User talk:Thatcher/Archive17

Request
I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't place the block, and I don't really have time to look into it right now. The Arbitration committee may be able to review the situation. Thatcher 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Aftab Ahmed Vohra
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Aftab Ahmed Vohra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for Deletion: Jeff Rosenbaum
Dear Thatcher,

Please notice the entry here, (and the short line on the project page this talk page is about, which just directs people to the talk page). As it indicates, the account User:Jeff Rosenbaum was a one-time creation to post this agreement by the subject of an article with the deletion nomination. I only mention it here, because in retrospect I worry that this may be perceived either by an editor or a bot as a sock-puppet, so I ask you to take note and prevent this from resulting in a block. It is not meant to serve any sock-puppet purpose, just to clearly indicate that the subject of the article is voicing agreement with the deletion nomination, which was intentionally done on the talk page rather than weigh in on the project page itself. No other use for this account is planned. Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But Jeff, you've now edited the AfD under both accounts. This is not ok.  By posting with two accounts on an AfD, and talking about yourself in the third person with the Rosencomet account, those unfamiliar with your history on WP will be given the mistaken impression that they're dealing with two different people. That's pretty much the definition of sockpuppeting. This is really not ok. And anyway, you've already admitted to being Jeff Rosenbaum multiple times, so what is this supposed to accomplish? -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The explanation for those entries is quite clearly stated here, as you can plainly read. There are no votes entered from either account on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Your statements here, especially concerning sockpuppetry, are just another example of your desire to put me in the worst possible light at all times, even in a case like this when your nomination for deletion is being supported, not fought, and an express plea is made to an arbitrator to help steer me clear from any technical breech. Please accept an act of cooperation as such, instead of turning it into another reason to flag me as disruptive. In the last ten days, in spite of all the deletions and, in some cases, incorrect information added to the articles that all these complaints are about, I have not edited articles themselves at ALL except comments on talk pages except to respond to two requests for citations, fix a typo (to fix a link), and delete the mention of ACE as the producer of a CD they did not produce. In fact, I did very little editing of actual articles for several days before that, and mostly, again, responses to citation requests or link or typo fixing. I have been subjected to a flood of criticism even for commenting on talk pages, exactly what the arbitration said I should do. And I apologize to you, Thatcher, for the need to respond to a post directed at someone other than you on your talk page. Rosencomet (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain the rules concerning editors posting on another editor's user page. Am I allowed to delete the flag Kathryn posted on my user page? Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
I have sent you an email. Happy new year, by the way. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Marsden
Yes, two years is a long time. Thanks. M. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, did you ever see what Kitty's Little Helper did on Wikipedia? That was the "sock" that got Arthur Ellis banned. A few articles about trilobites, plus some copy edits. Hardly "vandalism". 209.217.75.171 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After a bunch of sock puppets, a lot of nasty comments by IP, and your overall attitude, I'm not surprised that you wore out your welcome. As I recall you were banned for a month, and couldn't keep quiet, so that every time you got caught, the timer was reset, until people were just fed up.  The argument that you were right on the underlying issue, therefore the manner in which you conducted yourself should be excused, only ever worked for a few very productive editors, and even that exemption seems to be drying up. Thatcher 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty snotty. My "attitude" and my opinions have been borne out over time. The things I have complained about have finally been fixed, albeit belatedly and grudgingly and rarely by you. I have complained the Canadian entries are dominated and owned by a small group of editors who use Wikipedia's rules to enforce ideological conformity, and I'm right. I also get blamed for a hell of a lot of vandalism and sockpuppetry that is not mine and is quite likely the work of the very people I have complained about. I was up against a guy who calls himself a modern-day Machiavelli (see www.warrenkinsella.com) and a group of Vancouver-area "editors" who had so much hatred for Marsden that I was/am left wondering what connection they had to the Simon Fraser harassment case -- a question no one asks. I won at arbcomm and yet was the only person who was sanctioned. Fair, huh? So, rather than be someone inside the tent, I end up as someone outside. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
You've probably not gotten the complete picture, based on what you wrote on my talk page. I've responded there, but have posted this message because it's urgent you understand that I'm actually not ignoring the community or you. (You said yourself at the arbcom noticeboard that specific discussion about article issues should occur elsewhere.) Anynobody 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to appear confrontational about this, but if you really assume good faith and look at the sequence of events you'll see that I wasn't actually doing anything wrong.
 * I've always said her FOIA history, and related pro se litigation, is what makes her notable. (That's what the available sources cover as I said on User talk:Tilman).
 * Her article was deleted and the review determined it should stay deleted. (Correct me if I'm wrong but it simply meant that there wasn't enough from reliable sources to justify a whole article.)
 * I expanded the FOIA USA article.
 * Later I came across Neutral reportage, which I happened to notice mentions her suit vs the Salt Lake Tribune.
 * I'd never even seen the article let alone edited it.
 * Once I was done, it occured to me that anyone typing "Barbara Schwarz" into the search field could be looking for info on either her FOIA or pro se defamation suit info. Therefore I turned her page into a disambiguation.
 * It occurred to me that it would only be a matter of time until someone adds her to a Scientology controversy page. By looking to see what sources there were regarding her and the CoS I planned to either add mention myself or if no sources exist, remove mention if I came across it.

(Aside from the logical error of extending a possible Scientology topic ban to an article which doesn't mention Scientology.) Anynobody 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be blunt about this, I am so free to disagree with your (Anynobody's) justification. It was you that suddenly turned the FOIA and the Neutral Reportage article entries about Barbara Schwarz prominently stand out. This was directly following the decision to keep the article on Barbara Schwarz deleted. It was found that Barbara Schwarz was no particular public person, nonetheless you do not appear to respect that decision judging your later editing and utterances. I made several comments on Anynobody (Everynobody)'s talkpage see here. I have strongly the impression that this user has been stalking Barbara Schwarz for quite a while. --Olberon (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was you that suddenly turned the FOIA and the Neutral Reportage article entries about Barbara Schwarz prominently stand out. Uh yeah, that's my point, she was mentioned in both, there are sources which discuss both in detail. If you combine the two subjects, they would not be enough to support an entire article about her (like the one deleted) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned either. Essentially it sounds like you (Olberon) are angry that I asked if there were any sources about her in German media, because you keep bringing it up despite the fact that neither one was found nor did I add unsourced information anyway.

Thatcher, if I had gone ahead to add information talking about how her religion is locking her into madness in an actual article then a Schwarz/Scientology ban would make sense. You may not think expansion of her case mention in neutral reportage is appropriate but please don't let that dictate your actions. (Again, since the articles each focus on subjects, only her life in those contexts is fit for mention in them. The neutral reportage article didn't even mention Scientology (nor should it). Only her very public assertion that she had been defamed by a local newspaper is what was there and all I had intended to allow. Anynobody 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden
There are certainly versions of this article in the history that do not cause BLP issues (as they do not mention anything contentious) therefore your deletion is unvalid. Catchpole (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In looking at the history of the article, I find it has been deleted or stubbed about 7 times to deal with these problems. That tells me that no one watches the article after stubbing except whoever it is who manages to sneak back unsuitable material time and time again.  Which is an indicator of notability (or lack thereof).  Plus, even for people who are notable enough for wikipedia but still minor, I believe the BLP policy contemplates deletion in cases where insufficient information exists to write a neutral article.  Some of the problems may be coming from the POV of the editors; for example, her dismissal from Fox was covered extensively but not her hiring--why was she hired, what did they see in her that made them give her a slot in the first place, etc.  On the other hand these questions may not be answerable except with reference to her personal blog, which use as a source is problematic.  I am not committed to deletion, I will listen to and think about additional arguments, or you can go to deletion review. Thatcher 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Per request for confirmation

 * Yes I am, and I will also confirm that, although I am aware that the first long post related to SandyGeorgia was altered without my knowledge that alteration did not distort my meaning in any substantial way. Copying to your talk page --Zeraeph (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Returned
My wiki-break is now over and as I seem, through necessity, to be editing, albeit in a very limited field and on a very reduced scale would you mind undeleting/unprotecting my talk and user pages. I have had some valuable, and much needed, time to think things through and am now quite happy for my pages to be once again open for business. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Apology
No need, Thatcher, really. The only reason I had to post that chronology is to provide context for my impertinent remarks. Yes, I was very confused and felt snubbed, but, done, over, no problem :-) I should have handled it better; I should have posted to your talk page, asking you if you had received my e-mails, but I was afraid that posting anything publicly would further the problems. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I a party?
Am I a "party" in Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia? I am not sure if I am posting in the right place. Thanks, Mattisse  17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, considering the things she has said about you. Thatcher 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please live up to your word
After you posted your warning, this was placed on the talk page: in direct contravention of your warning. Please show that you are not kidding. I will not defend myself to remain within the guidelines you laid out. But I expect you to act if I cannot.--Filll (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I warned him and asked him to remove it. Thatcher 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You warned him. And he did NOT do as you asked, willfully disregarding your request. Brave man. And quite full of himself; assured he is right and able to sling insults with impunity. I will not respond, but I trust you will act as you promised to show you are not a paper tiger. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He struck out part of the comment and acknowledged his error and has not made any more edits since then.  Seems like a reasonable response. Thatcher 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he did not remove it as you asked. And the part that is unstruck I find quite uncivil. Far worse than anything I posted that you flagged as inappropriate, in my opinion. But you do not have to agree of course.--Filll (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Would it be possible for me to remove my remarks from the Arbitration (Zeraeph) and drop out? This is the first arbitration I have ever entered evidence in. I do not understand what I am doing. I have heard of only a few people mentioned in the arbitration arguments. I do not know what is going one and do not understand the issues. I do not know how to say the right things. This is way over my head. Further, health wise, I cannot hang on any longer. I cannot continue in it.

