User talk:Thatcher/Archive24

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

Thanks for resolving the User:Disinfoboxman issue. It is all so much better when things are clarified. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Thatcher 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Resolved" on what basis?

There never was any "User:Disinfoboxman issue"; there were simply groundless suspicions.

Do checkusers get run these days on what User:Mattisse has disparagingly termed "harassing diffs", "hiding [Mattisse's] comments in a box", and commenting "frivolously". -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances of confirmed sockpuppetry by one editor, and an account that seems more "experienced" than it's edit count would indicate, and with an interest in infoboxes and the passive voice [1] similar to Geogre, it was reasonable to take a look. You're not related, so no more needs to be said. Thatcher 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmed sockpuppetry" verus "alternative account". Discuss.

But "interest in infoboxes and the passive voice similar to Geogre"? That is most unsatisfactory. Similar to Bishonen; similar to Giano; similar a bunch of other people, and we are all partial to a spot of free range sarcasm and have a smattering of German too. I hope you enjoyed your fishing expedition. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my statement on the motion re:sockpuppetry vs alternate account. I think it was an acceptable alternate account except for a few breaches. How serious those breaches were is a matter of individual opinion. Thatcher 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you have recently dealt with the new set of socks of Verjakette (Aparaj (talk · contribs), Greiwood (talk · contribs), etc), could you please check if Oceolcspsms (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of Verjakette/Capasitor? The editing is very similar to that banned user. Lumberjak (talk · contribs) is also a suspicious account. Thanks. Grandmaster 09:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lumberjak is  Confirmed, Oceolcspsms is probably unrelated. Thatcher 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. But Oceolcspsms's edits are very similar to Verjakette. Cannot be a coincidence. Probably he found a way to evade CU. He was known to use proxies before. Grandmaster 11:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP is not obviously an open proxy. Technical analysis will not be any help here, you might file an SPI report. Thatcher 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, thank you. Grandmaster 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check another suspicious account? The account of Lida Vorig (talk · contribs) was used for voting at AFD, and edit warring. It appears to be the same person. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but this user should be officially notified of the case restrictions. Ask at WP:AE. Thatcher 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks again. Grandmaster 06:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring??? Where???? Oh and the AFD was closed and my vote did not count. Lida Vorig (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of that request you contacted me about, but I don't know how to contact you, other than through this page (or my own). Let me know how to proceed. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sent you a direct email. Thatcher 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied, but I don,t see any activity on that users contribution page since '07. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

"Users who resign permissions while named in a pending Arbitration request or an open case may not be reinstated with permission of Arbcom"

Did you mean:

"Users who resign permissions while named in a pending Arbitration request or an open case may not be reinstated without permission of Arbcom"

Or perhaps I am misreading it? Chillum 02:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed that. Thanks. Thatcher 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for a moment that I had missed some sort of fundamental change. Chillum 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm in front of the TV with my wife's laptop which I rarely use, watching Star Wars and Batman on split screen. I'm probably lucky I didn't suggest making arbcom mandatory for 'crats. Thatcher 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus? The account of Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) is clearly an SPA, but someone is behind it. Thanks. Grandmaster 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken care of, no worries. Sorry for disturbing. Grandmaster 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. Thatcher 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same article about duduk is now reverted by 67.150.124.123 (talk · contribs). Could you please check if it is Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) evading the block? Grandmaster 12:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to ask the same checkuser who answered the SPI case. Thatcher 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Grandmaster 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Bombing of Wieluń article. Editor Jacurek, continously removing referenced information (which has been stable for some months) and auto-reverting against the opposition of two other editors other than myself. This is the same behaviour he displayed in a number of other articles beforehand, see also Strategic bombing in World War II. He seems to have some strong feelings about the nature of these events, and cannot tolerate any other view, even if its well referenced, from historians of 3 different nationanility.. I understand that Jacurek is under editing restriction anyway for Eastern European articles, and given the past experience that it is impossible to communicate with him, I ask you to watch over this article and check his behaviour. Kurfürst (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your controversial changes on the talk page first before making editions to the stable article. The history shows that you were in disagreements with many people and you were blocked several times while editing this article in the past. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurfurst tried to POV push things for which no previous consensus was reached. At the very minimum he should started a discusion on the talk page. I don't want to be rude but Kurfust is very well known for his battlefield mentality and basically on every article he starts to edit he manages to create a battlezone. His block log also speak for itself. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All false; the history of the article is clear, it was in stable state until some 2 months ago, until Jacurek returned to it and began again to remove referenced sources en-masse. Two other editors, Hohum and Denniss already opposed your 'edits'.

The state before was more-or-less stable because the suggested (and well referenced) edit was discussed before hand on the talk page, a discussion you refused to participate. Several editors can testify that this was the same behaviour you displayed in other articles - your 'discussion' of edits is limited to calling them 'POV pushing' or 'controversial' and 'theres no consensus' (meaning in fact that against the consensus reached by others, you alone disagree), and keep reverting any edits or removing referenced statements, but you refuse to give any specific reason why you are opposing these edits. Nor did you gave any reason why are you removing the referenced quote from the Polish official history. Everything you accuse others you are guilty yourself. As other editors have noted, the subject is highly controversial, but instead of showing the views from all sides in neutral manner, you seek to rewrite the article in a manner that it would only show one (seriously questionable, as its based on websites etc. against published works by serious historians, ie. Poeppel, Creek, etc.) opinion in a highly biased language. Kurfürst (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not interested in acting as an article mediator at the present time. Generally, these sort of disputes are best handled by asking for additional (outside) opinions through request for comment or request for third opinion. Thatcher 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thatcher and sorry for this little mess on your talk page. User Kurfürst has long history of conflicts and blocks. What he is doing now is shopping for a friendly or unaware administrator to get his opponents restricted.--Jacurek (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two other editors, Hohum and Denniss already opposed your 'edits'." Actually, I've opposed Kurfürst's edits far more often. - Third opinion is really for breaking deadlock between two editors, while this issue is between more. I'm sorry that this has overflowed to your talk page, unbidden. Hohum (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for taking your time with this again, but one can get a quicker response by a direct request. Could you please check if the account of Monlonet (talk · contribs) is connected to either Verjakette or Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs)? This account has been used exclusively for edit warring on the articles Mount Ararat ‎and Duduk. An obvious SPA, which we've seen a lot of recently, but it would be good to know if any of the banned users are behind it. Thanks. Grandmaster 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the topic ban of user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) you seem to be familiar with. Today, Grundle2600 created an article that may or may not be in violation of this topic ban: "Obama Joker" poster (the initial article name was that of the 'artist' that created the poster: Firas_Alkhateeb). After I became aware of it I told him on his talk page that I will list it for deletion. But while I did, he beat me to it and asked admin Smashville (talk · contribs) to delete the article under rule G7. (Although strangely, I don't see any conversation between Grundle and Smallville anywhere on wikipedia.) Eventually Grundle removed our conversation from his talk page [2]. I assume, to prevent possible sanctions for violation of his ban. It's not for me to judge if it was a violation or not but after wasting half an hour on this nonsense, I thought someone should at least know about it... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's a violation of the ban, but I'm not inclined to do anything about it since he was cooperative. I'll review the whole situation over the next couple of days as well just to stay on top of it. Thatcher 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's ok to reply here to your question at Talk:Condom/GA1#Recap, rather than clog up the review. As far as I can see, there are no outstanding issues at the review, but I'm only in the position of giving a second opinion; the original reviewer SBC-YPR hasn't commented at the review since 28 July. I pinged his/her talk page on 17 August, to ask if it was time to wrap up the review, but there's been no response. I'm new to the process, but as I understand it, it's up to the original reviewer to pass/fail a nomination and I don't know the protocol to sort this out. I imagine it must be frustrating for Lyrl and WhatamIdoing who have put in the work on this article, so anything you can suggest would be much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't hear from him soon I will try and get something moving, such things can't be left to hang indefinitely. Thatcher 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your query at WT:RfArb/Abd&WMC. There were six editors who were completely uninvolved in RfC/JzG3 who endorsed WMC's ban of Abd: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#"Purported". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, you raised a series of points at [3]. If I were to respond to all the misconceptions in that, I'd double the page size, and that's the problem, isn't it? Yes, I know there is an alternate interpretation, but please be patient with one example.

