User talk:Thatcher/Archive6

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

Travb

This issue was discussed in the past and you had told me arbcom ruling are not scarlet letters. Travb is now purposely edit warring and threatening to report me for violating my Arbcom decision as a way to get me to stop, even though he is not even giving edit summaries or presenting the sources. [1] I would like you to look at the situation seeing as you dealt with most of this, and are being reffered to again now. I opened a post on AN/I and the first thing he does is threaten me there as well. [2] --Nuclear Zer0 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systar

Hi Thatcher131. You G12'd this article recently. The author of the above article claims to have removed copyvio on the above article. Looks ok to me also. I've restored it, hope it's ok with you. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Thatcher131 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai arbitration

With full appreciation of the time you have put into writing up the /Workshop (I may nominate you in this year's ArbCom election if you are not careful, though I disagree with you on some nuances of the opera case), I am starting to wonder if it is time to bypass finishing the full-fledged arbitration proceeding and propose moving directly in the direction of a community ban of the "anonymous Gundagai editor." Today's posts including her comment on your proposal for a civility parole are ridiculous already and I can't see that devoting too much more effort to assembling this case is a sensible investment of everyone's time. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone I respected thought I was out of line that would be one thing, but here I'm mostly amused. The only real problem is that the case will take another month at least to close. The problem with a community ban is finding an uninvolved admin to block the IP, then the range, and keep the blocks up as she changes IPs. An arbitration ruling will give the admins in the case (me, Durova, Wattle and Longhair) the right to block and revert even though we are "involved." If Longhair or Wattle want to propose it at AN/I I would support but it can't be implemented well without a dedicated watcher. Thatcher131 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More absurdity overnight, clearly a very sad situation (I don't think it's deliberate trolling, though I've been wrong before). Is she currently disrupting anywhere else other than the RfAr pages themselves? If so, I'll present a motion for an injunction against her editing any pages other than the arbitration until the case is resolved (unless you'd prefer to make the motion yourself), with violative edits treated as from a banned user and subject to reversion by any editor. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. Could also semi-protect any articles she is a real problem at. So far its just a couple of edits a day to her usual topics. Thatcher131 13:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I've said my piece on this one, but let me know if it would be helpful for me to weigh in in the future. You have still succeeded so far in disregarding the parenthetical in the first paragraph of this thread, but that is okay - for the moment. :) Newyorkbrad 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of today's threats, I am now starting to think in terms of this precedent. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear

Hmmm, this is very confusing. I'm just clicking on his sig "Nuclear Zer0". The first part "Nuclear" links to Umph and the second part "Zero" links to Zer0. What's going on here? Is the same person using two accounts simultaneously? Derex 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should blush over the attention, I think he deserves an answer, even though he has already been shown the arbcom ruling that states I do not use zer0faults anymore [3], makes you wonder why he would ask the question ... See Thatcher131, you try to play by the rules, and nothing but harrassment. --Nuclear Zer0 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a case of vandalism [4] [5] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [6] [7] [8], that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries. I guess this is good because I can present it to Arbcom soon as proof of why I need a new username and need it seperated from past rulings. This combined with the Travb incident and Ryan just add even more weight to it. --Nuclear Zer0 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further harrassment by RyanFreisling [9] --Nuclear Zer0 23:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some action can be taken to prevent this harrassment from continuing. --Nuclear Zer0 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that means. I am quite confident my conduct is anything but harassment. I've asked you twice, and you've refused to answer. You didn't correct Morton's comments though. Have a great day, Zer0/Nuke/whatever your next account name will be. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So dramatic of an exit, RFCU has told you 2x that I wasn't, only you seem obsessed to hunt the bogeyman forever. --Nuclear Zer0 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So incorrect of you. RfCU has only stated your current IP's are not those of the prior offender. However, even Thatcher pointed out the similarities. Your tendentious conduct under your current doppelganger is telling enough. Have fun! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, ok to appease you once and for all, I am not Merecat. I would have thought everyone under the sun telling you, including Essjay when he told you basically that all Merecat socks were found, but apparently you just needed to hear it and I have deprived you of it for so long. Its true, the boogeyman is gone for good, whatever will some wikipedians do now that they can't chase shadows, not you of course, you seem to edit fine without the ever looming Merecat threat. --Nuclear Zer0 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question. Despite your protestations there is no boogeyman (and certainly no fear of one), just aggressive and tendentious socks of a troll who has demonstrated a willingness to lie ad nauseam to derail productive editing on WP. Since I (and others) saw similarities in your editing behavior, the question was appropriate both times. Again, thank you for finally answering the question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done here? Good grief. Thatcher131 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really I would like something done about this users harrassment:

Here is a case of vandalism [10] [11] user just keeps adding it. And to others pages [12] [13] [14], that is two times to the same page, and in the same exact section, notice the semi threat attached. They then started using it for edit summaries. --Nuclear Zer0 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NM, seems they been blocked for a month for similar behavior. Thanks you for taking the time out again Thatcher131. --Nuclear Zer0 10:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GrahamNC.jpg

You removed the speedy deletion template, but the image is not listed under an acceptable license. In fact, the "with permission" template - template:copyrighted - says that these are to be deleted. Thus I have restored the speedy deletion tag, and added that one. --NE2 05:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the flickr site says all rights reserved, the upload summary claims permission from the author. As far as I can tell, that makes it ineliglbe for any of the CSD categories. However, I don't mind letting another admin take a pass at it. Thatcher131 05:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's permission from the author for Wikipedia use, not to release it under a free license. This type of license is explicitly not allowed. --NE2 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the claim of permission was "on wikipedia." Thatcher131 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerkship

Hi Thatcher. I thank you for your informal clerking for arbcom. Since you have an open application, I've submited your name to the mailing list for confirmation as an "official" clerk, which means nothing really, except that we trust you to keep doing it. If there are no objections, with your permission, I'll add you to clerks-l and put your name on the WP:AC/C#Current Clerks list. Cheers. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You have my permission and I appreciate the endorsement. (So far I have just done two cases where the most active clerk was recused; I will endeavor to be a good boy about the process and help keep the playground picked up for the other kids :) Thatcher131 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're approved, I've just been busy. I'll get to it now. I also need you to give me your email so I can add you to the mailing lists. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray!!! I was ready to poke Dmcdevit myself to see what the hold up was. FloNight 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GVSU sign.jpg)