Even if I cannot remove my remarks, I will not enter more, nor will I follow the case on my watch list any more. I do not have the strength or fortitude to continue. I will leave your page on my watch list for an answer to this question. Thanks, Mattisse  15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You certainly do not have to continue to participate. The Arbitrators will consider all the evidence, comments, etc and make their decisions.  If you do not feel up to making further comments, then stop or edit something else if it eases your mind.  Some of the proposals I have made related to past incidents as I am trying to establish the history.  You came into this very late so naturally you are not familiar with the earlier history.  As long as your concerns are addressed (Zeraeph's comments toward  you personally) then don't worry about the rest. Thatcher 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I could've swore
That injunction requires majority, not 4 net. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to act
You have warned several times. This lady is well aware of the restrictions and warnings and has indicated as much. She has acknowledged this several times on the case talk pages. I find the following edit highly inappropriate and highly offensive:. Cursing is ok after having been warned? I think not. I have had it with the bullying and abuse that continues unabated and the bias and the rush to judgement that I see expressed on these pages. I implore you to do as you promised, or else I will be required to seek other remedies if you are unable or unwilling to act. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense was intended in the first place, "Jesus" was being used as an expression of dismay at Dave sousa's comment. However since Filll clearly finds offensive I removed it. I stand by my overall statement though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. Time to act.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm soooooo tempted to say "I disagree thanks", but that would be lame. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do so. It is time to act. And thanks for calling me lame.--Filll (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, Filll has a point here. Please don't wind him up. Filll, wait for Thatcher to respond. You are both digging yourselves in deeper here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fill I apologise for teasing you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The best apology would be for you to recuse yourself. You clearly cannot remain civil, even when repeatedly warned. You clearly are biased and have been involved in an unseemly rush to judgement and unseemly personal attacks aplenty. And taking the Lord's name in vain when criticizing someone you disagree with is just the final straw. Calling me lame for having retreated almost to the point of remaining mute just adds insult to injury. I know it might seem fun to you to bully others who might disagree with you into silence, but this must stop. Recuse yourself now, or let Thatcher force you to recuse, or else I will find someone who will.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of stopping posting to the workshop page, but I'd be happy to stop talking to you if you like. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Care for a shovel?--Filll (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, what's happening here? Anything I can help with? El_C 19:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, El_C; Filll, wbfergus and Theresa Knott were testing the limits of civil discourse on Talk Jim62sch/Evidence and I warned them to play nice (see the evidence talk page). Now it appears that Filll is pretending outrage at Theresa while he himself makes similar comments (on the workshop talk page).  However, I have since edited the workshop heavily making proposals and suggestions so I feel a bit constrained in taking further action (that whole "involved in a dispute" thing even though I'm not really). If you wanted to check Theresa and Filll's contribs and ban one or both of them from making further comments on the Jim62sch case pages (for say 48 hours) that might be an appropriate use of admin discretion. Thatcher 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. After being warned, how have I continued to be uncivil? Please show me. Have I cursed at anyone? Used profanity? Ever? Show me please.--Filll (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for the explanation. Sure, I'll look into it. El_C 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
I have listed, which you speedily deleted, at deletion review. John254 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes?
I do not accept your explanation. None of my evidence related to content disputes, it was ALL related to user conduct. Did you even bother to read it? Maybe you should take another look. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My evidence started under the heading "Holodomor denial". Please go and take another look. I quite agree a lot of the "evidence" other users added was concerning content disputes but mine was not. Gatoclass (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incivility, personal attacks and failure to assume good faith should be easy to document with a few diffs per editor. I have no interest in reading 10,000 words on the dispute just to find those diffs. Thatcher 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think you are probably right. I can probably condense my evidence down to no more than a few lines. It's just that when I make a statement I like to make it comprehensive so I don't have to go explaining a whole lot of stuff on the run later. Also because I was facing sanctions I wanted to be sure I presented enough evidence to defend myself.
 * Anyhow, it will have to wait until tomorrow now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered
I'm extremely reluctant to add other people to the ArbCom since it would further polarise matters. As one of the accused, I certainly don't feel it is the job to point fingers.

Furthermore, both of the two I'm thinking of strike me as heavy-weights capable of pulling very nasty tricks - and getting away with it. (ie - I've seen and suffered them doing this kind of thing already).

I've also protested repeatedly and strongly at the very personalising way that these procedures are carried out, my protests have been ignored in the past, and the process has started again.

It was already very difficult to have confidence in the procedure, due to the thoroughly dishonest nature of some (not all) of the parties. To be asked to expose myself to still more unpleasantness seems like more than flesh and bone can stand. PRtalk 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already explained to you PR that being a party to a case is not forcing guilt upon you - it only means that you have been involved in the dispute. There is no assumption of disruptive behaviour from you by being a party - if the case is accepted, you can submit evidence yourself and the arbitrators will look at the conduct of all users involved and the remedies will only cover the users that have been shown to act disruptively. I keep asking you for the names of people who you believe should be added as parties but for some reason, you don't seem willing to give me them.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Listing editors gives them fair warning and allows them to make statements and present evidence.  The ultimate findings will be decided by Arbcom based on the evidence, and may or may include some or all of the named parties based on that evidence. Thatcher 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite satified that all the likely involved parties know who they are. I'm further satisfied there is no rush. (Technically, I don't think we're at the "present evidence" phase, making their participation immediately even less necessary). For all these reasons, it seems perverse to add me to a list already condemned with "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption" - and then expect me to contribute as if I have confidence in the process, wasn't going to be victimised, and would be protected from further victimisation if I did contribute. It's been made abundantly clear that these processes are all about victimisation. PRtalk 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Digwuren restriction notice
While I strongly maintain that I did not "disparage" anyone for their national origins - a notion that I quite frankly find deeply offensive - I am not going to contest your judgement on that because I accept that you made it in good faith and, quite frankly, I am heartily sick of this whole business and just want it all to go away.

I will ask you, however, to reconsider the notice in my case based on your comment that Obviously you all are aware [ie of the Digwuren restriction] having commented extensively here or at the AN/I discussion of the matter. In my case, this simply isn't accurate. I had absolutely NO idea about the "Digwuren general restriction" until Termer brought me before the arbcom enforcement under the terms of that clause. The proof is in my posts to Termer, here, when he first took it to arbcom enforcement, and in my comment to User:Ioeth on his talk page, in response to Vecrumba's comment to Ioeth that "Gatoclass is in need of a friendly warning under the Digwuren arbitration decision. I have no desire to have Gatoclass banned..." This got my attention and I then went, for the first time, to check out the Digwuren case to see what this threat was all about, after which I responded to PetersV's threat thus:

So I think that demonstrates that I was not in fact aware of the "Digwuren general restriction" when I made the comment about users' backgrounds. If I had known about it, I doubt very much I would have been sucked in to making a comment about users' motivations by Turgidson's question.

In which case, I would ask you to reduce my notice this time around to a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The notice is intended to make you aware of the "Digwuren general restriction", it is in essence a warning to people not familiar of the Digwuren case to be on their best behaviour while editing EE articles. Why we have to jump through hoops as we did on the enforcement noticeboard to get people like yourself who are not familiar with the case noticed in is beyond me. Martintg (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, would you get in touch with me regarding the latest round of Digwuren notices that you issued? My contact information can be found on my userpage.  Thanks!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not see Gatoclass' last post before you closed and issued warnings. Too bad. I think we would have reconciled the situation as I find myself in a position to take back observations that Gatoclass is still unaware of how his behavior was taken and why. So close to working things out but freeze the discussion and issue warnings to all. When it's patently obvious this wasn't the typical Eastern European editing problem situation despite having all the classic symptoms. I was earlier hoping for a friendly private uninvolved editor intervention with Gatoclass so he could see the context on why his actions were being taken the way they were. (This would be why I contacted Ioeth in the first place, as I have no relationship with him and have seen him defuse another situation, I thought it was a good bet. Shame on me for trying.)
 * I'm sorry, but as you personally removed the option for the situation to resolve itself by closing of dialog when a significant opportunity was offered (and this was after Gatoclass had said he needed some time to think about it to respond)--I think at some point I had suggested some introspection--I believe you've sanctioned everyone prematurely and therefore unfairly, including Gatoclass, and I'm dismayed you've essentially declared everyone entered this in bad faith, shame on us. —PētersV (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a real pity that some admin did not take Gatoclass aside and make him aware of the sensitivities involved in editing EE articles and the existance of the Digwuren general restrictions, when you asked a couple of days ago here . This reluctant to notice him in and requiring additional diffs led to the perception that being noticed in was some kind of terrible sanction which Gatoclass defended against tooth and nail, and this continued misperception is evidenced by his request above to have his notice "reduced to a warning"! Whether or not this reluctance to act (I recall one admin called it "mobbing up") when so many editors supported this request to notice in on the enforcement board is itself an assumption of bad faith in the motives of the editors who brought this to the enforcement board is something I hope these admins reflect upon.