Wilhelmina Will. You've made some assumptions about that case. I was blocked for harassment, yes, though the "harassment" consisted, in fact, of comments in my own Talk space, plus a comment with an amazed reaction when the banned Fredrick day showed up in an AN report and appeared to be referring to himself, using known Fd IP, as Fritzpoll. It was all rather awkward because, apparently, Fritzpoll may have the same internet access as Fredrick day, but I didn't make an actual SSP claim, I just expressed wonderment, because it was so utterly unexpected. Jehochman warned me with quite an extreme warning, kind of along the lines of what Raul654 has been saying about me and, though I'd stopped all activity outside my Talk page, announcing that, Iridescent blocked me.

Then, because I'd been working on the Wilhelmina Will ban, GoRight showed up to carry on, and did some serious investigation, showing that the evidence that had been presented about WW was misleading. Highly misleading.

I think you should look at the end of this, not just what it looked like in the middle. I eventually went through dispute resolution (the first, very informal stages, which is, in fact, usually all it takes) with Jehochman over that warning, and the result was resolution, we started to cooperate well. He agreed that the warning was overblown, and I agreed that it was given in good faith. Which I had never doubted. I never did anything with Iridescent, because her behavior, while erroneous in certain ways, was proper, and she had immediately recused, so my problem was getting unblocked, not with Iridescent. She was a good example of how fast recusal helps prevent disruption. Recently, Iridescent wrote on her Talk page that this block was the most worrisome she had ever made, which was ironic, because I'd been writing in many places what a great job she had done. She saw what looked like harassment, and she acted quickly, but didn't hold on and try to convince the community I was a monster in order to justify her block, which some admins will do.

When I was unblocked, which took some time because I took my time, WW was unbanned, the work I had been doing was successful, and if not for that work, we would probably have lost a fine young editor, and quite unjustly.

Fritzpoll and I communicated off-wiki by email, and became quite good friends. Look and see who granted me rollback and see if the "harassment" charge still makes sense. Fritzpoll was under RL stress at the time and had a lot of difficulty understanding what I was saying to him, yet felt it was his responsibility to figure it out. That is a formula for stress, in itself.

What, exactly, was the real problem here? But apparently you have held on to an impression formed either then or later, without seeing the whole picture. Ask Fritzpoll! Or Wilhelmina Will! Or Jehochman! Or, for that matter, Iridescent. Is she holding on to the idea that I'm disruptive?

And, by the way, responding to this one small aspect of your comments took this many words. I could spend three times the time maybe another forty minutes, and boil it down by a half, saving you a minute. Should I have done that? Imagine what it is like to have many editors dreaming up whatever charges they can find some shred of basis for, all at once, under some level of time pressure because of case time limits, and then ask yourself just how easy it would be to remain silent if you see some of the mud sticking, with others believing it, including some arbitrators. I've got problems, for sure, but ... not necessarily the ones so much repeated, over and over.

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest to multiply this one minute of time saved with the number of people who read your posts. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Splette, but this post was written to Thatcher, not for everyone. I do put far more time into a post of this length on, say, an RfAr talk page, and, even there, nobody is actually obligated to read it. Carcharoth knows how to handle length: skim, and read more carefully if interest arises. Yes, the argument is sound, where a post will be read by many. If I have the time. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for wrapping up the review. I was extremely tied up with real-life, and despite all efforts could not find the time to do it. The page seems to have had a lot of activity and work done on it over the last three weeks, and I agree that it merited a pass. Apologies for any inconvenience caused, and thanks again! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thatcher 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure, which is why I decided to just drop silent, and go with what others say. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct you back to this. Part of the user justifying that he was not the account was "Again, I am not a banned user, and I am not an Afghan, and I have little or no interest in Afghan-related topics." He has made it clear that he is interested in such at Talk:Persian Empire. He is involved in promoting the blanking of the page. The Persian Empire was a major part of Afghanistan history. They are also making many reverts inappropriately. They think that this is appropriate, even though there were 6 clear nos to blanking the content from the page and only 3 supporters of it. I would also look at this, as they tend to have the same agenda and tend to be pushing the same arguments on multiple pages in the same manner. This shows that I am not the first person to recognize the common attributes. Even if they aren't the same, they sure like to tag team during various disputes or revert the same pages. It could just be that, from his edits, he seems to be a Kurdish editor with an anti-Iranian bias. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want me to do exactly? I think his main account was unblocked but all his alternate accounts were not. If the main account is acting up on Persian or Turkish articles it might fall under one of the regional/ethnic arbitration cases, you can ask for discretionary sanctions at WP:AE. How else can I help? Thatcher 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was saying is that you should probably use information now to re-evaluate (not relook at CU, but remember back to the details that swayed you away from there being a match). One of his defenses was that he had no involvement with Afghanistan articles, whereas he does directly or indirectly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima has a habit of using CU as a tool in his vendettas against users who disagree with him. See a similar attack on Fowler&Fowler here[4]. --Folantin (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and two CUs did look into it because the wiki stalking and the location matched up. Seeing as how this user is not afraid of having multiple accounts and other people see suspicious activities, it is enough to provide more evidence to someone involved in the prior check in case it would help them re-evaluate what they knew previously. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I noticed that you often indef-block users, unprovoked, and without adequate justification for doing so. These issues may need to be discussed with the Wikipedia community to ensure that you are using your admin privileges fairly and effectively. Thank you for looking into this. --Friendly account (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just indefinitely blocked this brand-new user with no warning. Do you think I'm guilty of biting the newcomers? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a correction to what I posted. As it happens it said just the opposite of what I was trying to say so thank you for making the correction. I reread what I typed prior to this but didn't catch it didn't say what I actually meant, it was a dumb mistake and my apologies. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Thatcher 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher, you've been concerned about the Scibaby business so thought I'd let you know what I've also told CHL, which is that I'm going to stop reporting Scibaby socks and reverting their edits. Hopefully this will reduce the drama level. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5]....but not quite working the way you planned, I think.  :-) Risker (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pile on! Thatcher 15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually like the idea. Now if only I could think of a way to code them so that I remember which ones I have to go back and review - although I suppose that would require some sort of MediaWiki mindreader extension... Risker (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be fairly trivial to code in MW a parser that would look at sections of a discussion set off be headers, and color the section differently when you have already commented. It might be a fairly specialized tool though, used by arbitrators and maybe some noticeboard patrollers. Thatcher 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psst - put the color tags inside the heading markers ;) Neat idea though! Shell ^babelfish 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Was fixing when you posted. Thatcher 15:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..sorry about the pile on. It is a really helpful idea though, rather than trying to jump from the notes at the bottom to the correct section/subsection. Shell ^babelfish 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, re[6] I have never (to my recollection) suggested that GoRight should be banned for proxying the Scibaby stuff. Please be more careful with statements like this -- there's enough polarization over perceived "cabals" and the like without making unfounded statements that lump people together. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, but you're clearly on a particular side of the dispute, even if your position has been less extreme than others. In any case, I was just trying to give Crohniegal a thumbnail of the history she was missing, I was not trying to lay blame. Thatcher 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher, I wonder if you can speak to a concern that I've heard a couple of times lately (but don't, as it happens, share). If I remember correctly, your current access to CU/OS tools comes via the AUSC. In the statistics you've published, you are among the most active users of both tools in the past few months. The initial understanding that most people had for the AUSC was that committee members would not be regular users of the tools, but have access to them in order to view the logs and familiarize themselves with how the tools work and are used. I think I've seen you comment elsewhere that you would rather use CU or oversight yourself when necessary than see disruption continue because others are unavailable, an opinion I agree with but others do not. Can you elaborate on your thoughts on this? Nathan ^T 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this at the CU/OS election on my candidate page. Is that sufficient? Thatcher 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that my suppression stats will be higher for August and September. When Suppression was first rolled out, there were about 900 actions taken where the "suppress from admins" box was not checked, (MzMcBride is generating database reports of these log entries). Those actions need to be reviewed to see whether they need to be "re-suppressed", I've asked Oversighters to review their own, and some have, but I'll probably end up doing a lot. Also, I've un-suppressed a number of pages as a result of audit review, and that will show up in the stats as well. Thatcher 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I had read that before, thanks for the reminder. You also commented there that SPI was so complicated even you didn't understand how it worked; I took a whack yesterday at simplifying the page itself, although I didn't change the process at all. Any suggestions on how we might make it simpler without losing the efficiency of the current process would be much appreciated, at WT:SPI. Nathan ^T 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the admin who has warned Jacurek about unproductive revert warring, William M. Connolley suggested that you could review Jacurek's edit warring related to another 3RR case ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]). Sciurinæ (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how Sciurinae, even if he has a complete zero interest in those articles, seems to follow Polish editors around waiting for something to fill reports. Loosmark (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded to this kind of usual ad hominem attacks. I'd wish nothing better than not having to pay attention to the usual tag-team (and I don't have much interest in those articles, yes) but when I don't point out the unethical conduct, it always continued to succeed and that's what makes it a question of conscience for me. No further reply from me to the ad hominem derailings of the issue. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiighhtt, if Sciurinae is really oh-so concerned about the "unethical conduct" on wikipedia then why he never reports any problematic German user (and frankly there are tons of them). Weird thing this "question of conscience" of his. The only reason why he keeps making these complains against Polish editors is because they usually are on the other side of his POV, it's as simple as that. When somebody points out that he's so offended: "ad hominem attack! ad hominem attack!". What a comedy. And no Sciurinae it's not that you "don't have much interest in those articles", you have zero interest in them, you ended up there just because you were following a Polish editor. Loosmark (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I concur with Loosmark. Sciurinæ has been targeting Polish editors for various reports for a while now; as I described in the last ArbCom this is a result of not being able push POV in articles edited by them without getting them outed from this project first. Such behavior should be penalized; harassment of Jacurek and others should not be allowed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better for you to file a request for Arbitration Enforcement. Thatcher 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thacher, I would like to clarify what is going on here because unfortunately this is a case of user Sciurinæ trying to take revenge and who is simply blackmailing me right now. Sorry that I'm using this strong words but this is what it is. I and user Sciurinæ did have strong disagreements in the past and I think he is sanctioned right now but don't remember for what since I don't follow him. Anyways, there was a problematic Anon user who was reported here [20] by another user MIkej007. He was not only edit warring but also vandalizing the pages, for example swapping Polish to Lithuanian names all together etc. I personally think that this is a sock puppet of an established editor, but this may not be relevant here. William finally blocked him exactly for swapping names and not for edit warring. As you can see I was reverting his behavior as this was clear vandalism. Of course I was carefully not approaching 3 RR rule. Now please notice that user Sciurinæ appears on that page all of the sudden, focusing on my person and not the behavior of the Anon user who was reported. I'm sorry that you are being dragged into yet another crazy E. European dispute as this one. This is also why I don't want to "attack" user Sciurinæ now and ask you or others to examine his conduct etc. I will just let it go.