Thanks for not deleting Image:GVSU sign.jpg, but forcing me to reupload the free version under an inferior name. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. You may add it to an article if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy). Thank you. Kjetil _r 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your sarcasm is well-placed. You quote policies to me basically to prove that the image is deletable (orphaned fair use, and I can not add it to any articles since you have uploaded a free version), yet the speedy deletion criteria you quoted was plainly invalid (identical copy on commons). Since the image is now tagged orphan fair use, expect it to deleted in 7 days or so and then you can rename your free version to the better name. Thatcher131 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take my previous comment too seriously, but I find it a little bit too rigid to not delete a fair use image when a free replacement is available under the same filename. But never mind, I guess the fair use image will be deleted in seven days, and that I then can move the free image back to it's former filename.

Cheers, Kjetil 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Velten

I am the person who has edited from the account in question and saw your messages on WP:RFAR (which have been my only edits since the block was first initiated). I think you would do a good job as a third-party administrator in determining whether I become blocked or not in future cases. I would be happy if you unblocked the account (see my message on WP:RFAR). It is your choice. I'll go now. 64.231.73.129 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten to remove that. Thank you. Velten 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Thatcher131 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing warnings" discussion link?

Do you have handy a link to the lengthy discussion about "users removing warnings from their talkpages" that came up a few weeks ago? This old perennial has come up again and I'd rather link to that discussion rather than reinvent the wheel. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not off the top of my head. I'm sure there are several in the ANI archives. If you find it, I'll probably add it to my sandbox for future reference, though. Thatcher131 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, Chacor just saw this post and pointed me here for the most complete discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's a real wordy piece of business and doesn't really go anywhere (i.e. removing warnings is ok, but no one is willing to change the {{wr3}} templates). A link to an archived noticeboard discussion would be useful to have in one's back pocket as well. Thatcher131 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome that too if it turns up - and I think the templates really do need to be updated - a good, well-intentioned admin (who hardly ever blocks) has been criticized for the past two days for lengthening a block based on warning-removal, which he says he did in express reliance on the language of the templates. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, here are two discussions.

HTH Thatcher131 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Apparently there are also some templates-for-deletion debates on this as well, which I will try to hunt down later. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation followup

Thatcher, hello, I would like advice on something, as regards the Lost mediation which you assisted with (thanks again for that). As you may recall, after extensive discussion, we came up with unanimous agreement on a set of episode guidelines, which specified such things as length of plot summary, consistent article titles, rules for inclusion of trivia, etc. However, another user, Ned Scott (talk · contribs), has taken exception with some of these guidelines (specifically the article title portion), and is engaging in move wars[15][16] on the Lost episode articles, and edit wars, to the point that the guidelines page is now protected. :/ I have re-checked consensus on the talk page, and everyone (except Ned Scott) has continued to agree with the guidelines, but he persists with his protest, and is evidently expanding uncivil behavior to other areas of Wikipedia as well. Can you please advise as to what kind of "enforcement" power that we have? Repeated polite messages and warnings from multiple users (not all of them related to Lost) to his talkpage[17][18][19] and encouragement to engage in discussion rather than unilateral action, have not been effective, and indeed, he intends to respond to these in a negative manner, such as deleting other people's comments, using profanity in edit summaries, and accusing other people of "harassing" him [20][21][22]. Considering how much effort went into the guidelines, I really do not want to see one user de-rail the progress that we made. What I would like, is to proceed with the work that we were doing with converting all of the episode articles to the format that was agreed upon via the episode guidelines, without Ned following along behind me and reverting things. We made an elaborate table at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost/Episode_guidelines#Episode_list to carefully step through and convert articles, with a member from each side of the mediation (me and PKtm) carefully initialling each one as it was done. But now with Ned jumping in and reverting, things are getting all tangled up. Can you please advise as to how we should deal with this? Thanks, --Elonka 11:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to contact the mediator about this. There seems to be much confusion about the mediation on these articles and whether or not the mediation discussed article titles for episode articles and the use of disambig titles. I've since requested comments from others and even from others who were originally in favor of the titles Elonka and co wishes to use. I don't think the article titling has anything to do with the mediation, and it would be great if you could clarify if it did or not. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Lee's back

Hi Thatcher. There is a bit of cafuffle over this as I am 99.9% sure User:Icemountain2 is one of sockpuppets of the Rikki Lee Travolta trolls so the account should really be tagged as such. However the user is clever, as we know and is placing extremely long messages on pages of people I have been in dispute with claiming I am harrassing them when I readd the tag. This edit pretty much clinches it for me. I'd be OK with letting it go if I hadn't discovered new sockpuppets adding Rikki Lee info to the Thor article. Arniep 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware, this is a situation in the making. I'd prefer everyone were in the loop. Please see User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Being_Stalked_by_User. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that's a diff from January, what the heck??? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer I am sorry but this case is so complicated you will not understand the significance of the diff or the pattern of the user's edits. This went on for literally weeks earlier this year and was part of a campaign to promote an actor and the student film he was partaking in. Arniep 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite capable of understanding complicated situations. I am not capable of understanding why, after Thatcher131 removed the sock tag with a statement of AGF, you found it necessary, 'without introducing any evidence to anyone so far as I have been able to determine, to replace that tag. The "evidence" you give above is from January. Surely you have better things to do than to edit war with two administrators over a sock tag based on an edit from last January? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies as proof of a sock? "This went on for literally weeks earlier this year and was part of a campaign to promote an actor and the student film he was partaking in". Uh, no. Jim62sch 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icemountain2 was one of a suite of user accounts that existed almost entirely to promote Rikki Lee Travolta as (a) the unacknowledged half-brother or something to John Travolta; (b) fan favorite to be the next James Bond, twice; (c) a top-5 Broadway draw, and (d) set to star as Thor in a comic book movie adaptation. None of these assertions could be backed up be reliable sources; essentially RLT is a small-time Chicago area off-Broadway stage actor, and all the other claims came from blogs, his IMDB bio (written by his agent), a foreign news web site that allows anyone to submit unverified press releases, and the two TV guide polls which mysteriously (as TV guide itself said) named this unknown guy as the fans favorite to be the next James Bond. The only thing RLT seems to be top-5 at is astroturfing. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta)
I don't know if the RLT promoters were true sockpuppets, or friends, or fans, but they were all clearly single purpose accounts and often obnoxious about it. If Icemountain is back adding RLT as a cast member of some movie, that should be held to the usual standard of verifiability (no blogs or fan rumor sites). On the other hand, I don't think there is any real value in forcing the account to wear a sign around its neck saying its a sockpuppet of someone, so I would suggest to Arnie that he back off a bit and stick to watching Icemountain's edits for verifiability. (Probably every editor has run into at least a couple single purpose accounts with a history of dubious edits. What Wikipedia seems to lack is a mechanism to track, watch, and inform other editors that is milder and less potentially offensive than slapping a sockpuppet tag on the user's own talk page.) Thatcher131 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from User talk:KillerChihuahua:

Icemountain2 has not started re-adding RLT. His sole contributions since this mess have been a vandalism revert[23] and an addition, with sources, of an attorney's statement[24] on Sept. 23 which lasted until an anon removed it, with no explanation, on October 15[25]. Both edits were valid; neither had anything to do with RLT. I am willing to AGF and say this account may have started as a meat-puppet, and is a Travolta fan, and may become a good contributor if not bitten. I see no evidence this editor is acting as a sock or meat puppet at this time. I could be wrong; but there is no evidence otherwise currently. Until there is, there is no reason to harass this user because of suspicions. The evidence is simply too slight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher I absolutely think you have both been taken in here. There is absolutely no way this edit [26] was made in in good faith- it was clearly coordinated with another sockpuppet Special:Contributions/DogStar123 to give a false impression that Weezer, a high profile band was interested in Rikki Lee Travolta's "book". It is clearly not just a fan but is one of the students part of the astro turf campaign for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Fiction. Arniep 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know he's part of the astroturfing group; I just don't think there's much point in raising a lot of drama by insisting on a sockpuppet tag. Maybe if he was banned and we wanted to be able to attribute his edits; but since he's just hanging out correcting the occasional spelling mistake, I don't think we need the drama. Thatcher131 12:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Thatcher, regarding this deletion, the normal thing is to keep rejected cases, I believe, and this part of the RfAr was moved to a subpage only because of the space it was taking up. It will be needed in case of future trouble, in all likelihood. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rejected arbitration cases are not kept anywhere, except in the history of WP:RFAR. There is an incomplete and unofficial archive of rejected cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests, which is just a collection of diffs to the rejection. Plus, the subpage I deleted was only a partial statement of the case anyway, since it only included comments moved off the main page for space reasons. Having said that, you are of course welcome to undelete or userfy the page if you want it for reference. If you are building a record of the case, don't forget to capture the other statements from the main RFAR page using the history link at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Thatcher131 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's best to leave these things undeleted so that people can look through the history and find them, even if they're not compiled in an archive; especially as the page is part of the original RfAr and only became a subpage because of spillover. I'll probably restore it at some point as you have no objection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expect the reason that rejected cases are not specially archived is more or less the same reason that uncertified RFC's are deleted. All the comments that were moved to the subpage are also in the history of the main page, so the subpage is merely a convenience. As long as it's needed for an ongoing situation I have no problem keeping it around, but I don't think such things ahould be kept indefinitely as a rogues' gallery or permanent scarlet letter. But that's a policy question for another time, since this clearly is an ongoing situation. Thatcher131 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Checkuser clerk?

Thanks for contacting me, but at the moment I am far too busy to be of any use. I have removed my name from the list. Viridae ^Talk 03:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travb again

Sadly I am back and asking for your help, Travb has found himself at an MfD for a noticeboard I participate in, small world isnt it. He also found himself on 3 I believe so far AfD's related to that noticeboard, again small world. Anyway he is now deleting my comments from the AfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard [27] [28] [29] This is starting to get old with Travb and you can notice the threat on AN/I in the first summary, and here is the subsequent AN/I post: [30] --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did we not agree not to post on eachothers talk pages? [31] I am getting tired of these actions that I see as baiting. Notice the "first step in resolution" comment. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RyanF?

Who is RyanF? [32] Thats me right? Is this somekind of inside joke? If so I don't get it. Please explain on my talk page, because I am not watching this page, and I have stopped watching Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America for a month, until November 30. Travb (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the response. Travb (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sir

Thank you sir. [33] Best wishes an happy editing. Travb (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please on baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction

Background

I came to your page to thank you, and then I clicked the user's message User_talk:Thatcher131#Unblock below.

The issue of "vote stacking" interests me, ever since I was warned by a user some months ago against not "vote stacking" and then I later found out that Morton had been unblocked and the admin who had blocked him for "vote stacking" had been severly reprimanded. So I began writing User:Travb/vote stacking on the legal/illegality of vote stacking on wikipedia.

Your statments

I was searching the AfD archives for one of the links inUser_talk:Thatcher131#Unblock [34], which had been archived, and I came across my name "Travb" prominently in the ANI history. You wrote on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement page:

"The arbitration enforcement page specifically warns users against baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction. (For precedent see one of the Deathrocker cases, where Deathrocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring but so was the user who was baiting him.)" Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#Travb

2 Questions

I have a couple of questions, where does the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement "specifically warns users against baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction"? I read over it and must have missed it,

Further, when you talk about the precedent case, Deathrocker cases is this June 2006 case the one you are refering too? Because this case doesn't appear to address "where Deathrocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit warring but so was the user who was baiting him." you said "one of" so I assume there is more than one. If this is the case you meant, where does it say what you state?

I was ignorant of the "baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction" rule, until you first brought it up, I would like clarification on this rule so I do not violate it in the future.

Thanks for all of your hard work. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I got my cases mixed up again. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo, both Terryeo and Farenheit451 were blocked; F451 for provoking Terryeo. [35] Regarding enforcement, the specific language of the page is

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals.