 * I note that Termer was blocked for 24 hours under the provisions of the Digwuren general restriction, not for any incivility, assumptions of bad faith or personal attacks related directly to some EE article, but as in the case for both Sänder Sade and Alexia Death, for expressing his disagreement with particular admin behavior. I am not questioning whether the block was appropriate, but whether it is appropriate to list the block under the provisions of the Digwuren general restrictions, as it seems that this remedy is being extended beyond dealing with civility issues in EE articles to include sanctioning editors who may contest a particular admin's behavior. This is something that needs further examination, I think. Martintg (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ioeth was within her discretion (I think) although I personally would not have done it. (I tend to be very forgiving of the ranting of blocked users, so long as it does not continue after editing resumes, although perhaps too forgiving.)  I would begin with a discussion with the blocking admin, then moving to ANI for a wider review if you think it is necessary. Thatcher 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Arbcom
I have made a post here with respect to some evidence and a proposed FoF that a long-time IP editor left on Newyorkbrad's talk page; apparently the IP editor cannot insert directly due to semi-protection. I'm just bringing this to your attention as you are clerking this case. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave a note at WP:AC/CN under other work. My home computer is broken and I have limited work time to edit. Thatcher 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No.
No, Thatcher, the Arbitration Enforcement page is not a replica of the completely discredited Personal Attack Noticeboard. When someone comes looking for enforcement and was not a party to the original decision, then one must first establish that the person is editing in a manner that is applicable. Secondly, one must ensure that the specifics apply -- which is that the party is tendentious. One cannot simply respond that any complaint is the equivalent of being put "on notice," as user:Ioeth does, nor can one automatically block. Worst of all, removing questions that are designed to test the first principles is absolutely out. That is not part of being a Clerk, and it is not part of being reasonable. Please refrain. Slow the carnage there, please; do not hasten it. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator.  It doesn't say any party, it says any editor.  should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.  So the restriction is very broad, and does cover anything judged by an uninvolved admin to be uncivil, a personal attack, or assumption of bad faith.  Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.  There are no conditions or prerequisites; I do not have to prove that an editor violated the restriction once in order to give notice that it exists, although I did so.  And, WP:AE is not a forum for continuing disputes, it is a forum to present evidence of violations and request enforcement.  You might want to look at the rather significant changes made to the page instructions by new Arbitrator FT2, at WP:AE/Header.


 * Now, despite my request for diffs, the parties could only present one comment by Gatoclass in which he did make a rather breathtaking assumption of bad faith on the part of his fellow editors. And a couple of other editors strongly overreacted to the comment and pursued Gatoclass for an apology.  And I did eventually read, somewhat, Gatoclass' rebuttal. But I'm not interested in the defense of "he started it."  Being placed on notice that the enforcement provision exists carries no consequences, it is simply a procedural measure to make sure that editors of Eastern European articles who are incivil to each other are not blindsided by blocks for incivility which may be applied to any editor editing those topics.


 * If you are concerned that the remedy is overbroad or subject to abuse, please contact Arbcom. Thatcher 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As with any new process that is introduced, there will be some degree of initial confusion as to the correct implementation. I do believe that Thatcher has the correct handle on this, as expressed immediately above. Martintg (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't, according to this logic a person who hasn't even heard of the case could be bound to follow it simply because they chose to edit articles related to Eastern Europe. (Though it makes Thatcher's interpretation of a case I was involved in make more sense.) Anynobody 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they deliberately wrote a very broad decision that does indeed encompass editors who have never heard of the case—provided they are informed of it first. Presumably a look at the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages will give you and idea of what they were thinking at the time.  If you have a different interpretation you can take it up with Arbcom at WP:RFAR under Requests for clarification  and ask them to either clarify the decision or re-think it. Thatcher 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I obviously posted that "potential axes to grind" comment well before anyone even mentioned Digwuren. It was only after that comment that people started to mention "the Digwuren restriction". So I hadn't been informed at the time I made the comment. So basically, I've been slapped with an editing restriction for my very first (alleged) incivility, in a topic area I have had next to nothing to do with for almost two years.
 * I mean, one would think the project would want to encourage more independent editors like me to topic areas like this that tend to be dominated by partisan POVs, to try and help find a middle ground. But instead, I've just been given a very strong discouragement from ever editing in this area again, lest I end up getting blocked for some trivial indiscretion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must absolutely repudiate, once again, the notion that I accused anyone of bad faith editing on the page in question, least of all in a "rather breathtaking" manner. That is a falsehood, and I believe a demonstrable one.

I feel that all I need to do is point out, as I have done umpteen times before in relation to this charge, that there is a perfectly reasonable alternative reading available of my statement about which all the fuss has been made, which is that it boils down to nothing more than a banal observation that someone's national or political allegiances are prone to influence their perceptions in regards to related issues - an observation moreover, that is made on a daily basis at this place, and by practically everybody. But the proof that this alternative reading was and is readily available can be seen in the comment from about the only other independent voice on the page in question, Crotalus horridus, who defended my statement on precisely the same grounds - indeed going considerably further than I originally did (why hasn't anyone sanctioned him?)

So my reply as always to this charge is that it's not my fault that some people have chosen to take this comment another way. I am not responsible for the bad faith assumptions of others, and moreover, when I offer an alternative and perfectly viable good faith reading of this comment, I rather resent the fact that people throw it back in my face and then accuse me of "assuming bad faith".

In the spirit of reconciliaton however, what I will now do is concede that in the context of my unfortunate, somewhat "dickish" behaviour at the outset (an explanation for which I provided at AE) - and of the intentionally ambiguous barb I hurled in the heat of the moment in the immediate aftermath of the AFD (the "hoist by your own petard" comment, offered only after a barrage of bad faith accusations and other assorted incivilities hurled at me) - that perhaps it is not altogether suprising that some users chose to interpret my comment in the way they did.

I hope therefore that in the light of these mea culpas, the users who made such accusations will now finally accept that perhaps they may indeed have erred in their assumptions about my meaning, and to reciprocate by accepting the explanations I have now offered on numerous occasions both here and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, that is not quite the end of the matter from my POV however, because there is still the issue of User:ThuranX and his role in this affair. But perhaps it's best to deal with one issue at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First to correct some factual inaccuracies. You have not been placed under any editing restriction, merely formally notified that there is a general civility restriction in place for EE articles. Part of the issue is your apparent combative nature, as evidenced by you continuing this here and your intent to pursue User:ThuranX. This nature was exhibited also when after your AfD was unanimously defeated, rather than accept the outcome, you dismissed the result with your now infamous comment and proceeded to tag war the article. It is precisely this kind of activity that led to the Digwuren case in the first place, hence the need to inform you of the case via formal notice. Martintg (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My combative nature? I am the only one here who has taken responsibility for my own errors of judgement. I am not the one who would not let the matter drop, pursuing demands for an "apology" for days on end when I pleaded repeatedly for us all to just forget about prior indiscretions and "let bygones be bygones". I am not the one who took the matter to Ioeth in yet another attempt to gain said apology. And I am not the one who finally took it to arbcom enforcement in yet another escalation. And in the end I did not even pursue the matter there, but turned my submission into yet another plea for reconciliation instead. It's not my fault that at that point Thatcher decided to close the case with the ruling she made.


 * Furthermore, I initially said I would accept Thatcher's judgement about my alleged "disparagement" although I disagreed with it, and asked only for my notice to be downgraded to a warning. It was only after Geogr and Anynobody themselves questioned Thatcher's judgement here and Thatcher responded with the comment about my "rather breathtaking" assumption of bad faith, that I felt obliged to add a few extra words in my defence. And when Thatcher made the comment about the ruling being applicable to any user "providing they are informed of it first", I felt obliged to point out that I in fact had not been "informed of it first", whereas the other users involved were fully aware of the ruling, as is made plain by their frequent references to it in discussion.


 * I must also dispute your claim that "I have not been placed under any editing restriction, merely formally notified that there is a general civility restriction in place for EE articles." Last time I looked, my name had been added to the list of those placed under the restriction, which means that any minor indiscretion on my part at EE articles can now result in an immediate block. If I had only been "warned", my name would not have been added to the list.


 * I am inclined to agree with you though, that I should just have kept my mouth shut and not made those posts last night. I had originally intended - on the basis that PetersV and others accepted both my admission of a share in responsibility for this affair, and my testimony that I have never accused them of bad faith - to add my voice to those apparently calling for Thatcher to rescind her decision in the case of all users concerned. It seems clear however, that that is not going to occur, in which case the only effect my words were likely to have is to spark yet another round of recriminations, as witnessed by your response above. So I think from this point I will take your advice and try to resist making any further comment.


 * I consider the case of ThuranX, however, to be entirely separate. While the rest of us have been sanctioned, he walked away without even so much as a formal warning for his egregious breaches of incivility, the dispute was on the verge of resolution when he recklessly intervened and reignited it, so I regard him as a leading instigator. The difficulty is that if I pursue the matter any further, I do indeed run the risk of being judged "combative", especially since people like you are likely to try and characterize my complaint in such terms. But if I do nothing, I am in effect handing him a licence to repeat his slurs of "bigotry" and "racism" in future. So I'm still undecided as to the best course of action there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When editing, it is vital to discuss the content of each others' editing, not their character or beliefs or anything else personal. Saying "You edit this way because you are a " or "All the editors who are in favor of this bad idea are " should be avoided, whether is a religion, nationality, ethnic or racial grouping, or anything else.   For example, you could say, "This article has too much Russian nationalist point of view, please add some balance from the other side" but you could not say, "Too many editors here are still brainwashed by their former Soviet overlords."  That is the general rule here for all articles, but there has been so much bad faith and personal stuff on Eastern European topics in the past  that it hurt everybody's feelings, put a lot of people on the defensive, and that Arbcom decided to impose a special limitation on that topic.  You might want to read some of the evidence in the case to see what people were saying about each other before the restriction was added.  If the topic calms down, the editors could ask for the restriction to be lifted.  Hope this helps you understand the situation a bit better. Thatcher 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could defend myself against these comments, but I think I've done enough of that already. Overall, I don't think you've necessarily handled the situation badly, in fact I think you probably made some good gut decisions here and there, although I would have liked to see how my opponents responded to my reconciliation offer. My main concern has been that the restriction notice essentially serves as a black mark against my wiki-reputation, which is what bugs me about it. But if you are now indicating that you will consider rescinding the notice if I keep my nose clean for a few months, I'm somewhat mollified.

The one outstanding issue for me then, is in regards to ThuranX, whose behaviour in my opinion was inexcusable. He was not directly involved in the dispute, unlike the others he did not have the excuse of hurt feelings or a prior history of suspicion from involvement on the EE pages, yet he chose to barge into the debate - just when it was on the verge of resolution at AN/I - with highly inflammatory charges of "racism" and "bigotry"     that finally got me incensed and caused me to ask for a withdrawal, which in turn brought further howls of outrage from my accusers and got us all landed at AE. User Termer for one, would never have been named as a party if he hadn't unwisely decided to echo Thuran's "bigotry" charge, because up to that point Termer had been unfailingly civil. And yet the user who encouraged him in these comments, walks away scot free.