Please ask if you have any questions or need links etc. Unfortunately I expect this this to continue since Sciurinæ is very persistent here and for sure will come back with more accusations. His sole purpose here is to get me sanctioned, nothing else. He first tried get an attention of any administrator on the original page, then he was trying to get William and after he did not show interests, now he is trying with you. P.S. I don't know if you remember but I was going to type to you regarding that notice of yours on my page a few month ago but I never did. Sorry about that, I just did not have time. Maybe I will do it in near future. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Thatcher one question, I think people on Wikipedia call Sciurinæ's behavior a "block shopping". Is behavior like this acceptable?--Jacurek (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Asking five admins because the first 4 refused to block is a problem; asking 5 admins because the first 4 were too busy is not. Thatcher 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thatcher, I will just let it go since I'm not interested in going after anybody anyways. I asked just in case because this may continue ether now or in the future. This is not the first time I'm being followed by my traditional opponents such as this one. This is why I was concern about that notice on my page since now they using it against me. Remember, I did just one revert that day but I was a victim of a "cross fire". You decided to place notice on everybody's page who did any edits that day, which is o.k. I don't mind that since I'm quite sure I can follow the rules. My only concern are users who will try to manipulate this fact and use that against me now such as this case. Thanks again for your response an sorry for yet another E. European mess. Hope this one will end right here.--Jacurek (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For info: because Thatcher put the D case notice on J's page, I advised S that it might be a good idea to ask Thatcher about this issue. So S is not block shopping. J is aware of this [21] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I could help, but I'm very busy right now in real life. If you want someone to look at the situation for 10 minutes, make a snap decision, and not stick around to discuss it, then I'm your guy. If you want something more in depth, please post at WP:AE or find someone else to help. Thatcher 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for all the comments, like I said, I'm not interested to go after Sciurinæ now, to get back at him and I hope this will end right here. Unless he continues, which will force me to make a case against him, I just want to let it go and keep this incident for a record. In my honest opinion, user Sciurinæ is one of those editors who are trying to manipulate administrators to get their opponents blocked or restricted. He does this too most Polish editors and this can be easily checked. I do feel harassed by him now and I felt like like that few times in the past but I just want to let it go and I'm not looking for revenge. I really hate this part of Wikipedia. If this case goes any further I will ask Thatcher and William (if you guys are willing of course) to look closer at all the aspects of this incident and I will present my evidence. Sorry for all the usual problems with E. Europe subjects/editors and I also will apologize of behalf of user Sciurinæ who started this round of "fireworks" in the first place. Regards to all.--Jacurek (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Eastern European tag-team defends each other everywhere to avoid facing consequences and can turn any discussion into a dirty and uncivil mud war against whoever dares to report them (of course they never report each other, so it's either one does or no one will). Of course Wikipedia violations can and should be reported even if the reporter was the devil himself. I think you have seen the Molobo SPI case? On this page all of them were trying to defend the sockpuppeteer: Loosmark, Jacurek and Piotrus and they most probably knew that Molobo was guilty. Loosmark even requested to know the nationality of the admin and eventually had to be reprimanded as practising disturbing unfounded wikilawyering.