Under his probation, Nuclear can be banned from any article he disrupts. That's always going to be a judgement call. In the state terrorism case looking at the article on Oct 23 only it looks like Nuclear is deleting sourced sections. Looking back to when he tagged the sections 10 days before (and noted it on the talk page) and forward to Seabhcán's edits of the 24th and Nuclear's interaction with Seabhcán on the talk page, it looks like the normal wiki process made the article better.

The problem with disruptive editing is that it often does not occur in a vacuum. Would you say, for example, that contentious Afd's Nuclear comments in would be peace and harmony if he were banned from participating in Afd? (Personally I'd start with NBGPWS/Fair and Balanced.) So far the cases brought to the noticeboard have included two arguments over whether statements that the US did something bad are based on the editors' opinion or outside reliable sources (here and the recent State terrorism issue) and a pissing contest with RyanFriesling over whether or not Nuclear is Rex. I obviously don't follow all his contribs, but if you can make a case that Nuclear's editing of a article or group of articles is disruptive (that is, he fans the flames without having substantive arguments, he provokes others, he disrupts to make a point, etc) then he certainly should be banned from those articles. Thatcher131 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs

Not sure it is him, the ip is possible, but not a match. Fred Bauder 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the editing is slightly different too; same topic, but factual, not hysterical. Fred Bauder 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Clerk

Hi Thatcher131. I'm more than happy to help out, thanks for the offer. I'll add my name to the list now. Thanks — D e on555 ^talk_Review 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp ^TC 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallcore

hi, you erased all the pictures, trivia, and band lists on the Mallcore article. If you consider the article after you erased everything, it could now be considered a stub. However, it was a fairly good article before you erased half the page. I just wanted to let you know that the term Mallcore is an abstract idea and that its not easy to get this article going (first because of people arguing with the term itself, then with vandalism, and now with you erasing everything).

I would like to ask you permission to re-put the things you erased (i don't know if we have to, but i'd rather ask you).

Thank you for your cooperation,

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need my permission to do anything. However, this was a really poor article. On whose say-so does Roadrunner's catalog focus on Mallcore? Which veteran Roadrunner fans dismiss the company's current artist lineup, and where did they say it? What is your justification for listing a band as "Mallcore." (I checked 20 from the list, and only one band is labeled Mallcore in its own article). Who decides that a band is a particularly good example of the genre worthy of a picture. Editors can't do these things themselves. You can only report what reliable sources say about this (or any) topic. It would be much more productive to have a discussion on the article talk page to decide how to define the term.

What are your reliable sources.
Are there music web sites that you can all agree are reliable regarding the sub-genres of music.
Can you agree on a clear definition of "Mallcore" that explains its history and its use both as a positive and negative term.

Then, I think the principle of neutral point of view and all significant points of view means you can't call a band "Mallcore" unless you present arguments on both sides. For example I found a blog interview of the drummer for Trivium where he objected to the term. Since it would be very complex to list the for and against argument for each band on this page, it might be better to list them on each band's article, and then in this article list Bands considered by some to be Mallcore (see each band's article for more information).

That's only a suggestion but remember it is absolutely critical that you can not write your own definition of Mallcore and you can not apply that definition to come up with a list of bands; you can only report what other people have published in reliable sources. Thatcher131 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'm gonna make sure some guidelines are established for the definition and selection of bands. I don't have a lot of time on internet, so this might take a little while, but i am devoting my internet time on it.

Thank you for your cooperation, --Zouavman Le Zouave 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks

How would I become a WP:RFARB clerk?? --SunStar Net 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you list your name at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Candidates or contact one of the arbitrators personally. Thatcher131 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you the time and patience

This is regarding User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All who initiated the AfD, you don't need to read these ANIs, I just want to put you up to date, if necessary:

I was wondering if you could watch User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All edits, since several users who appear to want to get an AfD (including at least one admin, maybe more) are currently watching his edits. These admins and other users have been right in the middle of the arguments/AfDs etc., which may arguably color their administrative decisions.

I ask these editors to unwatch his page, and have you watch his edits. The suggestions are here: User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Suggestions

I appreciate your hard work, I think I would hate to be an admin, i think I would ban everyone, I don't have the patience for it ... It is always amazing to see someone do something well, which you know you could never do yourself. Hats off to you. Travb (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy

Where do I post a proposal to prioritize requests. Geo. 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor procedural quibble

Having taken a quick look, I agree with the substance of your position on the "Will Smith website" ArbCom case filing. However, I suggest that you might want to move your comment to a new heading "comment by uninvolved user Thatcher131" rather than leave it under "clerk notes," as it's a comment on the merits of the case (or would-be case). From what I've seen, the ArbCom clerks generally don't comment on the merits of the cases (as contrasted with the RFCU clerks, who sometimes have been known to give gentle hints what they think), so this comment was kind of made with your "regular user/admin" hat on rather than your "clerk hat." (Geez, I shouldn't use that phrase or I'll get User:John Reid started with his fezzes again.) Anyway, Just a thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Newyorkbrad. I have taken a conservative approach to clerking. Best to do any thing that we can do to make cases go smoother since the position of clerk was controversial from the start for a various reasons. IMO, it is better if we keep our distance and do not state any opinion on cases that we clerk. For example, on the Giano case I considered myself involved and did not clerk the case. 2 parties mentioned my admin actions (but not my name, :-) in their first RFAr statements. I unblocked Giano. Additionally, I spoke my opinion a number of times by email and on IRC about the events that were the locus of the dispute. Specifically, I was involved in a discussion on IRC with Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and JamesF about JoshuaZ's block of Tony when JamesF made his "Idiot post" to AN/I. Some other comments that I made about the case on IRC were noted on Wikipedia Review. Due to this involvement I asked on the clerks-email list for some other clerk to open the case and did not do any clerking. This is the way that I feel comfortable handling clerking and not necessarily the only way. FloNight 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were possibly 8 words that crossed an invisible line (which I changed), but if my 5 minutes looking at the web site in question can save a collective 20 or 30 minutes of the arbitrators' time, that seems like a good thing. I think there is a difference between prior involvement and making comments as a clerk. Clerks for example can work on the workshop page. It would be silly to say that the parties can use the workshop page and even uninvolved editors may comment and make proposals but clerks can not for fear of becoming involved. If I had previously edited any of the Will Smith articles it would be a different story. I think the clerks were controversial at first because of who they were, and because of suggestion that they would refactor and summarize evidence and help write decisions. I've never seen a case where the clerks were asked to summarize or condense evidence and everybody and his mother edits the workshops in some cases. I'll certainly take your comments to heart and be especially watchful, and I remain open to correction by the arbitrators at all times. Cheers. Thatcher131 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Thatcher131, I thought your statement was exactly what needed to be said. My only point was that you could simply have posted it under the heading "Statement by Uninvolved User Thatcher131" and let FloNight or Drini clerk that particular case (in the event it ever turns into a case, which it won't, it seems eminently rejectable to me), rather than post it as a clerk note. Tony S., who was an excellent clerk, posted lots of partisan comments to various cases, but never in the "clerk note" box. Arbitration is not litigation and process can be overrated, but no one needs someone shouting "see how unfair this is, the official clerk is biased against me!" The arbitrators certainly know who you are and (I am sure) respect your judgment and recommendations, and that would be equally true whether you are posting "as a user" or "as the clerk."