So I believe ThuranX has a lot to answer for here and I'm not at all satisfied that he has walked away without even so much as a scratch. I appeal to you therefore, to give this guy at least a formal warning and to tell him to remove his slur that I am a "bigot" from his talk page, in accordance with policy. The last thing I want to do is drag any aspect of this dispute back to AN/I again, so I'd greatly appreciate it if you saved me the trouble of having to make that decision. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive URL?
You archived this. What's the new URL? Martintg (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found it! Thanks. Martintg (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations on talk pages
Hi -- I'd like to call to your attention the fact that Dking and Cberlet have resumed the same kind of BLP misconduct for which you blocked Cberlet some months ago. I refer to these edits: Cberlet refers to published accounts -- there are none, save for a self-published essay on the Dennis King website. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm... now Dking is engaged in an edit war over a similar talk page violation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than the phrase "raving " the paragraph seems fine and Terrawatt's blanking rather exceeds what is needful. Thatcher 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No one expects
...the Spanish Inquisition. Hi. Though I don't know you, I assume you don't mind my contacting you in this manner. While you presumably only mention the Inquisition to emphasize your point, I feel that you are doing so at my expense. I welcome your disagreement but I would rather you not ridicule my ideas. As you may know, COI accusations are floating around and I think it would be good to clear the air. Since I am somewhat familiar with the methods of the Inquisition, I believe my proposal might at best be mistaken for hitting them with the soft cushions. Perhaps you'd rather not delete the 1st sentence of your comment, but it'd make me feel better. Well, in any case, take care. HG | Talk 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock User:vittala
I have just become aware that an editor called user:vittala has been banned as a sockpuppet of mine. This is not true, and I'd like to see his/her account unblocked. Vitala is not me, nor does Vittala even live in the same state as me. I'd like very much to know by what evidence Vittala was declared a sock-puppet of anyone, much less specifically me, and who did it. Rosencomet (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * was blocked by . His only contributions were to vote keep on the recent AfDs for WinterStar and Jeff Rosenbaum.  This is highly suspicious of a Single purpose account; if not you, then someone recruited by you to make these edits.  (New editors rarely discover the rather arcane deletion process on their first edit.)  If Vittala is interested in editing, he should probably start a new account, since there is no history associated with the account except those two edits (unless he really likes the name).  He could appeal to Guy by email.  One question that will be asked is why are you advocating for Vittala if Vittala is an independent editor who just happens to be interested in those two topics and just happened to discover the rather arcane deletion process on his own. Thatcher 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Vittala became aware of the block when attempting to edit. Just because the first edit Vittala made was concerning these deletions doesn't make Vittala a sock-puppet. Whether I am Vittala can be easily checked by examining the IP addresses. Right now, Vittala would not be a "single purpose account" had this block not been placed just a few hours after hir first edits, with no evidence except that the first edits made were about these two deletion nominations. Guy also voted on these nominations, and placed this block while they were still open, with no inquiry or notification to me about this accusation of sockpuppetry; isn't that improper?
 * As for creating a new account, in my experience when an editor is blocked they block the entire IP address. The point is, this block should never have been placed.
 * And the reason I am advocating for Vittala is because Vittala was accused of being me! This is a false accusation of both of us, and one I have every right to address. Rosencomet (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Contact Guy, or have Vittala contact Guy, or contact Arbcom. Thatcher 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AE
. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi Thatcher. Since you were the last admin who edited userpage of User:AdilBaguirov, could you please have a look at the edits User:VartanM made to the user page of Adil? In my opinion this is a clear violation of the ruling by the recent arbcom case, which stated that:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers is not a label that is appropriately placed by one user on another user they are in conflict with. 

However this is exactly what Vartan did: If anyone needs to have such a tag on his userpage, it is up to the admins to place it, plus, if Adil's page is to be tagged this way, the same tag should be placed on user page of User:Fadix, who was also party to the same case and was caught using socks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Granmaster I'm not in conflict with Adil and I didn't put labels, just added the category of his suspected socks. All the users in the category were either confirmed by a CU to be his socks or blocked by an admin as such. Considering the the number of socks Adil used I would have compared him to Artaxiad and not Fadix, who only used two self outed socks. In any case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ehud_Lesar might be of your interest. VartanM (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Vartan, you are in conflict with Adil and placing categories on other people's user pages should be done by admins with no personal involvement in any conflicts. Arbcom had a specific ruling on application of the category that you added. As for Fadix, he also used socks, and whether they are self-admitted or not is of no consequence. Sock is a sock, no matter how it was exposed. Grandmaster (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet tagging should not be done in the middle of a dispute, as it can be seen as a form of harassment or intimidation used to gain advantage in the dispute. Adil has been blocked for many months.  Is there some doubt about the accuracy of the tag, or is it only the person doing the tagging that bothers you? Thatcher 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both. First, Vartan has no right to place categories on other users' pages, as it was specifically prohibited by the last arbcom ruling. It is a violation of arbcom decision. Second, is it a normal practice to place such categories on user pages of temporarily banned users? Normally such categories are placed on pages of users who were blocked permanently. If the category is appropriate, why is it applied selectively and why no such category is placed on user page of User:Fadix, who was a party to the same case and who was also using socks? Grandmaster (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpreting the rullings, Atabek's case was different, he was not banned and it was only one sock not a dozens. I think it is time to ban Adil indefinitely. There are many other socks, like Batabat, Eloghu, Eloghu2 etc., that are not on the list and which need further investigation. I propose an arbitration on Adil’s case to also deal with Ehud Lesar situation. VartanM (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I just contacted Fadix and he has no objections to have the same category placed on his userpage. Same categories were added to Artaxiad's userpage . VartanM (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned with tagging Adil, whoever does it. If he manages to return then the tag would be removed, of course.  Same with Fadix. Thatcher 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehud's case is going to reach arbcom anyway, regardless of whether he is unblocked or not. Still I think that users have no business tagging each others pages, unless it is an officially proven sock. With regards to Ehud case, I would like to ask for some help from Thatcher. You have lots of experience with such cases. Ehud was blocked without any proof of being a sock and despite checkuser returning negative result. Now Ehud proposes to prove that he is a real person in real life, but he is reluctant to disclose any sensitive private information to anyone, which he has every right to do per Wikipedia rules. Is there any way one can prove that he is a real person and not a sock, or once you are banned it is not reversible? Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem of course is that even if we could verify both the identities and simultaneous physical presence at different computers of Adil and Ehud it would not indicate whether Ehud has been acting as a proxy for Adil, or had allowed him to use his account sometimes, or makes edits at his request. i recall in the case of banned user Hkelkar that he arranged a demonstration on IRC of being at a different IP in a different geolocation than his alleged sock, and it was later proved (or at least strongly suspected) that he had arranged the demonstration with a friend in another city.  Inevitably whenever checkuser is invoked to say that two people are sockpuppets, objections are raised about shared and dynamic IP addresses and that it should really be behavior that counts, and whenever behavior is invoked to say that two editors are sockpuppets, objections are raised that the IP data disproves it. I think this is best handled privately through the Arbitration committee, which handles confidential information all the time without (as far as I am aware) any leaks. Thatcher 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually intend to take this case to the arbcom to get all the circumstances of this block properly investigated. Do you also propose to file a case to the arbcom or you mean that Ehud should privately contact arbitration committee members and ask them to verify that he is a real person and not a sock? Grandmaster (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The route to appeal an indefinite ban, if no admin is willing to unblock, is through Arbcom. Here, because of privacy issues, that becomes even more important, as there certainly would be concerns about sharing Ehud/Adil's private contact information with admins who may have blocked them in the past or are opposed to their editing.  You may be able to file a case on Ehud's behalf, but it may end up being rejected anyway with instructions for Ehud to contact the committee. Thatcher 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How a blocked user can file a case or appeal his block to arbcom? Is there any specific procedure that needs to be followed? Grandmaster (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * E-mail any arbitrator or the entire Arbcom mailing list; the address is at WP:AC. Thatcher 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, I think this could be directly submitted to the committee since the identity confirmation isn’t an issue anymore from what Grandmaster said (that Ehud is an Azerbaijani user) and from Atabek’s words about the fact that anyone could choose any username of their liking. If this confirms that Ehud Lesar is not an Ehud Lesar, then any evidence provided to the arbitration in secret is not a confirmation. Because at this point, if it is true that Ehud is not claiming to be an Ehud Lesar anymore, if it is Adil he can ask anyone to provide identity to have him return, because he doesn’t need to prove he is Ehud Lesar. So this case should be taken to judge if there is sufficient evidence that Ehud is Adil or not. Contacting the arbitration in secret could lead the arbitration to take a wrong decision, because they may not know the full situation, or we may not know anything so this will prevent the possibility of more evidences being provided. - Fedayee (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand this. I don't know if Ehud is a real name or not, but did Ehud ever claim that it was? It might be a shocking revelation for some, but my real life name is not Grandmaster either. In any case, I don't mind a new arbitration case either. Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike Grandmaster, Ehud Lesar is a real name and a last name you can't compare the two. If you want to fallow White Cat, go ahead, but I believe arbitrators were clear about not accepting the AA3. VartanM (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Thatcher I'm not sure if this two need tagging VartanM (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As Atabek correctly noted, Marshal Bagramyan is also not a real life name of that editor. The whole presumption that if someone chose for himself a name that could exist in real life, then it has to be his real name is absurd. Once again, I don't know if it is or not, but if it is not then it is not a big deal. And who says that it is gonna be AA3? It does not have to be. And any proof that those are Adil, or it is just an admin assumption? Grandmaster (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Marshal Bagramyan is a name of a famous person, just like Vartan Mamikonian. The only famous Lesar is the CEO of Halliburton, David J. Lesar. VartanM (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, is there any rule prohibiting the use of non-famous names? I really fail to see your point. Grandmaster (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One more question. Is banned user allowed to file a case himself? I know that such things happened before. Grandmaster (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Thatcher, I listed above the ArbCom principle, which arbitrators have voted unanimously for. It's clear that VartanM's tagging of userpages specifically related to Azeri users is in violation of this principle. Not sure, why this has to result in another lengthy thread, if a simple recommendation could be made to VartanM to follow ArbCom principle. And would not it be more peaceful to spend the time to actually make article contributions instead tagging userpages of the conflicting side? Atabek (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I be in conflict with Adil when he is banned. VartanM (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes
Thatcher, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Verified and unblocked. Thatcher 11:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant earlier to thank you... so thank you. :)  And thanks for verifying that they were no longer exit nodes.  I was hesistant, hoping that I had not made some mistake.  Cheers, --Iamunknown 05:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic
This article was reported for an ArbCom clarification yesterday. Last night, the editor in question responded with an even more contentious series of edits. Comments enclosed in  can only be described as baiting. Comments on the article Talk page and my User Talk page by Lou Sander, Shibumi2 and DCLawyer confirm that this guy is being contentious. During the wait for ArbCom action, I'd be most grateful for some administrative intervention. Thanks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that you've removed the Probation box from this article's talk page. Could you enlighten me, or steer me to the place where I can be enlightened, about this particular Probation. (I'm not a newbie, but I never encountered probation before.) Lou Sander (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In its most common form, Article probation (now redirected to General sanctions) allows an uninvolved admin to take necessary action to stop disputes from disrupting an article, usually by issuing page bans to one or more users or placing all editors of the article on a more stringent revert limit. In Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, Free Republic was placed on a milder form of probation in which the editors may ask Arbcom to review the article if it has not improved.  There is no enforceable remedy in this particular case, so the blanket wording of the general Article Probation template was incorrect. Thatcher 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Lou Sander (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you recognize the trademarks of User:BryanFromPalatine - User:DeanHinnen in this? Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Never made a study of him. Thatcher 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish arbitration
I was personally attacked, bullied and stalked on Asian fetish. Can I labeled the arbitration request as "Personal attacks on Asian fetish" then? Or is that too argumentative? Tkguy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW User:Phoenix-wiki was the one who originally changed the name of the arbitration from "Personal attacks, bullying, and stalking on Asian fetish" to "Asian fetish". He or she is not even and admin, and he or she wrote something against my argument. So naturally I felt the right to change it back. User:Jehochman accused me of reverting an admin's change here. So I responded here. Note that he called me clueless so I responded in kind. Tkguy (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is simply conventional that Arbitration cases do not have names that prejudge the case. For example, it might turn out that you were more at fault than anyone else--I have not read your evidence or studied it so I do not say this as anything but a hypothetical--however for this reason cases generally have neutral names, typically the name of the article or topic where the dispute originated. Thatcher 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mailman cometh
Dropped you an e-mail. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing White Female
I replied to this essay on the Talk page. Terraxos (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably should delete the essay once the AfD is over, it really shouldn't be in project space. The bottom line is that not everything that is newsworthy is encyclopedic.  The OJ Simpson murder case, for example, had and continues to have cultural impact beyond the narrow group of people directly involved.  It is not clear that MWF cases will have any wider importance or cultural impact other than being selected by the media microscope from among hundreds of murders each year.  The victim here is not the only pregnant woman to be murdered (allegedly) by the father of the child, but she is young and pretty and blond and white and while that is enough for CNN and Fox News it is not enough for me. Thatcher 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic
Sorry to bother you, Thatcher. Two days ago, Newyorkbrad asked Eschoir at RFAR to explain his troubling pattern of edits on this article. Eschoir has declined to do so. Instead, he's baiting me into an edit war and I must admit that I've just run out of patience. I have done my best to remain civil but some help here would be deeply appreciated. Thanks for your help. Samurai Commuter (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * okely dokely. Thatcher 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, but credit also goes to user:Jayvdb who first flagged it and User:Daniel who helped track it down. Thatcher 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar
Did you read this before closing Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive11? I assumed that you hadn't based on the timestamps of your previous edits, but I just wanted to hear what you have to say. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not, and there doesn't seem to be a link to that evidence page on the AE report. I don't have a problem with the current block. Thatcher 12:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually there was. Fedayee posted an external link instead of a wikilink, which is probably why you didn't see it.
 * "Sure, here you go . I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read."