But I think this was only because the ArbCom had been aware of the case. Last time I reported another one of them (since Piotrus only wanted to get the Ukrainian editor sanctioned at AE and not the even more disruptive other one), not a single admin even dared to get involved and the case was archived after it had completely been filibustered with ad hominems. Or remember the lawyering on AE and AN/I when an admin removed Jacurek's rollback after he used it for reverting in content disputes. It'll just give them an opportunity to throw red-herring mud when the "offence" of providing actionable evidence is committed. Jacurek should not be seen edit warring like this, use the talk page instead and avoid mislabelling reverts by content "opponents" as "vandalism". I don't think he has to be blocked, but another warning will do just in case he won't show improvement. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow, amazing how Sciurinae digs up a comment I made on some talk page more than 3 months ago, i wonder how many more people does he follow around. Eerie to say the least. But anyway just to make it perfectly clear: I didn't know that Molobo was a sockpuppeteer and in fact i still don't know it. The evidence which was made public was very weak, he was sanctioned based on other evidence. Therefore saying that i defended a sockpuppeteer is a falsification by Sciurinae. What I and some others protested was: 1.) the use of secret evidence itself (too close to secret trials for my liking) 2.)the mess with the secret evidence: it was first promised to be shown before any decision will be taken and then that promise simply wasn't kept. Loosmark (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the same problem appearing with Jacurek everywhere - see Bombing of Wieluń article where he keeps reverting changes, and removing referenced information that was beforehand discussed on the talk page. Kurfürst (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I also fully agree with Sciurinæ's description in his edit [22]. I had exactly the same problems with these trio editors - Loosmark, Jacurek and Piotrus - I have never seen them in my edit history with them to discuss anything, instead they keep supporting each others in edit wars, and mud throwing is almost automatic when this kind of behaviour is brought to the attention of ANI or other forum. That this group acts as a tag team in both articles and at AE AN/I should be clear to anyone who takes some time to study their edit history and talk pages. IMHO it requires a more in depth study of the phenonmenon and Arbitration. Kurfürst (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry Thatcher, looks like this mess is not ending...What is happening right now is just another attack by former opponent who is trying to use this situation to his advantage... Please take a look at this[[23]] as well as other complaints and his block log etc. User Kurfürst came to the page I was editing ( Bombing of Wieluń ) and boldly reverted in mass[[24]] all my work, please look at the article history. I restored it and asked him to discuss first but he of course went straight here seeing perfect opportunity to attack an opponent. I'm almost sure that this will continue and before you know it, user Sciurinae or other German former opponent will appear here in support of Kurfürst "without noticing" his bold mass revert of all my work in a first place. I don't know what to do in situations like this anymore. I feel harassed and attacked. Any advice either on my talk page or by e-mail will be appreciated. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at the page's history page - what sort of 'work' Jacurek? The [diff shows] that you have removed 467 characters from the article, essentially doing nothing but restoring your own earlier 'rewrite' which was opposed by another editor, who clearly explained in his edit comments, why removing removing refs, and displaying the comments by two journalist on a historical event as the 'The widely acknowledged by the majority of historians and official version of the events is that' (gee that writing...!) is inappropriate. You have done absolutely no useful work at that article at all, all of your edits are solely revolving around reverting others, removing references and rewriting the sentences with weasel words. You simply reverted an editor again, HoHun (with who we discussed beforehand the best way to represent the content of the article), and removed again a well referenced statement from a reliable source. In any case, thank you for posting this link at the ANI - it is a fine example how this trio operates on ANI and discussion boards... where one is involved, the rest of the pack quickly follows. Kurfürst (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the comments at User_talk:Jacurek#Scurinae are priceless... and a good evidence, too... Kurfürst (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that Kurfürst of all people has the nerve to come here attacking others. (btw interesting "coincidence" how he managed to find this discussion which had nothing to do with him). Anyway just a quick look at Kurfürst's block log is interesting: "Edit warring", "Personal attacks or harassment of other users, Continuing personal attacks after warning", "Edit warring: on Battle of Britain(repeat offense)", "Abusing multiple accounts", "Incivility: Continuing gross incivility even after previous blocks", "Edit warring, "Disruptive editing", "3RR violation", "Disruptive editing"... Really, Kurfürst if I were you I'd think hard about your own behavior. Loosmark (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also shaking my head with disbelieve when I saw Kurfürst attacking my person and others here, but what worries me the most is Thatcher, who is probably already sick of all this B.S. I was forced again to post on his talk page defending myself but I will keep my comment to the minimum. Thank you Loosmark for your support. Thank you Thatcher for patience, (if there is anything left of it). I'm out of here. Bye--Jacurek (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant why AE reports are useless four days ago. They defend each other, no matter what the offender did, and attack the reporter with ad hominems, derailing from the subject matter. When they create the appearance of controversy, admins usually don't do anything specific anymore. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ, it is amazing how you did not see anything wrong with the behavior of the problematic user Kurfürst[[25]] but you see all "bad" things in my person. I would appreciate if you stopped following me around and harassing me on others people pages. If you wish to discuss this matter further you are welcome to my talk page. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record about Jacurek's allegations, I don't "follow around" Jacurek, nor "harass" him, nor "blackmail" him, nor was I "known for block shopping", et cetera. I've AE page on my watchlist and saw the recent thread and wanted to let Thatcher see how this would invariably go on AE. I'm not going to join a heated personal argument with Jacurek, which he seems bent on, so I'm out of here. (Sorry about your talk page) Sciurinæ (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also please address any future concerns or complaints regarding my person you may have on my talk page first? So far you went everywhere with your allegations but my talk page. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Thatcher also clearly indicated that he does not have the time to get involved, so IMO Sciurinae constant attempts to create arguments on this talk page are getting a bit unpleasant... Loosmark (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"was acting more like Pope Urban VIII than Galileo." This is incorrect. Galileo was actually a friend to the Pope and submitted many works for the Pope's approval. However, the work that got Galileo in trouble was not over its scientific content, but the personal attacks and libel that Galileo lodged against one of the top Jesuit scientists. The story is very interesting, but it mostly deals with offending people, smearing them, and the such. It ended up with Galileo being confined to a cushy palace (after all, he was a friend of the Pope who merely had to keep Galileo out of court to appease some very angry Jesuits that Galileo mocked in print). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Thatcher 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a book called History of the Book (it goes into the history of book printing). One of the chapters was devoted to the publication of Galileo vs the publication of Kepler. It also traced the history of politics involved in publishing. So, think of the analogy as: Peter Damian is banned for attacking FT2 and others. Years later, people see it as him being banned because the community disagreed with the content of his articles. The truth is quite different but very revealing. However, the incorrect view would be promoted by those who either were against Peter Damian or against FT2 (they could say Peter Damian or FT2 had horrible views while ignoring the real reason for the dispute). The Galileo story about being banned for scientific merits was promoted by the same people that claimed Catholics believed the world was flat (the Catholic Church accepted the Grecian round earth theory that dates back to 400 or so BC). Galileo was kept out of sight because he decided to print pages and pages on how ugly and how stupid a very powerful Jesuit was. That happens quite a lot here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Galileo_affair. From that, it looks like the issue was not flat vs round earth but was clearly heliocentrism. Galileo was banned from advocating heliocentrism by the Inquisition in 1616, then allowed to write Dialogue which was not balanced and embarrassed Urban by casting him as "simpleton". I'm sure The Assayer had a lot to do with it too. The 1633 trial definitely banned him from talking about heliocentrism. So my analogy would be all right if I posed it as Galileo vs Pope Paul V, or Galileo vs the Inquisition. (Assuming Wikipedia is accurate, of course.)

I can tell you 100% that the article is wrong and that a lot of the sources are major POV anti Catholic sources. His view of heliocentrism was never attacked and was never challenged. The amount of OR, misquoted individuals, etc, on that page is amazing. The fact that they treated the "Inquisition" as one body or one institute is very telling. The article doesn't mention anything about the book being 60% insulting, or that the Preface was devoted to bashing a Jesuit mathematician. Here are some sources that actually discuss the matter (notice how Wiki lacks these) 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I would fix it with dozen of sources (the page would need a complete rewrite, because 90% of it is pure bs), but I am CoI'd based on my background. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. It is not Catholic but an informed work dealing with the history of book printing and how there were two different reactions to both Galileo and others. Page 26-27, in particular, can show you how slanted and incorrect the Wikipedia page is by leaving out most of the details and the true reasons for the precedings. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI does not bar you from editing, although it advises caution. If you are upfront about your conflict (jn a generic way if necessary to protect your privacy) and cooperate with other editors (such as patiently educating them about the sources and working toward a compromise that recognizes both viewpoints, rather than insulting and edit warring) then COI should not be a problem. Thatcher 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my career is promoting the Catholic faith, matters of theology, and disputing Protestant propaganda. So yes, I am CoI'd from editing that article, especially on the specific aspect of the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thatcher, you're probably already aware of it (or snowed under by meatspace demands), but editors are requesting your input at Wikipedia:An#Moving_forward. Regards,  Skomorokh  11:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen it, unfortunately I don't have anything further to say at this moment. Thatcher 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, will notify to that effect. Thanks,  Skomorokh  15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After going thru some of Hometech's edits and Nichalps edits, I feel he may be a sockpuppet. Besides that he also VERY rude. Is there anything I can do to help? Also, are existing rollbackers allwoed to comment on requests by others?