More importantly, in a couple of months, I hope to see at least one of you two arbitrating rather than clerking. You'd both make fine candidates and I hope you'll give running for the committee some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a partisan comment to point out that the web site contains copyvios. It may have been to say "Not only do you have no case" which is why I removed it. As far as arbitrator is concerned, I wouldn't run if the only other candidates were Ghengis Khan and the Gundagai editor. (I wouldn't want to spoil the pleasant memories of my recent RFA.) I find myself being treated as the voice of reason in 3 different disputes right now and that's more than enough stress, plus I sure as heck don't have the time. (Being an admin lately makes me think that judges and other arbitrators must have to have the supreme confidence of surgeons—cut and move on. I don't.) Thanks, though. Thatcher131 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have read a fair number of biographies of judges, and it's interesting that some of them are supremely certain about the result in every case and quickly move on to the next one, while others agonize endlessly about the outcome of every decision and the wording of every opinion. I also happen to think that you are putting as much time into the arb pages right now as some of the arbitrators (NB: that is not a criticism of the arbitrators). As for your alternative nominations, I don't believe it's possible to serve as an arbitrator without registering an account, so the Gundagai editor is out unless ArbCom passes the injunction and she obeys it, and User:Ghengis Khan doesn't currently meet the required minimum of 1000 edits to run. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker

I'm not desparately aware of the situation, since I didn't look that closely into it. So a few general observations. Sometimes (often) not blocking is good and if you've the time to work with someone to move forward it can be very productive, but may of us don't have the time, patience of skill to do it effectively (and indeed teaching people to behave in a "society" isn't one of wikipedia's goals, so if it is "expensive" then ...). One of the criticisms leveled at some proposed remedies of arbcom (criticesed by other arbitrators) is that they are a bit limp, such as we have a rule against wheel warring and people should expect sanctions for doing so, so if the sanction from arbcom is just another threat of a sanction it appears pretty weak. Similarly in this case if the arbcom sanction to try and remedy the situation is that they will be blocked for performing some prohibited behaviour then when they do repeat the behaviour repeating the threat without taking the sanction can seem weak. (That's not to say sometimes it won't be appropriate to let it go, just you have to consider the broader picture including the message actually being sent out.) To draw on a real world example about 15 years or so ago one of my mothers friends from Church had a 9 year old son, real little horror and every week more or less at Church he would do something he wasn't allowed to do and every week his mother would chase him around and threaten him with all sorts of punishment, the punishment never came hence every week he knew he could misbehave and the only punishment was a threat of punishment... You'll of course have to use your own judgement, though given to have got as far as arbcom and have had arbcom issue such a sanction tends to suggest it was previously out of control and either previous attempts to moderate the behaviour failed, or arbcom didn't believe such attempts would be fruitful, suggests merely enforcing arbcom's ruling is not going to be "wrong". --pgk 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Well I had the snarky feeling that I'd missed something... :( Anyway I've deleted the pages I created & reverted myself on the Arb page, so you can restore the edits if necessary. I was following the procedures page (which needs some updating) and guess I got a bit ahead of myself. I tried to get Dmcdevit on IRC but he seems to be afk. Thanks for the quick notification, Cheers --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed Dmcdevit yesterday and he seemed unaware of the change as well and said he would prompt the other arbitrators. After that Jayjg voted to accept but no one else has. Since this is the first borderline case under the change I'm waiting for someone else to make a definitive statement to open or reject (either on wik or by e-mail). No problem, though. Thatcher131 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, because I'm on the clerk applicants' list now - what's the change? Newyorkbrad 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back on Oct 17 (the diff is in an inaccessible e-mail program and I don't want to look for it again) Jayjg changed the acceptance criteria from 4 votes to 4 net votes (accept minus reject). So right now Onefortyone has three net accept votes. Thatcher131 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... but hmmm ... does that mean if there are 9 active arbs in a case, 6 vote to accept and 3 to reject, then the case is rejected? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. In practice, it makes it almost impossible to accept a case with two or more rejections. Either Jayjg didn't think it through, or thinks this will be an unlikely occurrence. Obviously any arbitrator could direct the clerks to open the case (or open it themselves) regardless of the count. Taking it day by day, this just means I won't be taking the initiative to either open or reject the Onefortyone case (being the first borderline case). Thatcher131 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix: Four more accept than reject votes or a majority of the total number of active non-recused arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Not my call, though. Thatcher131 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There was a thread about counting votes on an ArbCom talk page a couple of months back, but there was mounting evidence at the time that No One Much Cared. Maybe I'll put together a few suggestions for process changes after the election. Change of subject: Check out the top request on the RfCU page and you might want to add your two cents. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience individual remedies