 * Fedayee's evidence wasn't really discussed though. Picaroon read it and commented that he needed to see "behavioral evidence" linking Ehud to Adil. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversight Rollback
Thanks for the explanation. It's much more clear now. I'll go ahead and restore back the other material that wasn't subject to the oversight. Have a great day or night. Wjhonson (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
My apologies, I am hopelessly out of my depth in the, to me, byzantine complexities of rules, arbitrations etc., and can only admire the youthful flexibility of intelligence of so many who take to it all like fish to water. I was under, it seems, a wrong impression. Since it looks, now that you and Smith enlighten me, as though I tampered with the page, I suppose I should revert it back. But I won't for fear of doing, accidentally, collateral damage to someone else perhaps posting in the meantime. And, in any case, it is a late and,more meo rather wordy thing perhaps not worth the seriousness a salvage revert would otherwise signpost. Thanks however for the note. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI
.

I can provide ton of diffs showing good faith participation in talk. good faitgh editing. No participation in the reverts (the other side does that all the time but I respond on talk and attempt to conmvince them to self revert - sometimes they actually agree at the end as in here: ) Zeq (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just found out this: and I am still not sure what it means - maybe it will add some light maybe it won't I don't know. Zeq (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems likely that en user Ceedjee edited under a previous account and is the same a fr user Ceedjee . However fr user Ceedjee is in good standing, so the sockpuppet allegation involving Ceedjee and La_glaneuse apparently did not pan out.  Even if it did, being blocked on other wikis does not mean someone is blocked here; we look at their behavior here. Thatcher 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. --Zeq (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I confirm fr:user:ceedjee and en:user:ceedjee are my accounts. A CU were performed on wp:fr to confirm that fr:user:ceedjee and fr:user:La gla/neuse are totally different. You can read the comments from a sysop on wp:fr about this "accusation" in one of the link here above. I also confirm I used in the past another account on wp:en but I don't use this any more. I abandonned this when I created this new one with the same name as on wp:fr.
 * Please note that it is not me but Eleland who complained about Zeq concerning this "probation issue". I don't have any comment concering this.
 * I think we (or I) just expect from Zeq that on such "controversial" topics, he discusses very precisely the modifications he considers interesting and then, after answers from others, he performs the modifications... This is not mandatory but that was asked him at least 3 times here. I am more amazed by his affirmation that he considers he is representative of a pov. I am not involved in the current debate around the Israel/Palestine articles issue but I have the "feeling" one of the issues is that some editors feels they have to be "representative" of a pov where in fact we are expected, as wikipedian editors to report relevant pov's from reliable sources and give them -by discussion- their due:weight in the articles. (no much more, no much less)
 * My English is not extremally good. That sometimes produces misunderstandings. Sorry for that.
 * Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, and replied. --Elonka 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I wasn't sure it was an active address. Thatcher 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct
Thank you for the fair and open minded review. You wrote "'to provide a virgin reader with an introduction to a complicated topic in a way that he or she will be able to understand the basic concepts without feeling pulled to one side or the other.'".

This is absolutely correct.

It goes further. Sometimes the bias is subtle. The reader is pulled to one side without "being feeled pooled". this is sometimes referred to as WP:Coatrack or systematic bias. In the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict this is done in 3 main ways:
 * 1) center the presentation on "Human rights"
 * 2) Divide of Historical events in a way that the "starting point" of the event seems to favor one side. example: ,. (both sides preform massacres but a reader that would be directed only to the 2nd of the two articles will get an unbalnced picture)
 * 3) use of common propeganstic names that have filtered from biased media

Examples for #1 are "Right of Return", "The wall". Examples for #2 are articles on various massacres or the break up of the 1948 war to "civil war in Palestine 1947" (the part were the Arabs were stronger) and the "the 1948 war" (the part when Israel got the upper hand. example for # 3 are the Israeli apartheid as well as "right of return" again.

Wikipedia has not done enough to truly represent the view point of both sides. I fully know recognize and some times accept the Palestinian POV and narrative. I find it an up-hill battle to just put the other view in in an equal representation.