Regards,

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t really know much about the situation or about rollback. I expect you can comment on requests for rollback as long as you are civil yourself, why wouldn't this be allowed? It's the only way for admins to know who the good and bad candidates are, short of doing a full investigation themselves. As long as Nichalp is still formally retired or at least not active, he could be using a second account without violating any policies, if you think he is doing paid editing, what happened with the RFC and policy discussion on paid editing? If you think he is rude the first step would be trying to get some help dealing with it, then maybe an RFC. I don't have time right now to get involved in anything new; I just would not be able to follow through. Thatcher 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, hello again. Just a minor thing; I notice that after an article passes a GA review, the reviewer posts a little check-by-check section on the article's GA talk page to verify that the article meets GA criteria. Anyway, you have not done that yet for Lujan-Fryns syndrome. No hurry, or anything; I see how dreadfully busy you are, so whenever you find a moment to do so is perfectly fine. Thx. Good luck with the project you're working on, BTW.-- Rcej (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's an optional template. Thatcher 11:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... okay. Well, whenever you get a chance to post it is fine.-- Rcej (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here: [26] for my report with diffs.15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a comment there. Thatcher 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field cricket

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....Where have I heard that before? ;-) Congratulations. Risker (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you from both accounts to verify that the two accounts are mine. Once again thank you. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya pal,

I noticed that you participated at Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Livery_Stable_Blues. Since your support vote, an edited version of the file that removes hiss from the from file, has be suggested as an altenate version. Please return to the the FSC to see whether or not you support the editted version or not. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look again? I took the comments into account and re-mixed the edit with more of the original. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 205 FCs served} 01:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[27] distresses me. I shall slow down somewhat. Best regards, William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I can't tell if this is an apology or not. I'm not bothered by the comment, if posting those diffs was "mudslinging" then I am indeed a proud mudslinger. Thatcher 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't an apology. I loathe half-formed, conditional or implicit apologies. Had I wished to apologise I would have done so clearly. I almost added a note to that effect but decided you would probably realise that anyway. So, my apologies for being unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that's clarified then, although I remain unclear on what exactly distresses you about the edit and what you intend to do about it. Valete. Thatcher 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I've been unclear again. I think it is probably best if I simply speak my mind and risk offending you. Apologies if this is unwelcome; remove it if you find it so: I think that your putting this "mudslinging" thing up on your user page is petty and unworthy of you and nothing to be proud of; that you too have been dragged down into the mud by this. And I find that distressing, since I respect you as an editor and admin and I believe you are invaluable to the project. You have, of course, every right to do it and I'm not complaining at all, nor do I intend to do anything about it. Well, other than write this I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So disappointing that that didn't qualify. Let me ask you this so I don't run into the same problem, I'm currently working on a DYK-sized article for Easter Morning on the White House Lawn, a march by John Philip Sousa in my Sandbox. The same USCG band page I got Semper Paratus from has a recording here. This source lists the march as a part of "Tales of a Traveler" from 1911. Assuming I can find additional sourcing for that date (The All Music Guide is a solid source, but I'd like to find a heartier sentence from a book on Sousa, I'm going to look after class in 40-50 minutes) that recording qualifies under PD-USCG for the performance and PD-Pre-1923 for the composition, right? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have the right idea, for musical compositions, you have to consider the copyright status of the composition as well as the recording, and sometimes the arrangement as well (if an old song is recorded as a modern arrangement, that might be separately protected). In this case Easter Monday on the White House lawn seems to have been written in 1928, according to List of compositions by John Philip Sousa and this. Thatcher 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • sigh* Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See though, I'm not sure that 1928 date is the date of authorship. This Huffington post entry and the liner notes linked in my Sandbox both put the date at 1889. I'm at the library now, looking for sourcing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nope, you were right. All the sourcing I can find says 1928/1929. He definitely did SOMETHING at the Egg Roll earlier, but that 1928/9 date seems to be the date for the song. Ah well, I'll just have to find something else to get a FS. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marine Band, whcih he was directing at the time, seems to have played, but the composition was later (as far as I can tell). Thatcher 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah well. I really want to get a Featured Sound credit, and that USCG band site seemed like a promising source, but the only remaining recordings they have with USCG arrangements are "USCG Chief Petty Officer's March" (that I have no info on) and "Anchors Aweigh" that we already have a Navy recording for. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you blank your sandbox? It's still an article we don't have and would easily get a DYK credit, even if you can't also get an FSC for it. Are you going for some kind of hat trick? Thatcher 18:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't have sufficient content on the thing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Sorry to use you as my copyright sounding board, but you're nice about it. :) What do you think about the recording of Csárdás available here? The performance is by the US Air Force band, the arrangement by a US Air Force officer (almost certainly as a part of his duties in the band), and thankfully (heh) the composer Vittorio Monti died in 1922 so no matter when he composed it it should fall under PD-old (and a quick Google hit places it even earlier) yes? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about the service recordings (US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard bands) is that they post a condition on their web site that recordings may be downloaded for personal or educational use but not commercial use, and of course they sell CDs. My understanding of the copyright law is that this condition is unenforceable, as least as far as the recording itself is concerned, and everyone I have asked agrees with me. So those various band web sites should be a site of high quality featured sounds assuming the copyright status of the underlying composition and arrangement are acceptable. The Navy band, for example, has dozens of recordings of different countries' national anthems. So while it seems too good to be true that we can lift dozens of high quality recordings from these band sites, I think it is in fact true that we can, as far as I have been able to determine. Thatcher 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lets give this a proper try, now that copyright shouldn't be a problem. :) Here is the nomination. Thanks for all your help! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the revert war with WMC (above).

Thatcher, for what it's worth, I was politely critical of WMC's needlessly aggressive tone on Talk:Lawrence Solomon, and he removed my comments. I restored, his friends removed it again, so I removed his original provacation, he restored it. The end result is his baiting comments remain alone, comments in which he started a needless conflict with another good faith editor, calling his concerns a "waste of time" and accusing him of disrespecting other editors because he doesn't call them "Dr." here (???). It the same old tired baiting that WMC is known for, and I called him on it, politely. It does not give him or his friends the right to selectively remove conversations.

If WMC is going to act like a child on talk pages, he should expect that editors are going to call him on it. He's a big boy.

In any case, I added a humorous comment to the section above in response to him (I happen to like the mudslinging userbox :-)), and he removed it with the comment run and play children, the adults are talking. This kind of behavior from a newbie editor would get him banned in an instant, why do we tolerate it from established editors who know better and should be setting an example? On the AGW pages, there's plenty of blame directed at SciBaby and the so-called onslaught of deniers (I'm not one), but some of that blame should be directed at established users like WMC who set the tone with needlessly aggressive or condescending comments.

Anyway, I just felt the need to explain the little revert war at the top of your page. ATren (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher, We had a little conversation today at Newyorkbrad page. I guess you are curious what I was writing about you in my private email that is now under investigation by ArbCom. In fact, I commented on your editing restriction to me. I said (copy paste):

I would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot about a little sparrow who fell down into a pile of shit after being frozen during a harsh winter. The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt better and started singing songs. A cat was nearby, he listen the songs, took the sparrow out of the shit and eat him. Three conclusions: (1) someone who places you into the shit is not necessarily your enemy; (2) someone who removes you from the shit is not necessarily your friend; (3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not rise your voice, because a cat might be walking nearby.

