem there dont u.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I think I would have a bit (LOT) better idea of what is happening re the Coolac Bypass than the wagga paper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Whats the name of the book? Captain Moonlight's remains where moved from Sydney to Gundagai. Are you saying this is wrong? -- Bidgee 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the name of the book in the original citation. Its 'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back' by Cliff Butcher 2002. The releif lib ass would probably send u a copy of the pages (3 and 4)via Wagga Library if u ask her nicely, but wagga library have a copy of the book, down near (two rows back) the far wall on the ground level floor which would save u bothering anyone re it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Do u think its right to dig up a persons remains and move them? They did it hush hush and they were here in town before anyone who wasnt involved, knew. If I had known, I'd have protested and asked they leave them where they were. Grave robbery for the sake of tourism using the excuse that moonlight wanted to be buried near one of his gang, (who the locals decided was his lover to add some spice to jazz the whole story up), is wacko in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Why would you have a better idea on what's going on with the Coolac Bypass? Other media outlets have reported the same story (Prime News and Win News). -- Bidgee 10:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would know more re Coolac than any local or wider media outlet. For one very good reason that can be yours to wonde rover.

New paragraph. Doug Hogan (Prime) and I have discussed his reporting and he has given an assurance to tone his tone down even if he continues composing attention grabbing and riveting stories that jazz his show up a bit. Prime is a commercial station isnt it so needs advertisers so needs interesting shows. I think ABC Riverina have just opted out re their reporting and are being a bit circumspect re what they say as they know they will hear from me if they go too overboard. Our local paper is very creative re some of their compositions but even they have toned it all down a bit too recently. The truth of it all is, none of them really know but as its a current issue, they need to print/broadcast soemthing. I think there was a media update last week some went to though. i.e. what the rta was prepared to, and could, tell the media - they did. Not a lot. Dayum eh. I dont think they went to the actual arch sites as they werent invited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

I know a cite for the Coolac Massacre.

Last monday at around 10am, on ABC Radio666 Canberra Morning Show presented by Alix Sloane, Alix had Ian Warden (UC) as a guest. They had a phone in re Australian values and aussie trivia. The show went right across NSW. During it, it was said that the Coolac Massacre happened. The tape of the show should be available. I am sure Alix would oblige.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Blocking the anon from Gundagai

Not sure you are aware but you just took out part of the IP address range for south-east Australia (densly settled part of Australia) for the largest ISP provider in the country, Telstra. [32] - the range is actually to 203.54.#.# - the random allocation does give her access to, for example 203.54.186.36 (talk · contribs · block log) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Telstra has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight. Thatcher131 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway.

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic Telstra are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. Dont deny service to other Telstra users just because you want to have a go at me as that is pretty crook.

ALSO, are you allowed to disclose personal details of people who contribute to wik such as their ISP and IP numbers as you have here. I dont post your IP numbers etc and I think that is contrary to wik policy, isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs)

I unblocked your IP range when I filed the arbitration request so you would have the option of responding. Regarding disclosure of your IP, if Wikipedia editors register for a username, their IP information is hidden to everyone except for a few senior administrators with Checkuser access, and may not be disclosed except under extraordinary circumstances. Since you choose not to register, your IP address is not masked, as it is the only means of identifying you. So in fact, registering for a user name protects your privacy more than being completely "anonymous." Having a username also gives you other benefits such as your own talk page for carrying on these sorts of conversations. Thatcher131 11:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply: The privacy policy is linked on the bottom of every page. It states in part,

f you are logged in, you will be identified by your user name. This may be your real name if you so choose, or you may choose to publish under a pseudonym, whatever user name you selected when you created your account. If you have not logged in, you will be identified by your network IP address. This is a series of four numbers which identifies the Internet address from which you are contacting the wiki. Depending on your connection, this number may be traceable only to a large Internet service provider, or specifically to your school, place of business, or home. It may be possible that the origin of this IP address could be used in conjunction with any interests you express implicitly or explicitly by editing articles to identify you even by private individuals. It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.'