The answer:

I think there must be a way to get more editors to participate in such subject. Most people I know from Hebrew wikipedia have stopped participating here because of the on going fighting. They view English wikipedia as a lost cause in which the main stream (the non extremists) Israeli POV is not present. There are Israelis who want peace but also want their own human rights to live free of bombs, in a country that his homeland for the Jewish people side by side to a country foer the Palestinian people. The discussion in "right of return" demonstrate this issue:

Palestinian know full well that if 4Million refugees will become Israeli citizens Israel will no longer be what it is today - still they press for establishing one Palestinian state - Palestine, next to Israel and filling israel with "returning" refugees. A reader that reads "right of return" need to know that this is what the discussion is all about:


 * The Palestinian POV: Right of return is an Inalienable right
 * The Israeli POV: implementation of such demand (it is noit aright) will destroy Israel's right to exist

So far only the first POV is clearly represented in the article. Zeq (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea
Hi Thatcher, I was not aware "ceedjee" was "feminin" in English. In fact, I am a "man" but never mind :-) I don't think it is a good idea to give Zeq some moderate but unilateral support and as a consequence insurance in the fact his behaviour would be appropriated. I didn't "revert Zeq 6 times". I have arrived on this article, I discover an "edit war" and I just gave my two cents. Zeq has been requested to discuss first several times and everybody has started to proceed that way : ). And here is the result of all this :. And I repeat : after constructive discussions had started among *all* other editors who sourced their minds and who asked Zeq to comment but what he refused. Good luck, Ceedjee (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are important decisions : Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision. They should help. Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

here is my reply: Zeq (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee, you reverted once, but it reverted 6 of Zeq's edits. The problem with using reversion as an editing method is that it discards all previous revisions, even if some might have been good. Thatcher 15:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested Ceedjee to self revert and I am still waiting for him/her to do so. I am wiling to discuss each my edits - especially that some have them have been only a move of text... The reply so far have been violation of EP:NPA and WP:AGF. Zeq (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tatcher. I don't care. Ban me. Ceedjee (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Case cleanup
Hey Thatcher, you seem to be active right now, so I was wondering if you could take a clerk mop and clean up at Requests_for_arbitration. The initiating user doesn't seem to quite get where he is/isn't allowed to leave comments. Right now he's left threaded conversation below another person's statements, an objection to my comment there following my statement (originally as a threaded discussion but now just a separate section below mine), and threaded discussion as an "objection" to an arbitrator's decline in the arbitrator's section. If you have more pressing matters (trust me, I know there are much more pressing matters than this!) that's totally fine, I'm sure someone will clean it up eventually. Thanks, Metros (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin
Hi Thatcher. I may doing something that is inappropriate in terms of Wikipedia, but I am stunned by the possible and perhaps enforced decision on Martinphi. With all respect, I would beg you if possible to please take a look at the talk pages of the Bleep article, before you make such a decision.(olive (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Rachel Marsden
The {{Rachel Marsden]] haters are back, up to and including the crap about her being "investigated" for criminal harassment. Time to kill and salt this article. Mike Bate (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed an application for arbitration re : Rachel Marsden to which you are listed as a party. Please see the ArbComm page.Mike Bate (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Thatcher 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I have posted a comment on the AE page where you asserted that I started the "spat." I believe you are mistaken. I would appreciate your review. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call...
Good call. MastCell Talk 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thatcher 12:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WTBDWK
I saw your request for an arbitration extension regarding SA and MartinPhi. Please be careful. Both of them are editing my favorite weeping sore, What the Bleep Do We Know. If your request makes it easier for admins to block SA from specific articles, I'm sure that he will wind up blocked from that one quickly, simply because he finds Dreadstar exasperating, so it is easy for SA to blow up at Dreadstar. If I had to lose one of the two editors on the article, it wouldn't be SA.Kww (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine account compromised?
At what point do you believe the Bluemarine account was compromised - before or after its insults to me? I may need to alter my statements at arbitration. Durova Charge! 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence that the account was compromised?Wjhonson (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone using the account posted defamatory information about Sanchez including copies of letters sent to Sanchez' current employer, and claiming that at least two different people had hacked into several of Sanchez' accounts including gmail, Wikipedia, and other social networking sites. The post was made at 13:04, 19 January 2008, but it seems likely that his account could have been compromised at least one day earlier when the account  posted extracts from Sanchez' gmail conversations with other Wikipedia editors.  These edits have been removed by oversight, by the way.  Mr. Johnson, you are, knowingly or unknowingly, collaborating with the most disgusting, despicable, and (with proof of account hacking) criminal editors I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  You may be a model Wikipedian and have the purest of motives as far as Sanchez is concerned but you will be known by the company you keep. Thatcher 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SA / AE
Upon reflection, I guess my statements at WP:AE came across as more brusque than I intended them. Please accept my apologies for this unwarranted gruffness.

I still have severe reservations about the situation with Science Apologist, as there seem to be a number of users encouraging him to continue his "battle", and -- I'm sure you didn't mean it this way -- the reasons cited in your block reduction might have been misconstrued as tacitly condoning this position.

I look forward to working with you in the future.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoriagirl1 et al
I note that you've determined Victoriagirl1, Victoriagirl2, Victoriagirl3, Sunray10, Sunray20, Sunray30, Homeboy99, Sockpuppet99, Backtalk, Hotgirl99, Firebrand99 and Climateguy are all related to, a user who has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Arthur Ellis. Not knowing the procedure, is it possible to block these accounts, or is it necessary for me to bring the case and evidence to WP:SSP? I ask because after your finding were posted returned to Wikipedia with two posts. Funny, in a way as I've never touched another's post... and had made no edit to the page since the day before Victoriagirl1 sang my praises. I note also Victoriagirl1's earlier post charges others with sockpuppetry, the very accusation she directs towards myself. Sorry, I am going on. It's just that I find the whole things so amusing. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly they can be blocked. Any admin can block from those results.  Sometimes the checkuser clerks will do it, sometimes you have to leave a message at WP:ANI.  Checkusers sometimes do not make the blocks themselves as it can look like a conflict, and as I am new at this I am taking it easy for a while. Thatcher 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've posted my request at WP:ANI. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quieting the Israel Palestine battleground
Hi again. I liked your previous critique and wanted to ask if you would look at an idea. Thanks to suggestions at ArbCom, I started a WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. (Your thoughts on that would be welcome, too.) Now I have a specific idea about how uninvolved parties might be able to better read disputed situations -- i.e., by helping tell the players apart. However, I'm wondering whether this idea (1) can keep within AGF bounds, or (2) would condone taking sides. Would you mind commenting on what I've drafted? Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think listing people by sides is probably a bad idea; even asking people to sign themselves up under column A or column B is tricky, and picking sides for them even more so. It's not so much that there are sides, but that some people on each side find it difficult to work well with others in this system. Thatcher 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sometimes I'm sideswiped by a creative idea and need a reality check. Take care, HG | Talk 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about people simply noting their community, if any, next to their names? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's tricky. Disclosure of one's bias is probably a good thing when entering into a discussion.  Grouping people by advocacy seems like a bad thing.  Are they really two ways of saying the same thing?  Plus both the Israeli and Palestinian sides of the dispute encompass a wide range of views, making simple categorization difficult.  Once you have people listing themselves as members of group A or group B, you run the risk of group A saying, "well, we don;t have to listen to any of you B's anymore."  Not that it isn;'t already happening of course.  All I can really say is use caution. Thatcher 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, aside from giving me an experienced consult here, any chance you be willing to sign on as a member? It could just be a gesture of support and, as here, some readiness to consult/advise us on what looks like a fairly challenging undertaking. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not at this time. I am likely to be involved in evaluating request for enforcement. Thatcher 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your work has begun. I wouldn't think that the roles would conflict, indeed, I'd think they converge and we'd be glad to have you on board. In any case, good luck! HG | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
You now have CheckUser access on this wiki. Please send a mail to checkuser-l-owner at lists dot wikimedia dot org with your standard mail account to get access to the Checkuser-l. Welcome! --Thogo (Talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay, another one to help ease the backlogs, and no there's finer choice of user to do it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet... I saw you close an WP:RFCU which had been open for awhile now, so I realized you'd been granted the Keys To The Kingdom. I'm glad that the Committee is expanding the number of checkusers, and you're a great choice and will do a great job in the role. MastCell Talk 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxies
So is it OK for me to use a proxy before logging into my account? I'll take my chances and if that proxy get's blocked I'll just use another proxy. My concern is what happened with video professor. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) In case your not aware of video professor. See this.


 * We don't normally target editors known to use proxies, but editors will somtimes get caught when proxies are blocked. There is also a proposal to allow trusted editor to edit from blocked proxies, see WP:IPBLOCK.  I don't know the VP case, will look into it. Thatcher 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that thread was vastly overblown. As I understand it, WMF has a more difficult time resisting a subpoena than an ISP due to Federal law covering internet privacy.  In that case, even if WMF releases the IP addresses from which certain edits came, the the party requesting can not match them to a subscriber without a further subpoena to the ISP which is easier for the ISP to resist.  Anyway, you are free to use open proxies if you can find them, and you might want to comment on the IP exemption proposal. Thatcher 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth
For what it's worth, I also apologised for making comments that were received as provocative. This doesn't alter the fact that I made the comments in the first place, or (worryingly) the fact that I did not foresee them being at all controversial. --Tony Sidaway 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thatcher 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed final decision
I like it. Is your name Solomon? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well proposed. I worry about the punitive 5 day bans though, I thought "preventative not punitive" was fairly well established. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. Several are similar to what I planned to add. I'm not sure about bans though...maybe I'm living in denial...but I'm still hoping that the parties will resolve their difference and return to editing with minimal sanctions. FloNight (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to both Flo and AnonEMouse, the reason for the bans is to let the editors and the community know that there has been a serious problem with their conduct. True, they are not preventative in the sense that any of them are likely to cause more drama in the next 5 days.  However we all know that no block on Giano ever sticks, and he is unrepentant that his way of approaching disputes is correct, or at least that the ends justify the means.  David and Phil are probably also perceived by some as being untouchable. I was struck by bainer's evidence showing that there was a moment on WT:WEA where David could have said, "I'm sorry to keep reverting you but Arbcom asked me to maintain this page; if you have a dispute on IRC that was not handled properly please email me, don;t make pointy edits to the page" he chose a different route.  And Phil's edit warring added spice to a case that needed no further seasoning.  Similar reasons for the others.  Banning is out of the question as a practical manner, as is desysopping.  Something needs to tell the participants and anyone else who cares that Arbcom is really pissed and takes this seriously; and a hung jury or some weak-tea cautions won't do that. Thatcher 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Quite a few years ago I worked in a summer camp and while I was on break some of the children there ran around outside my cabin calling each other the n-word. I hoped some other adult would deal with it, but nobody else was around, so I went out and spoke to them myself. I could have pulled rank but I didn't. Instead - and imagine yourself as a blonde white woman to get the awkwardness of this - I asked them to stop using the word. The four African-American boys were about 11 years old and they tried to get me to repeat it, but instead I just explained that it wasn't respectful. A strange thing happened then: all three girls from that group walked up and shook my hand. "We don't like it either," they said, and thanked me for intervening because they weren't in a position to stop it. The boys looked on quietly and were never a problem again. I hope your effort is equally successful. Regardless of the outcome, you deserve a barnstar for stepping up and doing the right thing. Durova Charge! 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent ArbCom
In relation of the recent ArbCom issue, I bring this to your attention : -  Ceedjee (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi...about recent issue you handled
Hello Thatcher,

I wanted to let you know that in this discussion, I think you were somewhat off base when you said:


 * "There have been multiple complaints filed against **USER**, mostly groundless or incredibly minor, by editors seemingly more interested in getting rid of him than editing collaboratively, and **USER** has unfortunately taken the bait more than once and responded in an inappropriate manner."