I am sorry, but a significant part of my wikipedia email is just like that.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh...Faustian (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, please reread CIVIL. The appropriate response is to ignore incivil comments. "Fool" cannot be, in any regard, seen as "egregious", and only egregious incivility results in a block. As such, you are promoting the ignoring of our standard dispute resolution and promoting blocks. This undermines both decorum and policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I'd wish I'd known that last year when I was working on compromise wording at Morgellons. It sure would have been easier to call those people sickos, weirdos, crazy, or delusional, than have to deal with their arguments. Thatcher 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, it makes it clear that the response to incivility is to ignore it and to not make your own. This is a response for a -reason-. It does not say that the response to incivility is to instantly block. You lead by example, not by hitting anyone you don't like. By giving out blocks for -minor- things, you destroy any claim to justice. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the incentive for people to behave well toward each other? Thatcher 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who don't behave well are often ignored. The incentive to be kind and nice is to convince people in an easier manner. We are a collaborative project based around an encyclopedia, so the incentive is massive. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Qaumi_Tarana_Instrumental.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. NW (Talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done part of the request in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar already. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Thatcher. Since Charlotte and the 88.x and 83.x IPs are confirmed, can they be blocked and their AfD comments stricken? (I probably should not do it myself as they already have it out for me, and if I block them—even with justification—she'll think it's "administrator misconduct" and go rant on her website about it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be sufficient to consider them all as the same person, but I'm not familiar on the current policies at AFD on the treatment of this sort of thing. At a minimum I think the IPs could be anon-blocked for a week or so. There are no other recent users even though they are claimed to be public terminals. Thatcher 20:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually have the block tool out and ready. I'm waiting on the CheckUser results of the other account and IP addresses (one of which is from the RFD, not AFD, discussion, note). Give me a yeah or nay on those, and I'll block everything leaving just User:CharlotteGoiar open. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already answered, I think. Thatcher 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I've already seen and hit that block button. ☺ I'm about to tackle the AFD/RFD discussions with some notices. Uncle G (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shouldn't Goiar be blocked as well? After all, she is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm leaving the self-identified account open to allow non-disruptive participation in AFD and RFD, should xe decide to do that. My blocks are not to prevent xem from contributing entirely to the discussions (in a civil and non-disruptive manner, of course), but to ensure that one person has one "voice", and only one, in the AFD/RFD discussions. Thus the length, timed to expire at a point after both xFD discussions have run their courses. Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess it doesn't matter either way at this point, since she has said (through one of the IPs) that she's going on a trip...so she might not be active for a couple days anyway (we can only hope). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you look here [28]? Some users are trying to delete page content while no any administrator's decision on merge. Gazifikator (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to get involved right now, I don't have the time for proper investigation and follow up. Thatcher 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thatcher, I can certainly understand your exasperation at the Arbcom pages, but maybe you should consider cutting down on the rhetorical flourishes a bit? Don't want to see these pages descend into the same type of cesspool we had in the last Arbcom case I was involved in. Just a friendly recommendation :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At least I didn't go with my first choice. Thatcher 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For common-sense and being a voice of reason in an increasingly unreasonable place Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea. Silence upon that point has precipitated subsequent dramas in previous instances. Durova³²¹ 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, best to clarify it up front. Thatcher 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a reason to suspect that Aptak (talk · contribs) is the same person as Verjakette (talk · contribs). Verjakette's last socks confirmed by you here were Greiwood (talk · contribs) and Lumberjak (talk · contribs). The account of Aptak was created soon after Lumberjak was blocked, but was not much active until recently. He is interested in the same articles as Verjakette. The IP 69.143.185.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was used by both Capasitor and Greiwood, the most recent socks of Verjakette. But it seems like this IP range is blocked: [29]. 69.143.131.204 is another IP used by Verjakette, which was confirmed by CU. Since you have experience in dealing with socks of Verjakette, could you please check if Aptak is related to him? Thanks. Grandmaster 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See the purple note at the top of the page, or contact another checkuser. Thanks. Thatcher 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I missed that. Grandmaster 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blargh29 seems to have a keen interest in the politics of Pennsylvania, USA. I noticed a remarkable tendency to pick up where blocked user HoboJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier left off. They seem to have edited over a hundred of the same articles, and in some cases seem to be virtually the only editors of articles. Some history here that bears looking into. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See the purple note at the top of the page, or contact another checkuser. Thanks. Thatcher 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. Sorry, I missed that note entirely somehow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thatcher --

I've been trying to convince some people to run for the upcoming Audit Subcommittee elections, but I don't actually know much about it. Specifically, about how much work is involved on a weekly basis? What are the tasks it focuses the most on? Has the overall workload been too much, too little, just right? Are there any caveats you have about it or things you've learned that you wish someone had told you before you signed up?

Any answers would be much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary mandate is to investigate complaints of checkuser and oversight misuse. As you can see from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports, there have been 6 complaints in 6 months; 4 were dealt with by examining the logs and other evidence and discussing the matter informally (for example, a vandal complaining that his vandalism had been suppressed against policy). One case involved a brief investigation and one a fairly lengthy investigation. The mailing list is pretty quiet except when there is an active matter.
• Beyond investigating complaints there are things that could be done but don't have to be done. You can monitor the oversight mailing list and offer comments, sometimes the oversighters have questions about whether edits qualify for suppression, you may see issues where you want to recommend that suppression be used or not be used. One can monitor the suppression and checkuser logs for unusual activity, although it is fairly rare that a check or suppression is obviously questionable just from looking at the log. One might compile statistics on checkuser and oversight use, or monitor activity at WP:SPI to see that cases receive proper attention. At one point I did a detailed analysis of the oversight mailing list to see how long it took for requests to be handled; this was a fairly time-consuming process although it might be amenable to automation. Generally we have taken a pretty hands-off attitude most of the time, watching and waiting. Thatcher 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot quieter job than I probably thought it would be. There is a perception among some people that checkusers and oversighters are running rampant doing all sorts of questionable things, but the actual number of incidents that even require comment or a word of advice is very small, and the number of legitimate investigations even smaller. Thatcher 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After running into a self-identified child with their contact information on their user page yesterday, I realized Wikipedia does not have any policy for protecting children. You made an attempt in 2006 with WP:CHILD but it failed to reach consensus. I'm making another attempt and I'd appreciate your input. User_talk:TParis00ap/Protecting Children. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I should care why? Thatcher 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you involved with the committee to watch the watchers? It would be nice if somebody credible (elbows you) were to either confirm or clear the suspicions that have been raised. I dislike limbo. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'd like to hear a cogent explanation of why actions from 3 years ago that ended before he held any positions of trust should be held against him today (and zero points for raising the perjury trap, I'd like to hear something better).