It looks like you are pursuing individual remedies in the case rather than forking them to new cases. If so, would it be helpful for me to try and put together some more findings on the workshop page tonight (after work)? (I would not want to spend the time and then find out you were finished with the case, for example.) Thatcher131 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Fred Bauder 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration- Will Smith web site

While I agree with your statement on this RFAr, I feel that it's an inappropriate use of the "clerk notes" area, which should be reserved for notes on the case (i.e. previous arbitration requests, RFCs and RFMs, etc.), not for statements seemingly advocating for acceptance or rejection. I would suggest moving this to a subsection of the case instead. Ral315 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

A new User:Large_Barge is declared himself as admin and member of arbitration commitee. He vandalise some users with temporary block tag. Please see;Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse. Regards Mustafa Akalp ^TC 20:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clarification please

Thatcher131, throughout the Kosovo arbitration case this sentence has been in the introduction without challenge: "International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence." This is an entirely accurate sentence. A review of statements from the UN, EU, US State Department, the International Crisis Group, and international media will substantiate this statement. This statement was edited out of the introduction a few days ago without substantiation. I restored the original version. How is my restoring a statement that has been in the introduction for months disruptive editing? I believe a closer consideration of my editing will lead to the conclusion that my being blocked was a bit harsh.

Please clarify how my edits are disruptive? What am I disrupting?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my inquiry. Fairview360 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, I understand that being an administrator trying to keep the peace with the Kosovo article is a rather difficult job. What disturbs me is that a sentence has been removed that is accurate. It is an accurate description of current expectations. And, current expectations are relevant. If those who defend an accurate statement are banned, then anyone using multiple sockpuppets can force their chosen sentences or omissions upon the article. I understand you are in a difficult position. I understand that you do not want to "take sides", but, please, to whatever extent possible, take into consideration if the sentence being removed is accurate or not. Otherwise, it seems that those using multiple sockpuppets will be rewarded. I have seen edit wars where sometime later, it turns out that it was actually one person using multiple sockpuppets (Bormalagurski). How can an article be protected from such puppetry? It seems the answer is to look at the legitimacy of the actual edits. Again, I do understand that you are in a difficult position and there are no easy answers. Hopefully, within a few months, this question of final status will be resolved. Fairview360 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hey, I know that many people are probably bothering you about this already, so let me state first of all that I'm not here to complain about the block or ask for it to be repealed. Rather, I'm just curious as to why I was a party named in it, as I did not break WP:3RR and I was trying to maintain the consensus version of the article. (In fact, I willingly recused from editing after a second revert, as I stated on the talk page, so as such, the block is just forcing me to do something I was already willingly doing) :) Anyways, just want to know what you thought I did was wrong so I can avoid it in the future. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note about the probation and arbitration decision on related article NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Hope this is OK and gets the message across to any edit warrior out there. Regards, Asterion^talk 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly Applied Template?

Hey Thatcher,

I know you're probably super busy (judging from your talkpage, at least). I think you may have misapplied a template to my talkpage: you applied { {subst:ArbComOpenedComment|Elvis }} to my talk page, however I did not comment nor had any involvement with the ArbCom case regarding Elvis. However, I do have an ArbCom case pending (USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79) -- perhaps it's in close proximity to the case I am hoping to open...? If I need to do something for the opened case, let me know, but I'm pretty sure it was just misapplied template. I do, however, hope one more ArbCom member votes to accept the case I am hoping to prosecute -- if there is anything I can do to facilitate one more open vote, let me know. Your dilligence and hard work is noted and apprecited! /Blaxthos 09:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment in the case titled Statement by complete stranger blaxthos which is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. You certainly don't have to participate further. As to the Cbuhl case, it needs one more vote to accept, and there are 4 days left in the 10 day window. Thatcher131 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment to Srikeit

Hi! See my comment to Srikeit. [36] I talked with Dmcvecit and Srikeit about the best way for editors to help with unofficial arb clerking. I think coordinating it at Pending cases is the best way to go to keep us from stepping on each other. [37]

Would prefer to reconfigure the situation now at this time of transition with you taking the lead in coordinating the clerking activites. I plan to stay involved but I would happily let you take over being "the most active arb clerk". When I originally volunteered I planned to be giving Tony Sidaway a respite and then backing him up. Would like to move back in that direction. Thoughts? FloNight 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error. Really good to have you watching over :D I agree with Flo's suggestion above. It'd be nice to have you at the helm. Cheers --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors

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

The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai editors#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Now that the Gundagai case is closed, why don't you semiprotect the various arbitration pages for the case for awhile. No one's supposed to be editing them now anyway, and this way you'll avoid spending time reverting anonymous edits to them. Just a thought. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Thatcher131 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I hadn't heard that term or seen that article before, either. Feel free to delete this thread per WP:BEANS if you like. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith site RfAr

Hi. I hate to bring this up again, but given Fred's vote (sidenote: it's good to be able to type "vote" instead of "!vote" just this once) on Mary's "Will Smith" RfAr, you really might want to post your prior comment again as an uninvolved-user comment. (Or not, it's up to you.) Newyorkbrad 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of my arbitration request

You deleted my arbitration request because it "was posted while user was evading a block for 3RR and antisemitic comments." Please note that no racist or anti-semitic comment was made. The person who banned me is a part of the Pro-Israel POV group against whom I am complaining in the arbitration request. He has no evidence of an anti-semitic comment and only banned me because of the dispute over which I am requesting arbitration. I added him the list of people being complained against and explained why in the section titled "update" at the bottom of my complaint. Any way, please give my arbitration request a fair hearing. (75.5.2.227 logged in under new IP) --75.28.17.156 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editors are not allowed to post anything until their block expires. I believe you are blocked for a week. After that time you can file a request for arbitration. However, please do not post one complaint into multiple cases. Also, please consider prior forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment. On a purely technical note, you put your complaint all over the place; I couldn't figure out if it was an addition to the Steel359 case or a separate case, and didn't even realize it was meant to be part of the Israeli POV case. If you want help filing a new complaint when you are not blocked, let me know. Thatcher131 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason I was blocked was the same reason I was filing the arbitration dispute. Again, what happened was that I added the (well cited) fact to the Hezbollah, AMIA bombing and Rafsanjani articles to note that the prosecutor filing charges against Muslims in the 12 year old case was Jewish. This is a relevant fact because his Jewish background may have played a role in his decision to prosecute. Then a mob of Pro-Israel censors (the same ones being complained about in the arbitration article in which i tried to make a statement) started a mass edit war to delete that information, one of them (Jayjg) banned me for making the edit. It is unbelievably unjust that because of his banning, I am now not even allowed to make a statement in the arbitration complaint against the Israeli censor mob's group. Having given them this power, they are effectively immune because anyone who disagrees with them will be banned and denied an opportunity for a hearing. I don't have any more time to spend on here, but it would be nice if you could please try to bring some sense of fairness to Wikipedia. Pleasre re-instate my statements against the Israeli POV group and against Steelxxx. --75.28.17.156 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. The statement I made has been removed, although I was partially involved in the case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you inadvertently ...