Thatcher131 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have filed a formal request for arbitration regarding the anonymous Gundagai editor. Please make any statements you feel are appropriate. Thatcher131 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my bit (3:10am here) and don't know how I went as it's my first time posting in a Arbitration. -- Bidgee 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've just noticed your handling of the "Lost episodes" mediation (picking up where the assigned Mediator had dropped off), and thought that perhaps you might be interested in joining the Mediation Committee. The Committee is always in need of more active members, and you seem to be successful. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Arthur/Bad Arthur

Hi Thatcher. I've corrected one of your IP locations. When I "whois" it, it comes back Ottawa, not Hamilton. Best, Bucketsofg 03:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai

Yes, I know and I completely agree. I was inclined to block for longer but enforcing it seems to be impossible. Can we do a range block or would it take out too many people? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though her main range includes 65000 addresses, almost all of her contributions come from the ranges 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. (I suspect her local telephone exchange is only served by these two ranges.) If we were to block anonymous editing only with account creation enabled, the block would not affect any registered users, or anyone who wanted to create a new username, and would only potentially only affect a small number of people in her local area who might also wish to contribute anonymously. If you look at the list of IPs on her RFC, none of them have any contributions that are not obviously her. (is that a triple negative)? Anyway, I would definitely use the rangeblocks I suggested if she repeats her behavior. Thatcher131 11:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I myself am a former soldier in the "sock wars" and know too well how easy it is to misinterpret identities. Though I respect our current policy I believe we would be better served with a blanket prohibition on the use of socks so that the considerable expenditure of effort to determine which particular troublemaker a sock belongs to and to demonstrate that the resulting activities constitute disruption would no longer be necessary. I tried to start a discussion at WPT:SOCK on this but it stalled, in part due to the opposition of a Karmafist sock. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slovan

You just blocked my roommate for indef. Yes, I live in a college --VinceB 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I know, logging in is not a must. I wrote the sign on my userpage that "I nearly always do anonim edits instead of using this account" so accusing me of sockpuppetry or such assumpion that I wanted to avoid the 3RR is false. A: I'm not the only one making contribs from Hungary B: I always stopped at the limit. Check it leisurely. But yes, that's true that I'm quite short tempered. I learned the lession abt this. All what is proven is that I wrote a true sentence on my userpage. And I got a block for it. pff...--VinceB 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your roommate can post to his own talk page even while blocked. He can post {{unblock}} and give a reason. The roommate excuse is frequently given, sometimes it is true and sometimes not. I would like the case to reviewed by someone else. Of course, your roommate's account was recognized by users familiar with your editing habits; if he had different interests, no one would have had the idea to check. As far as editing while logged out is concerned, it's not really sockpuppet behavior, but if it is done to avoid accountability for 3RR or other problems then it's wrong no matter what it is called. I will keep an eye on your talk pages to see what other editors think. Thatcher131 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RRgg

Thanks for the welcome - the pointers will be helpful. I have been enjoying wikipedia as a rich information source so I guess it is only right to contribute my share and learn to do it the correct way. Thanks Rrgg 04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Rrgg[reply]

Thanks

I just want to thank four your detailed explanation of your attitude. Sounds reasonable to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Hey. You talk about the spirit of my arbitration decision. I think the spirit was to get editors to discuss reverts. I made clear attempts to do so - when I inserted the tag, I wrote on the talk page about it. When the other user removed the tag, I pointed him to the talk page. You point out that I didn't write on the talk page that day. This was because nobody else had written about that issue that day, including the editor who removed the tag.

You say, "other editors... could have replaced the tag if they felt it was needed". I see your point; but equally, the same applies for the other editor, too.

I understand that you probably don't have time to research the issue, but there is a situation on anarchism/anarcho-capitalism-related articles (and on many other topics on wikipedia) where many (either multiple users or multiple sockpuppets) have descended upon articles with the single purpose of "representing their opinion on wikipedia". In many cases this also has the (intentional or not) side effect of pushing off and/or misrepresenting other opinions on said articles, and/or exasperating more neutral users, who are not as eager to edit wikipedia as they are. I am telling you this just so you know. Not every editor is neutral, and the population of editors on an article, especially articles on topics such as these, do not necessarily reflect the general population. -- infinity0 14:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr Pseudoscience