I am an editor who (by choice) decides NOT to pursue or "take the bait" in instances involving disputes with other editors. I continue to try to just walk away and I'm too busy (with the time I can devote to Wikipedia) editing, so I stay out of the fray if I can.

I will therefore (for now) preserve the anonymity of the editor I will call **USER**.

I do devote my time to my goal of making sure controversial topics are encyclopedic in presentation, as I note that such topics on Wikipedia are "dominated" by the polar opposite POV's, leaving no room (IMHO) for "middle" interpretations, and (quite frankly) leaving many such articles in a state that is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Hence I find myself (and see myself) as advocating strongly for the "middle" viewpoint.

I would ask you to consider that for every one editor that has complained about **USER**, there are (I believe) many like me who have just walked away when faced with **USER**'s assaults. In my case, I was repeatedly and extensively attacked by **USER** via (a) deceptive, repeated and (seemingly) intentional Straw_Man mischaracterizations of my edits which were (b) created and used to "paint" me as a "POV pusher", (c) uncivil and personally directed edit summaries, and (d) insults left on my talk page, and the whole array.

All unprovoked and unjustified.

Background...in a discussion with **USER** (in which I expect you would find me to be civil to a fault) about whether or not a source cited by **USER** actually supported the pejorative and unencyclopedic claims made in **USER**'s edit, **USER** became enraged upon discovering in embarassment that the highly respected source (with which I just happened to be very familiar) (s)he cited actually made a case for the OPPOSITE POV. Next, **USER**, having painted him/herself into a corner, created a smoke screen to cover the embarassing mistake by posting a notice about me on the "fringe" noticeboard, canvassing numerous other users to the "crusade" against my "pseudoscience POV pushing", and wound up burning a stunning amount of ArbCom resources, in addition to damaging me.

I did not contribute a single word to the ArbCom discussion...by choice.

Immediately thereafter, **USER** was rebuked by ArbCom following the frivolous complaint **USER** made, and was instructed to apologise to me and remove the personal attacks from my talk page. **USER** failed to comply and instead immediately took up another related crusade for which (s)he was blocked...whereupon **USER** invoked "right to vanish" -- "retiring" from Wikipedia in (what I would call) a cloud of smoke, wiping out all relevant talk page entries (again, consuming administrative resources here) and then "reappeared" immediately following the block and picked up right where (s)he left off, personal attacks, incivility and disingenuous characterizations of others. **USER** continues to attack in such a way as to continue to make even the most centrist or moderate editors appear to be rabid "POV pushers" at the first moment of conflict, driving (I strongly believe) good editors away from Wikipedia.

I'd suggest that what you were seeing...the basis on which you made your initial (and perhaps hasty) assessment of **USER** and the complaints against him/her, is merely the tip of the iceberg, and if you choose to look below the surface (and through **USER**'s smoke screens) as part of your investigation, I strongly believe you will come to a completely different opinion on **USER**'s behavior.

In addition, **USER** has also written recently and unapologetically that (s)he has no "understanding" of, nor any regard for Wikipedia's Pillar of Civility. **User** has outrightly expressed contempt for "civility" in general, has written extensively of this contempt for civility and does not understand or accept or respect the idea that all human progress, including science and indeed "civil-ization" itself is predicated on civility in public discourse. All of this is opinion, my considered opinion, of course.

Me? I am already spending more time than I wish here and I am not inclined to invest this time except to the extent that you are interested in following up and looking into this.

Please, leave a message on my talk page if you want to look into this further. Otherwise I am perfectly happy to "let it go", remain out of the fray and I will not think less of you if you choose to decline. Thanks for your attention. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop
Comments like this are completely irresponsible:. THis is incredibly uncivil: "Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait...", your administrator status does NOT give your view any more weight than Bstone'. Viridae Talk 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it was a little snarky. However, as far as I am concerned, an admin who unblocks an editor under circumstances like this is responsible for any further harassment by the editor in question, and should be prepared to reblock the editor if necessary.  Bstone is doing a lot of lecturing for someone who is not in a position to be responsible for the outcome of his opinions. Thatcher 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pulled in front of Arbcom"
You write: "The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can."

I would like to point out that I have never "been pulled in front of ArbCom". I've made statements in arbitrations to which I added myself. Implying otherwise is a bit much. An apology would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment was generally directed not only toward the 4 parties I placed on revert limitation but anyone else who was watching and might feel compelled to object. Certainly the area of dispute was brought to arbcom. Thatcher 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconclusive
I'm sorry but can you clarify why the case is inconclusive? The case is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou and I believe the ip users are infinitely blocked user User:Kamosuke or User:Azukimonaka because the same IP network host, writing style and behavioral patterns on the same interests.

Due to the reason, I strongly believe that Amazonfire = Amazonjoke = Kamosuke =Blue011011 =Orchis29 =Jsenkyoguid =KoreanShoriSenyou = Azukimonaka =Mfugue and other odn ip users. The evidences I provided as evidences includes the revelation of the ip user. --Appletrees (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of ip address which Kamosuke used was odn.ad.jp and Azukimonaka is also using the same network host

211.3.118.170, 218.218.129.134,

211.3.112.132 219.66.45.26  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Double check AE closure
Hi. Since we appear to be, pretty much, the only admins actively handling AE requests: I would like you to review my latest closure, with my permission to amend it as you see fit. The reason for this being that I have already argued elsewhere that the individual submitting the notice has claimed another arbitration-restricted user breached civility supervision but fell short of directly proving this. Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the point of view that Eupator is approaching the article from, as evidenced from his evidence subpage it might not be unreasonable to include it in AA2, and you certainly could ask him to remove references to the dispute or to depersonalize it; "here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." Your response was certainly within the realm of discretion.  I often leave off the report archive tags for a while after commenting to see what other discussion turns up, though.  (Although I haven;t kept count of how many good discussions versus pointless discussions this leads to.) Thatcher 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, relieved to hear that. I think we need to become more strict with reports and discussions, so largely, that has been the basis for my modus operandi there as of late (that includes closing reports immediately; although leaving em open to future amendment otherwise). El_C 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I press on you to add [what] your own closing assessment [would have been] under my closing notes? That'd be appreciated. El_C 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, again! El_C 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More evidence at Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358
I supplied new evidence pertaining to Appletrees', showing his removal of and  tags from other users. Clarification of Appletrees' likeliness of sockpuppetry will be appreciated. Thank you very much.--Endroit (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Already did. Removing tags from editors whose edits you like and who were tagged by someone whose edits you don't like isn;t really evidence of anything except failure to get along with people.  (And maybe that the JP/KR disputes need to go before Arbcom if things don't improve.) Thatcher 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see thread at Administrators' noticeboard
Not sure if you are already aware of this or not, but please check out this thread/complaint about me, at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Several editors and Admins from both Wikipedia and Wikinews have already commented on a thread here and on a thread by the same user raised at n:WN:AAA, and I thought you should know. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 139.18.211.252
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 139.18.211.252, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're sure its not a tor node any more than go ahead and unblock it. Thatcher 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! (It's been a year now, and I haven't seen it pop up on /drop from my lists in a while) SQL Query me!  20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you warn or do something to this odn ip user?
61.209.163.123, the odn ip address user who presumably one of editors on my RFCU reports per the same edit summary comment is falsifying contents in incredibly uncivil manner at Yakuza. Once another Japanese anon editor, 125.200.61.177 vandalize the page as falsely altering referenced statics on crimes by Yakuza of Korean origin. I think the anon knows the RFCU result and tries to provoke me to be enraged. (I assume that the anon calculates that he or she can't easily be identified to any account, so try to drag me into edit warring or 3RR violation)


 * 125.200.61.177 (ocn.ne.jp)


 * 61.209.163.123 (odn.ad.jp) rv:(Korean Raicsim) Writing IP address of Japan is not prohibited.


 * 61.209.163.123 (odn.ad.jp) Vandalism by Korean. Korean people's crime should not be concealed.

If the anon is the same person of the anon 219.66.40.104, or 219.66.45.131 the block sanction is still valid (2 weeks duration).