2) I'm out in a month, and grateful for it. Thatcher 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser and oversight access are positions of very high trust, much more than ordinary adminship. I've never socked in five years, and I don't have those ops, nor do most other admins. Why should somebody who has socked get those ops? I'm concerned in particular because FT2 has been accusing me of some sort of nefarious activities. I'm trying to understand if he's acting in good faith or not. Anyhow, I'm also on wikibreak and am not going to pursue this further. I've posted my concerns. They can be dealt with as you all see fit. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of user account names that have been suppressed for being attack accounts, even though neither the local nor the Foundation oversight policy says anything about it, and no one seems to care to either change the policy to match the practice, or change the practice to match the policy, except to file a bugzilla so that admins could see and perform user hiding as well, and you want me to be concerned that a user who is currently a checkuser and oversighter, but against whom no complaints for misuse of checkuser or oversight have been lodged, and against whom the only current allegation of wrongdoing is a perjury trap, might not have won an election in 2007 if unproven allegations of sockpuppetry from 2006 had been made public at the time of the election, therefore I should lead the charge to remove said privileges in late 2009? Excuse me for not jumping in with both feet. Thatcher 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an editor who is attacking me and I am trying to understand why. In the course of looking at their history, I find something that looks like it might be sock puppetry. When somebody shows exceptional bad faith towards me, that's naturally going to make me suspicious of them. What is the suppression of attack accounts you speak about? Are you suggesting that the purported sock was an imposter? If so, please clarify. I'm just trying to understand what the heck is going on. I've never heard the term perjury trap before either. Not sure what you're talking about. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm sorry you are being attacked. I will try and help if I can, but what does that have to do with FT2 and user:TBP?
2. A perjury trap is when you indict someone for lying to investigators about something that is not itself an offense. cf Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, for example. In this case, nearly everyone who has looked at Peter Damian's allegation that TBP was a sockpuppet of FT2 shrugged and forgot about it. Unlike Geogre, the offense is not recent and did not even occur while FT2 was an admin. Make no mistake, this is about Peter Damian's continuing crusade against FT2. When FT2 spoke out against Utgard loki, Damian decided he had caught FT2 in an actionable hypocrisy and attempted to get him tarred and feathered for using a sockpuppet in 2006. No one cared. So Damian switched tactics, declaring that even if the sockpuppetry was not actionable because it was stale and before FT2 was an admin, FT2 is currently lying about the sockpuppet, and is therefore unworthy to hold positions of trust. That's a perjury trap.
3. A large and growing number of user accounts, with names like User:Thatcher is a fag are being hidden from the user list and user creation log by oversighters and stewards. Some user names reveal personal information, it is a Grawp trick to create user accounts like User:Thatcher's phone number is (111) 555-1212, knowing that they could not easily be removed. Now they can, and that falls under the oversight/suppression policy, but lots of accounts that are simple harassment are also being hidden, and that is not covered under policy. I have argued that the correct thing to do is to either stop hiding such accounts, or to change the oversight policy (both locally and on meta) so it reflects reality, and to make sure the community is ok with suppression being used in this manner. Very few people seem to care, and I am rather annoyed right now.
4. Your argument seems to be the same as Peter Damian, that FT2's continuance as a checkuser and oversighter should be evaluated in light of his alleged 2006 sockpuppetry, either because he is currently lying about it, or because he would not have been elected in 2007 had the sockpuppetry allegations been made in 2006. I respectfully decline to pursue this line of inquiry in the absence of a complaint about misuse of the checkuser or oversight functions. The audit subcommittee was not created (as I understand it) to investigate allegations of generic "untrustworthiness", nor to determine the correct outcome of a 3 year old election. Besides, FT2 has raised more than a few eyebrows with his conduct over the past year or so (publicly and internally) and as he still has oversighter and checkuser permissions, I doubt that allegations of 3 year old sockpuppetry, principally advanced by a banned user with a grudge, will tip the scales much. Thatcher 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I never put much credence in Damian's allegations. I just stumbled across this one de novo. Your explanations make sense and are good enough for me. Thank you. FT2 seems to think I'm in league with Damian and Bishonen; I'm not. FT2 says he's going to attack me with frivolous litigation because he thinks I was protecting Geogre/Utgard Loki. Well, I wasn't, because I didn't even know they were the same person! I just want to edit some articles when I have time, and occasionally protect users who feel they are being harassed or obstructed. My motives here are all very simple. My plan is to just ignore this set of affairs, so long as they ignore me. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this 'Should FT2 be held to answer for actions that are 3 years old and which stopped before he held any positions of trust?' on Jayvdb's page, and thought I'd pop in here to ask if you're interested in talking about that, or if you're sort of musing as an ' interested, but not all that interested' party? :-) Without being glib, I feel there's an important issue here related partly to ethics / integrity, but also to the pragmatic 'way we do things' around the project, going forward...... more anon perhaps - otherwise, hope you're good.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion with Jehochman immediately above, and let me know if you want to discuss it further. Thatcher 00:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this chat sort of spilled over to Wikipedia Review (no idea if I've formatted that link properly, mind!) - as I understand it you'd be more concerned about any explicit misuse of tools (not alleged in this instance - or not by me) rather than what could be described as an ethical breach, should FT be fibbing. I don't know how much time and energy either of us might have to discuss my view that ethical breaches are actually just as, if not more, serious than, for example, the misuse of oversight per policy documents (which may or may not be unethical in my view). The silly bit of this though is that regardless of one's attitude to the original cheeky alleged misbehaviour, I presume you'd be as in favour of speedy resolution as me. Are you clear as to why this is somehow a bit tricky to mark 'resolved'? - I'm not sure I am! (maybe it is for you, per your feelings above?) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as official roles are concerned, the audit subcommittee was created to investigate allegations of misuse of the checkuser and oversight tools. We have had a couple of internal discussions, most recently in regard to Casliber (between the time he reported his failure to act on certain information and when he formally resigned) as to whether the audit committee should investigate general concerns of ethics and trustworthiness, and we decided that was not in our mandate. This is an issue that could be explored by the new members of the audit committee, or added to the mandate by Arbcom, but for now it is not part of the official mandate.

Personally, I don't like people using sockpuppets for prohibited purposes, but compared to the cases I have seen or uncovered, and even cases where I have warned an editor privately to knock it off or else, this is truly small potatoes.

The concept of the statute of limitations certainly has some influence on Wikipedia, witness the rehabilitation of Gwen Gale or Jack Merridew, for example. I personally do not think that 3-1/2 year old sockpuppetry is sufficient to take away someone's site privileges, absent some current offense. You may recall my comments in (I think) September 2006 (quoted in Piperdown's sig) to the effect that Mantanmoreland had been caught socking and stopped, so he should be left alone about it. That was correct as far as I knew at the time, and I stand behind that statement in its historical context. But also remember that I was the checkuser who answered the request to check Sammiharris, even though I knew it had been filed by Wordbomb, and I was the person who caught Bassetcat. The fact that I thought he should be left alone at a time when the best information available to me was that he was not engaged in current bad behaviors did not hinder me from taking appropriate action when additional information came my way that changed the picture. Likewise, without some evidence of current wrongdoing I don't personally believe that FT2 should be forced to step down over a 3-1/2 year old alleged offense.

Then the argument turns to, "he is lying now which is a current offense." As much as I would like every human being to be honest, truthful and righteous, we are all flawed. There are things in all of our pasts that have the capacity to embarrass us and to hurt us. I shoplifted a candy bar when I was 10 years old; I can admit to that because it was a long time ago, and it was something childish and foolish that I think everyone can have some sympathy for. Could I have admitted it when I was 13? Probably not.

So here we have a person who allegedly used a sockpuppet account. The account was active for 14 days spanning a 6 month period and made 188 edits, 0.5% of FT2's total 36000+ edits. Let's assume TBP was FT2, and not some other plausible explanation like a boyfriend or girlfriend, or professional colleague. If you've never even thought about using a sockpuppet to help out in a dispute over an article you felt strongly about, then you're a better person than I am. How many hundreds or thousands of editors act on that desire? Surely, abandoning the effort before you are suspected or caught is the right thing to do. When called to account isn't embarrassment and denial an understandable human response? Particularly on wikipedia where some people hold grudges for a really long time and where an editor's ability to recover from embarrassment depends more on which friends and enemies they've made rather than the nature of the offense. So, yes, I'm willing to forgive someone for a lack of candor about an embarrassing episode in their past, so long as they aren't continuing to engage in conduct that would be embarrassing if revealed. Others may differ, that's what RFC is for.

The ultimate answer here is to launch a formal RFC, lay out the evidence that FT2 had a sockpuppet, and make the argument that either because of the sockpuppet (an old offense), or because of the allegedly contra-factual denial (a current offense) that FT2 should step down as an oversighter, checkuser, and/or admin. Allow the community to review the evidence and come to their own conclusions and recommendations.

If I am a "ridiculously important" part of Wikipedia accountability, it is because I choose my battles. I am largely responsible for desysopping 4 admins so far (I think, it might be 3 or 5). I have taken other steps behind the scenes that most people know nothing about. To the extent I am effective in seeking accountability, it is because I spend my credibility carefully. There are editors who shout "admin abuse" on AN/I every other day, even if they are right one time out of ten, they don't have the credibility to make anything useful happen. In this particular case I don't believe the facts, as far as I know them today, support a call to action, nor is such a call likely to be heeded. I could be wrong--the proposition has never been tested, outside of Peter Damian's rather childish use of sockpuppets to place sockpuppet tags on TBP's and FT2's user pages. You also have no idea what other issues, if any, I may be currently involved in, that make 3-1/2 year old sockpuppetry even less worth my limited time than it already is.