As a clerk, what can you do to keep Ian Tresman from miring the workshop page down with proposals that lack even the most basic requirements - to overhaul the entirety of our DR policies, the creation of entirely new and empowered groups of people, his principals that do not propose any principal at all, and the like? At what point does inexperience become disruption? JBKramer 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. The workshop is a public workshop after all. Look at the Giano and Rachel Marsden cases, for example. I will remove personal attacks (should any occur) but there's nothing in the job description that allows me to remove ill-advised proposals. They will just get ignored by the arbitrators. Usually, the only arbitrator to edit the workshop page is Fred Bauder (sometimes Dmcdevit). When he gets around to this case he will pick and choose what he likes or ignore everything and write his own proposals. That's why I an Flo are trying to write proposals that follow the form and content of previous cases, so our time spent won't go totally to waste. Thatcher131 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that while his proposals will be ignored (as I know they will be), his clutter will make my appropriatly formed, plausable proposals get lost in the mire - this has already happened on the evidence page, which is a morass of people trying to prove their pet theories. JBKramer 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe move some things around when the time gets closer (Fred is still 3 cases away). Thatcher131 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question about this subject: as you remark on my talk page, I already added a comment somewhere, but I forgot where(!); now I see familiar looking comments by others on one of three new pages on which I could/should comment. That's looks a bit like overkill to me; please tell me on which page I most effectively should place a comment (partly to be copied from where I put it before). Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is one of the talkier cases, that is true. There is a lot of duplication in this case; some opening statements recycled as evidence and recycled again as proposed findings. This case has more concerned parties than most and they all want to get their say in, so the case pages are longer than most cases
The statement you made at the beginning was moved to the talk page of the case page, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. If you want to be considered an "involved party" (in which case any sanctions or remedies could apply to you) you can move your statement to the main page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and add your name as an involved party. Probably not a great idea at this point unless you have specifically been involved with these other editors on these articles. If you want to make general comments on the case, the talk page where your comments are now is fine. If you want to present specific evidence of bad editing or other bad behavior, add a section to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence page; if you would like to comment on evidence offered by others but not offer your own evidence, use the evidence talk page. The parties and arbitrators make proposals in the case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop, where you can comment on specific proposals or use the talk page of that page. Eventually the arbitrators will post final principles for voting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision which only the arbitrators edit. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's crystal clear - thanks! :-) Harald88 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that there is probably no need to add more evidence; instead I made some critical comments at some places. More than anything else, I hope that this artibration can lead to some more precise guidelines about the application of "due weight". I don't have in mind to follow the RFAr closely from now on.

Best regards, Harald88 01:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am only involved in the most tangential ways possible, and am primarily concerned about this RFAr due to its potential precedent-setting (despite WP:CCC of course, and, I know, the statement that ArbCom is not bound by precedent). I've authored a potential solution to the RS/OR/NPOV/Undue Weight mess on the Workshop Talk page, but given the above "chattiness" on this case and my own naivete in Arbitration, I'll leave to your judgement as clerk if that should be included in the actual Workshop for further consideration. Serpent's Choice 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support, especially in light of the developing request for arbitration. Results of the adminship discussion are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb thing

Regarding your evidence at the WP:CHILD case ("Another possibly problematic edit") please note the important difference between John's first edit (which is not a request for comment but a link to a poll to make it official policy, but does not list an ending date or the required amount of support) and the second edit (which, indeed, is an RFC and to which I have no objection). >Radiant< 09:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden

To think of Boyd and O'Hagan as seperate from the Donnelly affair is inaccurate. O'Hagan was the harassment policy coordinator that picked the panel that investigated the original claims. O'Hagan personal involvement with Marsden is part of the reason SFU revised its policies for dealing with harassment. In a single letter, SFU warned Marsden that she would evicted from a campus residence if she went near Boyd or Donnelly. SFU didn't treat this as three seperate problems, but one.

The case is totally different from Bill O'Reilly's alleged naughty phone calls. He was a television commentator before his harassment controversy. With Marsden it is the other way around. The Donnelly Affair is her "claim to fame". She was a household name in Canada years before she ever got a TV gig. Geedubber 03:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the allegations involving O'Hagan are a significant part of the Donnelly controversy, why aren't they mentioned in the Donnelly-Marsden article? If they're only going to be mentioned in one article, it should be that one, and the leap from "O'Hagan improperly discussed the pending case with one of the parties" to "O'Hagan and Marsden had an improper relationship which Marsden pursued to the point of harrassment" is too large to make on the basis of the evidence available, in my opinion. WIth Boyd, the fact that the uni sent her a warning letter is not sufficient proof that there had been a problem, or that it was Marsden's fault. Frankly, if I was the new uni president and Marsden returned as a student, I would want her gone ASAP, and I would have no problem sending a letter to please stay away from any situation that could lead to further trouble, even if it were on the flimsiest of evidence. And of course you did not have any defense from Marsden for these two incidents. I think that the article was crafted to leave the reader with the impression that Marsden has problems with ending relationships, is a serial sex harrasser, and a fabricator of sex harrassment claims against herself. If you can't come right out and say it, you shouldn't be able to infer it either.