... posted your "Clerk Note" on RfAr under the wrong case. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk

I noticed you're on, so can you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard#History merge for me. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's with the nastiness?

In the USA I'm sure you have shared computer internet cafes,don't you? This "watching" and labelling someone something that is contrary to the fact is truly like Methodology said before; orwellian. I will NOT be watching you or anyone else; that is so big brother. ottawaman 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why permanently delete the historical record of the RfC?

Is that normal? Isn't that contrary to the whole Wiki concept? Are you guys on some kind of information control trip? ottawaman 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's which have been filed properly are archived when the discussion is over. RFC's which are uncertified or improperly certified are deleted. Thatcher131 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really earned that barnstar I just gave you for your part in this matter. Well done, and I am proud to belong to the same community as you. --Guinnog 13:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, Thatcher. :) Very much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb whoops

Thanks for removing that vote. I was multitasking and didn't notice the disclaimer, and I'm not an arbitrator (no, I haven't gotten a sudden promotion :P). --Core des at 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello before you prolong my block please look into this, where is the confirmation that user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng

User:Constanz has added to User:Daborhe that he is a confirmed sock puppet of me. He first added it to the talkpage and then Daniel.Bryant added it to the user page but where is the confirmation? My question is where is the confirmation and who did it. As I can see there are 3 Admins involved User:Dmcdevit, User:Thatcher131 and User:Daniel.Bryant and not one of them has said "yes user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet" of me superdeng. And since I will get extra blocked for every post I make on wikipedia and not to have one of you refering to the other I am going to try to post at the same time to all 3 of you. Because As I see it user:Dabhore is a sock puppet of someone just not me.

So where is the confirmation that user dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng

And who did the confirmation

Where is the confrimation that User:Dabhore is a confirmed Sockpuppet of superdeng.

I am violating the ban so that you wont forget the case as you will if I post in one month

Where is the confirmation that user Dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user Super deng.

If there is no confirmation then please remove it from user:Dabhore page.

I have tried maling you all but none of you will give me a direct answer on my questions and you all give me the run around.

And right now I am ONLY interested in geting this resloves then AFTER this has been resloved I will appeal my block but FIRST this must be resloved before you all forget about it which you will in one month.

relax. I don't generally bite even banned users who post to my talk page. I saw your e-mails and am looking into the situation but haven't had time to make a thorough answer. Thatcher131 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply on the other page makes no sense so I will re type my question

My question is simple where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me? IF THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION THEN THE TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Where is the confirmation?

No one has said it! Constanz just added the tag because he FEELS like it no one has said "yes there is a confirmation" NO ONE

And user Lokqs cant in any world be an evasion of ban since he was created after my ban was lifted AFTER and how in any world can he also be a confirmed sock puppet of me when it was not possible to check his ip. There are many wrongs here and lets adress them one at the time

1 Where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me

Torlist

Updated, haven't changed it to look at contribs yet. I've also separated out those which are already blocked, just not indefinitely. It's more than I expected left, but that's tor I guess and never ending stream of proxies. --pgk 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable RfAr

There's a line of threaded dialog under Konstable's presentation that probably should be refactored. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the case opens, it'll get fixed. Thatcher131 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned here about the formalities of whether there should be discussion versus "everyone in their own section." I'm just concerned that Konstable will see it and respond in kind. This situation is sad enough already. Newyorkbrad 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the dialog between K and dmcdevit; I hadn't seen the other. Thanks. In the future you can pull something like that yourself, just leave an informative edit summary so I'll see it on my watchlist. Thatcher131 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there are users who would claim I'm not properly attired for such a task. Newyorkbrad 21:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Doesn't it bother you to have to cover up for Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry? 10.131.98.13 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the findings. I don't think I have a duty to expose every misdeed. Just as I would not support the police looking at 4 month old surveillance video to issue parking tickets, I don't see any reason to hang a scarlet letter around the neck of a user who made a mistake and got caught, as long as the mistake is not repeated. Thatcher131 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Fred Bauder 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's bull Thatcher131. If you're against scarlet letters why do you have two pages full of them Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case and "Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets" including a lot of real names and IPs? A lot of the entries there are for people who last sockpuppeted in July or before meaning they're too old to run new checkusers on. If you're serious about being against scarlet letters then you should have a sunset policy that deletes these pages after 6 months of no further puppets.

As for Mantanmoreland, he's never apologized for or even acknowledged his sockpuppetry so there's no basis on which to give him a pass. It looks a lot like he's being protected which only makes a joke of Wikipedia policies. 67.15.76.111 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sunsetting the RFCU archives is not a bad idea. Regarding the rest, it seems like your ultimate goal is to associate a real life person with misdeeds on wikipedia. Obviously my threshold for doing so is higher than yours, and I doubt I will be able to change your mind on the matter, so there's not much point in continuing the discussion. Thatcher131 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real irony here is that the only reason Mantanmoreland scaled back on the sockpuppetry when he did was User:WordBomb figured it out and called him on it. But for that, it would have undoubtedly continued to this day. And yet for his efforts, WordBomb is banned and Mantanmoreland edits away, under the ponderous protection of everybody from Jimbo to you, Thatcher. And then, he has the audacity to write this delightful blog post today, in which he blames everybody else for what you've just conceded to.