Finally, if I am a "ridiculously important" part of Wikipedia accountability, this is a role I never asked for or consciously sought, and I have no standards to live up to and no conscience to follow other than my own. Thatcher 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we like you so much. Unlike some others, you do not have an over-inflated view of your own importance. Privatemusings, let it drop. These matters can be raised again at an appropriate time and place. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if I objected to the question, I wouldn't have answered it. Thatcher 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a pleasantly concise writer, that was quite an answer! Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the recent claims regarding the formal investigation into involvement with sock puppetry attempted against another prominent user, I don't think an RfC would be possible. There will be claims that the issue was not attempted to be resolved by the parties. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if people claim that then surely I need do is post here saying 'why did you aid and abet abusive sockpuppeting? - right? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)because my wit is almost as poor as the wiki's ability to detect dodgy humour, I depressingly acknowledge that I'm being a bit silly.... but only in this one particular post!... /me goes back to other stuff.....[reply]

I cited your comments, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#NERIC-Security. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For constantly and consistently working above and beyond the call of duty in the thankless and oft-times hideously frustrating areas of checkuser and oversight/suppression, and being an inspiration to both those who work in those areas and those who rely on the effective running of those maintenance roles in every day editing. --Avi (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not actively participating in the discussions for the EEML case, you may not be aware that strict standards of behaviour are now in force, in order to control the excessive incivility that has gone on. Regrettably, your recent post breaches those standards as it contained inflammatory language. Hence you are being given a first and final warning. Manning (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're kidding, right? Please cite specifically the "inflammatory language." Thatcher 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please note that although I have not recently participated, I did present evidence, and that as a result of that evidence Veracrumba accused me of "poisoning the Wikipedia." I do not insist on redress, as I am perfectly capable of handling such myself (or so I thought). Thatcher 22:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending line was "And all those dozens of messages were not serious. Just a big joke, right? Hah. Hah. Hah." This was deemed derisive. I was certainly not suggesting that you are ignorant of the case in any way. I was only suggesting that because you have not been involved in recent talk page discussion you may not be aware of just how severe the conduct enforcement has become. You regrettably got caught in a net that was not really intended for you. Manning (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without in any way wishing to undermine Manning, I would note Thatcher's conduct in this case is hardly concerning. AGK 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not concerning at all, but now having set firm standards of conduct for all users, if I fail to apply them evenly (especially to a user perceived as being close to Arbcom by virtue of CU/OS status) then I will open myself to a floodgate of bias allegations. I assure you that Thatcher's conduct is in no way a serious concern to me. Manning (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a serious concern, then saying that his recent posts breached the conduct standards being applied to the case was perhaps misleading. But I think you have satisfactorily explained what the true meaning of your message was, so I won't say any more on the subject. AGK 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've refactored the warning notice to tone it down considerably. Manning (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible move, all things considered. As an additional point, that isn't really related to your note to Thatcher, I think the more strict conduct standards being applied to the case are probably for the best; good work. AGK 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is stunning.

So, is Thatcher gonna be banned from commenting on the case if he uses sarcasm again? I doubt it would go down well in the community and stick, though one never knows I suppose.

But mainly I don't see how deleting a query to the arbs from a senior admin like Thatcher is anything but overkill. It's overkill at best ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just overkill but I worry that it looks one-sided. I don't see similar warnings issued to Martintg and Piotrus and Vercrumba who have occasionally been sarcastic to the point of insulting. But perhaps they stopped after the earlier warnings? csloat (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I also wish the clerk had left the non-sarcastic portion of the comment he deleted; censoring an entire paragraph based on one sentence is a little extreme as well. I note that with other users Manning simply "refactored" the objectionable words/sentences. csloat (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "Hey Thatcher the 'Hah Hah's' are needlessly sarcastic and we are trying to keep the case pages calm, would you edit please" you vanished the entire thread and issued me a "first and final warning". It was a little high-handed, frankly, and removed two perfectly valid discussion points. Thatcher 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow the mob is attacking the clerk. you should all be ashamed, Manning is trying to do his job the best he can, those pages are in complete chaos and mess, it's impossible to do a pefect job: either way there going to be people whining. and besides i also didn't like some of his decision but i didn't even dream of attacking him so brutaly on his own talk page. IMO you should all move on and let the clerk do his job in peace. Loosmark (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, you're right. The mob should all be ashamed. And the mob should never have established the mailing list. I hope you don't think pissing on anyone's leg now is going to mitigate that fact. You're also right that Manning should be allowed to do his job in peace. Just practice what you preach. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Dan, Loosmark is right, this sudden and unjust criticism of the Arbcom clerk by the allied editors looks indeed like an attack ... And what t.h. mailing list "mob", "pissing on somebody's leg" etc. has to do with that dear Dan??--Jacurek (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think establishing a mailing list is against rules - at least I have not seen such a rule anywhere. Also, unlike almost everybody else, I respected ArbCom instructions so I have not seen the mailing list and I can't say anything about it. I have only commented on what I perceived as injust comments directed to the clerk (who is again IMO doing a good job under very difficult circumstances). Dr.Dan I'm at a total loss trying to understand what do you mean with "pissing on anyone's leg". Could you Dr. Dan elaborate a bit on where have you detected this pissing? Loosmark (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this little side conversation is precisely why I think the current proposed decision is much too lenient. Every minor dispute, no matter how tangentially related, becomes a new front in the never-ending battle. You spread your poison on every page you touch, oblivious to the damage you cause. In fighting "the bad guys", you became the bad guys. Each of thinks he is clean and the other is dirty but you're all so covered in mud and grime and slime that anyone outside your circle can't tell you apart. Please leave me alone. Thatcher 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve and add things like "pissing on legs", "spreading your poison", "cover in mud and grime".. into my vocabulary. Loosmark (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Arbitration Barnstar
		I, Jehochman, award Thatcher the Arbitration barnstar for cluefullness and helpfulness in the Eastern European mailing list matter. No good deed goes unpunished. Jehochman Talk 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the days when sarcasm was almost outlawed. Except, of course, in articlespace when attributed to a reliable source. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather astonishing how many people have my talk page watch-listed :) Thatcher 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, editors often follow each other edits. This his how I ended up on your talk page by looking at what Loosmark is editing:).--Jacurek (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who watches the watchlist-watchers? Syrthiss (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Isn't this [30] something punishable? At least this is assuming bad faith, inserting not NPOV language and edit-warring.--Dojarca (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly clear why the article says "confession" and not confession. Loosmark (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confession is confession whether is false or true (for example in Nikolai Bukharin you can read that he confessed, not that he "confessed" with quotes). Anyway, medical-criminal experts were medical-criminal experts (not "so-called experts"), there were several academicians among them, and German fascists were German fascists, without quotes. I undestand your desire to use punctuation marks to empathise your emotions, but this is not an encyclopedic style and there are no quotes in the sources.--Dojarca (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you trying to claim that either the massacre was really perpetuated by the Germans or that those experts honestly thought that it was? Loosmark (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither first, nor second. Only that the experts were experts, even if they were of Soviet nationality.--Dojarca (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've mistaken my talk page for arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I thought Loosemark cannot be subject of arbitration enforcement since there were no remedies against him issued.--Dojarca (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am contacting you because you addressed User:Cberlet one year ago when he violated BLP on his user talk page[31]. In the past two days, User:Dking has made very similar BLP violations at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche: diffdiff. Will Beback, the admin who edits this page every day, is unlikely to take action because he sympathizes with Dking's POV, so I am asking you to have a look at this situation. Thanks for your consideration. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher, If you're around, I'm looking for a Checkuser to take a look at my block of 93.142.144.0/20 as discussed User_talk:Toddst1#Please_unblock. Orijentolog (talk · contribs) was the target of this rangeblock. Thanks for your help. Toddst1 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not gone to an admin before, so not sure of the protocol. I am posting here as IP precisely because of the nature of the issue in the article talk page. However, I am requesting you look in on this.

It seems to me there is a bit of a tag-team going there with ThuranX and A Sniper that had already succeeded in preventing editing by User:Bus stop.

With regard to myself, interaction with these two editors, ThuranX and A Sniper, the objections they voiced have gone from wholesale reverts, to inability to point to specific disagreements with my edits, thinly veiled threats, and polite insults. All invitations to a discussion, either in the article talk, or on the newly created sandbox, had invited only more of the same.

All I want is to be a) left alone to edit with contributions from others that are constructive, and b) if there is criticism of my editing, that it be substantiated and discussed in a less aggressive manner.

Both editors have claimed me exhibiting biased POV, but have themselves contributed nothing to the article improvement while badgering another editor. If mediation is appropriate at this stage, please suggest an avenue to do so although I would prefer not to engage in long and off-the subject discussions since I have limited time to edit in Wikipedia, often late at night. Regards User:Meieimatai --120.19.171.242 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.