I think there is room for more content in the article. For example, have any media analysts written that Marsden's career as a commentator is due to the fact that the earlier controversy "made her a household name?" (For a U.S. commentator I would look for sources like Jeff Jarvis, Howie Kurtz, or Columbia Journalism Review, who are journalists who write meta-analysis of journalism itself.) I think it may be fair game to mention that earlier in her career she promoted herself partially on basis of her looks, creating a certain image involving provacative dress combined with provocative commentary; provided you can find reliable sources, or Marsden's own writings, that back this up, and noting that she has pulled back from this approach.

Anyway, I don't plan on becoming part of a continuing saga, or Marsden's next white knight. I made an attempt to address Fred's concerns while still keeping the essential content. I hope it ends up being useful in some way, if not I will have wasted a perfectly good hour on it. C'est la vie. Thatcher131 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence doesn't support an improper relationship? O'Hagan claimed that Marsden sent her chocolates, flowers, gifts, letters and tapes and called her up to 400 times. Marsden said their relationship was akin to a mother/daughter one, close and affectionate(direct quote). After Stubbs insisted O'Hagan end the relationship, Marsden sent a letter to the president threatening to commit suicide(the Vancouver Sun has a copy of the letter). Geedubber 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact nature of the relationship is unknowable, even though both sides' allegations are printed in a newspaper.
Even if there is reason to include the allegations, prior versions of the article did not present Marsden's side.
If the relationship was a key factor in the Donnelly reversal, it should be mentioned in that article first. If it wasn't an important factor in the Donnelly case, there is certainly no reason to include it in the Marsden article, unless you want to paint her as a serial harrasser.
It seems to me like the relationship was highly improper from O'Hagan and SFU's side of the equation but not from Marsden's side. Marsden had no particular duty not to date a college official; O'Hagan had every reason not to date a student (or at least recuse herself from the case) who had filed a complaint over which she had authority. (Unless you allege Marsden began the relationship specifically to influence the outcome of the Donnelly case, for which there is no proof whatsoever.)

I took my shot. This is my effort to balance the desire to write an encyclopedia article describing this person's career with the need to be respectful of living subjects and the desire that Wikipedia itself should be more respected than the National Equirer or the UK Sun. Your mileage may vary, of course. Thatcher131 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo arb

Copied from my talk page:

It appears that in the Kosovo arb case, since there are now only 7 active arbs (plus JamesF, who voted before he went inactive) there are 8 on the case, making a majority of 5, so the case is ready to close if they want to. Thatcher131 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher123, It seems everything is in order. Arbs have been adjusting the majority as they go along. How to count the majority gets a little tricky on some of these cases. Your count seems right to me, though. They will likely get to it in the next few days. Have kept me busy opening and closing cases this week. :-) Take care, FloNight 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please close my account

Now that the Marsden arbitration is done, could you please close my account and delete my talk page. Thanks. Arthur Ellis 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your account is never "Closed" unless you forget the password. You can always come back to it. I have deleted the user page and blanked the talk page. (Blanking the talk page is the conventional response, leaving this history there for inspection). I will watchlist it and if it looks like people are abusing it I will protect it if necessary. Cheers. Thatcher131 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know whether this indicates that Arthur Ellis desires to withdraw his request for reconsideration currently pending on RfAr? Newyorkbrad 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hesitating to ASSuME. But it's moot anyway because the new rules on accepting cases requires 4 "net" votes to accept. With two declining, there would have to be six votes to accept, and there are only 7 or 8 active arbitrators in total. Thatcher131 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nodding, but in the spirit of allowing people to depart with dignity, I think it would be more appropriate for the last word to be a "withdrawn" or "mooted by events" rather than "rejected." Newyorkbrad 02:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted his departure statement on WP:RFAR. One of the clerks could remove it I suppose. Thatcher131 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfAr revert

Hi Thatcher131 - just to clarify I had mistakenly read that anon's edit as vandalism. I didn't realize he/she was party to the dispute and not adding "nonsense." Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Unless you're close to the case you wouldn't recognize her as one of the parties. That's why I explained it in the summary instead of using rollback myself. Thatcher131 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sign?

Hi - I think you inadvertently forgot to sign one of your edits here. I wouldn't mention it except it makes the conversation hard to follow, which would be a shame as it seems to be a productive conversation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]