Prosecuting parking infractions using four month old video tape may not make sense, but prosecuting fraud with the perpetrator's four month old online journal entries just might be something worth doing.

In the end, I really don't care about Mantanmoreland, so ignore this as long as you want to. After all, he's got an army of sleeper accounts with nothing but timely reverts in their edit histories waiting to be put into service, so banning Mantanmoreland would be purely symbolic. WordBomb is tired of trying to save Wikipedia from this cancer, which Fred Bauder could have excised in July but chose not to. You're on your own. --Pencey Academy Dropout 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Malformed RFCU

I'm presuming you were referring to the Quebec Vandal entry, however I'm not 100% sure. Which one? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fys

Hi Thatcher131, I think that you misundrstood Fys's latest edits: see my reply of 16:44 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again. I have agreed not to revert further changes, but I think that Fys was not doing what you think he was! :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on ANI. Thatcher131 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cbuhl79 case

The rule is 4 net accept votes in 10 days. This one only had 2 net accept votes in 11 days, so I don't think it's that controversial. Thanks for all your continuing good work. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation

Thanks for your work on micronation. It's good to see someone not trying to vandalise the article for once. Just so you're aware, I'm the chief executive of Empire of Atlantium, and Harvardy is a sock of the hard-banned editor Gzornenplatz. He's been actively vandalising both the micronation and Atlantium articles on-and-off for about 4 years. He's currently in one of his more active phases, so be prepared to deal with some hysterics.

If you're looking for reliable references, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. For starters you might want to take a look at the recently-published book "Micronations", from LOnely Planet Publications, which describes Atlantium as a pleasant alternative to the reactionary self-aggrandizement of most micronations, and (to paraphrase) an "extremely sophisticated nation-state experiment as well as an entirely serious contender to statehood". --Gene_poole 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of truth and justice

Thank you for your support against that anonymous anti-Semite who has been posting on the Hezbollah page and other pages related to the AMIA bombing. --GHcool 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip back at Bipasha Basu

The very very determined 71.82.137.219 is back from his block and pasting the same unreferenced gossip into the Bipasha Basu article. I think he's determined to show that we can't censor HIM. Could you come take a look and consider re-imposing the ban? Zora 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU on Primetime

I see you moved it to #Completed. I originally moved it to #Outstanding after a follow-up check was requested, and there's still been no answer. Your call now where it belongs. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beating Nuclear to the punch

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Irony

~~Based on past behavior, I figure Nuclear will complain to you or call another ANI, so I am beating him to the punch. Notice how I am careful not to mention his Arbcom ruling, as you suggested.~~

Even a zebra can change his stripes. Looks like Nuclear has turned over an intriguing new leaf. Travb (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xin (flash)

Hey, you removed the A7 note from Xin (flash), and said that I didn't use it properly. What is that for then? The same article was just recreated after deletion and still shows no evidence of notability. --Simonkoldyk 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted once as an uncontested prod. It was recreated and then deleted twice as a recreation, which is out of process since the point of prod is that any objection brings the article back. I think it makes a plausible claim of notability; 22 awards. I doubt it will be a successful claim of notability at AfD, but I do not believe A7, which is only for subjects with no plausible claim of notability, applies. Thatcher131 02:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

I appreciate your concern and I understand your suspicions, but this was not a unilateral action. Private discussions have taken place among various parties, and the HotR checkuser discussion page was deleted with Jimbo's permission (as a courtesy delete). I removed the initial request as an extension of the same act. CJCurrie 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that my past assocation with HotR could raise suspicions, and I would not have carried out the deletions unless I was certain that doing so was appropriate. I was given specific permission from Jimbo to remove the pages. CJCurrie 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request your assistance

At the Sandinista National Liberation Front and Mitrokhin Archive pages. A user is removing any cited material detrimental to their views on the validity of a spy's notes. An admin can help clear the waters before an edit war ensues. Abe Froman 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Soviet espionage in the United States, again

I don’t mean to drag you into this, but I find it more that a bit petty and vindictive that Froman should expect me to com up with 53 citations in 4 days [38], when I suspect he knows most of the material is valid. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjaybot II

Want me to block it? Prodego ^talk 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss my RFA on your break? :) Anyway, no, not yet. The bot does other important archiving work. Essjay set it up to maintain the RFCU page just a couple of days ago and it probably has a bug or two. As long as it doesn't interfere with anyone wanting to add a new case, I'd like to wait a bit and see if Essjay pops in. Thatcher131 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did miss it, congratulations! And I fixed the problem anyway ;-). Prodego ^talk 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note to the adminship, what are you using for e-mail now? Most admins use Gmail, since it provides extra privacy, and if you aren't already using it, and want it, I can send you an invite. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm covered there. Thatcher131 at gmail dot com. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I hope I didn't inconvenience the process. RPJ 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's a common mistake and quickly reverted. No worries. Thatcher131 03:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser (Elalan case)

For one, I use a password protected university proxy server to access university subscribed content and internet. This is turned on through automated login script via ssh. Its a pain to switch between that and my home isp assigned ip so I leave it untouched. Why was this mislabeled as a school ? Couldn't the checkuser person have identified that? This raises some doubts. Did the checkusers consider all the technical configuration that could have caused this ? Just some thoughts. With technical observations why is there no second opinion ? Trincomanb 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

A request for clarification at WP:RFAR that I thought simple has so far generated no clarification, but instead a distasteful chat thread, including a comment from Mackensen which I think is really beyond the pale. Could you please remove the whole thing? [39] (I'm making this request of FloNight as well, as I don't know who's around.) Bishonen | talk 12:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Poof. Thatcher131 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of RfAr, can't the (1/4/1/0) and (1/4/0/0) requests be removed, as they aren't gonna reach the four net votes required (only 9 AC members are active)? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were 0-4 I would remove them but with at least one vote to accept I will wait an extra day or so out of courtesy to the other arbitrators. Mathematically they can not be accepted without someone changing their vote but maybe Fred is fighting tooth and nail on the mailing list (probably not, but...) Thatcher131 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an article of possible interest to you

The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you would like to help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, no thank you. Thatcher131 00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]