I don't think I have to put up with this racial slurs and incivility. Can you watch him if you are active. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

this is the same person who has been reverting you as an anon and also as Orchis29=Azukimonaka=KoreanShoriSenyou. I feel somewhat constrained to act. Some people may think it is a conflict of interest for checkusers to perform investigations and then also to block, especially here where the IP evidence is only partial confirmation, and additional confirmation is needed by looking at the persons's constribution style and content. You should make a report at WP:SSP and ask to have the listed accounts blocked or banned and to have the articles involved semi-protected. Blocking the IPs will not be effective because this person has a new IP several times a day. Thatcher 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I really appreciate your effort for this. I will add more evidences to prove the users' likeness. I saw several admins's doubtful comment over KoreanShoriSenyou and Azukimonaka's possible sockpuppetry with abusive ip users who are also on my report and other editors (unfortunately they're stale). If they look into the case, it will be much helpful. Thank you again.--Appletrees (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * and have the word "JPOV" that only they use. These two accounts participated in the edit war of Azuchi-Momoyama period.Please confirm Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358 --Orchis29 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, I added some information regarding my exact time matched edits compared with the other to the RFCU file. Can you check it? Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnyajohn RFCU
A minor point, but one of the accounts you listed is spelled "Sarazip1", not "Sarazip". At this time I feel I am under enough scrutiny or I would change it myself. Thank you for your efforts. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * oops. Thatcher 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology filmography
This article was recently closed as "keep", and I have no problem with that. But the entire article is unsourced, and has been for years. Do you have any problem with cutting out the unsourced stuff, and making a note w/DIFF of that action on the talk page? If another editor wants to come along and put it back, they'll have the old page history, providing they can add secondary sources to back stuff up. I asked the closing admin about this,, who referred me to Arbcomm because the article is on probation due to Requests for arbitration/COFS. I thought since you are knowledgeable of that case, you could provide feedback to me, is it alright to delete unsourced violations of WP:OR from the article, and make a note of it on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, I also have the exact same question for you with regards to recently closed AfD on Scientology discography, also an article that is purely unsourced WP:OR violations, would it be appropriate to remove the WP:OR violations, change the article to a stub pending secondary sources, and make a note of it on the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Article probation is not meant to stop normal editing. Disruptive editors can be banned from the article, though.  In theory, there should be no problem removing unsourced information.  However, in the case of these articles, do you believe they are actually inaccurate,  or probably accurate but unreferenced.  If you agree they are probably or mostly accurate but only unreferenced it might be better to add references where you can instead of removing stuff. Thatcher 00:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But is it my responsibility to add references to all articles I come across with unsourced or WP:OR material? (rhetorical) I'd rather remove it, and make a note of the Diff on the talk page - that way another editor can always find the removed material if they wish to add sources to it later.  Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just don't get into a pissing contest with another editor over it. Thatcher 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1rr
You recently placed several users (including Yahel Guhan) on a 1rr per week limit. Does this apply only to Israeli-Palestinain articles? Would Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism, related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, be included?Bless sins (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict (see, in particular, the prior Arbitration cases regarding Allegations of apartheid, PalestineRemembered, Deir Yassin massacre, Israel-Lebanon, Israeli apartheid, Zeq, and Yuber). Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project; deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel have been transferred to Wikipedia. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted.
 * As it says, "all pages related to the conflict area", conflict area being defined in the case as
 * There doesn't seem to be any way of separating those articles from the Middle East conflicts, so I would say yes, they are included. Thatcher 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let a Japanese editor edit a Japanese article comfortably
Many Japanese users cannot contribute to a Japanese article by interference of Korean user Appletree. He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. --124.87.134.96 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I receive a threat from this anon OCN (not ODN user, 124.87.134.96.

Appletree. The reason why you supported Ecthelion83 in your log is not written at all. You will be accused as a meat doll if you do not show an opinion. Please cope immediately.

Ironically, the user just proves his "meatpuppetry" to support the odn user's massive blanking and adding confirmed source. Can you check the ip user with any others on my RFCU files? Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus, Appletree is a user who rejects the discussion. A lot of users will feel the unpleasantness though "You are Socks" is a convenient word for him. Do you keep supporting his attitude? --124.87.134.96 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're the first reverter, so you have to leave your "plausible rationale" for your removing the sourced materials or adding unconfirmed JPOV. But you and your friend refused to my repeated suggestions to talk with me or others at the relevant pages. Of course, a lot of user feel unpleasant with the report, so that vandalising my page is productive way for your side? That's too bad. This is Thatcher's page, so if you have something to say, visit to my page. --Appletrees (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't have anything to say here. If there are editing conflicts you are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process, such as filing a request for comment to get outside opinions, or mediation.  Blocks and bans for edit-warring and for Checkuser findings can also be pursued at the Admins noticeboard.  From what I have seen, if this dispute goes before Arbitration, a number of edit-warring editors are likely to be banned.  Editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny is really bad behavior as well, and it may be necessary to put the affected articles on long-term semi-protection (request at WP:SSP). Thatcher 12:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinilpa
I'm so sorry to drag you into this silly quarrels. But Jjok made a false link regarding chinilpa. So I added it for him to change the comment at the RFCU page and his talk page. After Endroit's accusation on me, I thought I had to explain why I "fix" his hidden link. The chinlipa is only used for some Koreans who betray their country to aid Japanese Imperialism during Japanese occupation. But Jjok mistakes the notion with pro-Japanese side. The historical term is only exclusively used for Koreans not foreigners. --Appletrees (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of the term to refer to any Wikipedia editor constitutes a personal attack and should be avoided. You can agree or disagree with a person's editing behavior or content changes without commenting on their character. Thatcher 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't used the term to call the party because it is only used for Koreans born before 1920s. But Jjok did call himself and his party chinilpa by his misunderstanding of the concept. That's why I tried to inform him not to use it. I don't have anything to disagree with his editing behaviors as long as he keeps sticking to reliable sources. In fact, he is a few people editing as such unlike the odn users's disruptive behaviors. But I had some suspicion ever him because whenever edit warring between Korean and Japanese users occurs over inclusion of Korean relation, he was always there. However, the editor even pointed out that he thinks I made edit warring with only one editor not with several editors. And I agree with his opinion on that.--Appletrees (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Appletrees, Do not you apologize to Jjok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.133.167 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The same sock ip appears again at very weird timing. Hmm.. please visit my page if you want to say to me. The admin Deiz once said you strikingly resemble to KoreanShoriSenyou, so blocked you for your apparent sockpuppet and disruptive edits. Of course you have grudge to me for my report on you. WP:ANI#User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)
 * Please clarify your urge for matter, why I should apologize to User:Jjok. I haven't called him as chinilpa but if you insist, I might say sorry to him for "fixing" wrong information on that. Please stop your sockpuppetry. --Appletrees (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tajik
, , - same old. Do I have to file a checkuser again? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There already is a case open, you can make a short comment or add evidence there. Thatcher 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Decision
cross-posted from User_talk:Giano II:


 * Thatcher, being the clerk on that arbcom case, I know it is your job to ask Giano nicely not to edit a page he should not be editing. However, color me surprised when I went to  Fred's talk page to see what nice message you sent him and saw nothing from you.  Surely you don't approve of this edit whereby Fred calls Giano a "bull in the china closet," a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple"?  If Giano cannot edit that page to defend himself, surely Fred shouldn't be baiting Giano on the proposed decision page.  It is your job to ensure we have decorum on those pages, how about leaving Fred a nice message asking him not to call people names? SGT Tex (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern but it is not my place to publicly disapprove of the members of Arbcom. Also, I think you will find similar frank comments in some pasts cases, as well as in numerous discussions on the admins' noticeboards concerning proposed actions to be taken against allegedly disruptive editors.  If you feel that the Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum then you should open a discussion at WT:RFAR or WT:AC. Thatcher 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Allowing Fred to bait Giano is completely unacceptable behavior. If you're choosing sides, which in leaving THIS untouched is telling us, you shouldn't have your position any further. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please link to the diff in which you told Giano that his comment suggesting that the Committee could not emasculate him (using an off-color metaphor) was unacceptable behavior. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think arbitrators should be held to a higher standard of decorum. I do expect them to be somewhat dispassionate about their deliberations, however.  Calling someone names in such a public place that will be there from now to eternity is not right.  My contention is that he is baiting Giano, hoping for another flare up so that he can get Giano banned as he has been trying to do for some time.  I thought the clerk of the case was supposed to try to keep peace.  I thought a polite suggestion to keep things civil from the clerk on the case would be justified.  If you don't feel comfortable doing that, then I guess there's nothing that can be done.  It doesn't really matter to me whether or not "similar frank comments" were acceptable in the past, I think we should be working to make things better in the future.  SGT Tex (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When you see law clerk publicly criticize the judge he or she is working for, you let me know.  In the mean time, it is the Arbitrators prerogative to edit the proposed decision and make such comments as they see fit.  You also are making assumptions about Fred's motives that are perhaps coloring your reaction. Thatcher 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, I feel you are becoming defensive, so I will just let it go. I will say; however, that if you are refusing to ask Fred nicely not to call people names because you "work" for him, then something is wrong.  I will boldly ask him myself.  Happy editing. SGT Tex (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not feeling particularly defensive here because I have no personal stake in the matter. I noted that I will not (or at least, I generally avoid) publicly criticizing Arbcom.  After all, it would be rather silly for me to make a frequent habit of venting at things I disapproved of and then ask them to continue to trust me to speak on their behalf in certain circumstances.  I am not above private criticism, when the situation calls for it. Thatcher 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, Thatcher. I respect the position in which you find yourself (having been in similar situations in real life), and also respect you for, in this particular case, your decisions on what actions to take (or not take), either publicly or privately. I realise that sometimes the message is in what is *not* said. Risker (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yipeee. Thatcher 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation or review
Hello. You ruled on an Arbitration enforcement complaint at WP:AE, and sanctioned me by placing me on a revert limitation for a period of 30 days.

Your statement on my Talk page [HERE] caught me completely by surprise. I was unaware that my name was being discussed in connection with that action, since no one left me any indication of it until you left your ruling on my page after it had been completed. I was therefore unable to comment on it at the time.

Because I did not have a chance to participate then, I would really appreciate it if you would read my statement about the edits that got me sanctioned [HERE] when you get the time. As I describe in detail, I never exceeded 1RR, and I always left a detailed description and justification for my edits in Talk for every one of my edits to the article.

I would also appreciate an indication of why I was sanctioned. I have always tried very hard to uphold WP's guidelines, and I do not see any way in which I failed to do so in my edits to that article. Nor do I see that I failed to uphold any of the additional guidelines dictated by the Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. I would appreciate it if you could review the facts I present and tell me what it is that I should have done that I did not do, or visa versa. Please feel free to reply either here or on my Talk page, whichever you prefer. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The report and discussion is here. After reviewing the history and the diffs, I tried to identify editors who reverted without making constructive attempts to discuss, and who had reverted other related articles recently. Thatcher 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check out the page I prepared that discusses my edits [HERE], you will see that in fact I always left a relevant and detailed description in Talk of my edits to the article (links are supplied). Nor will you find examples of me reverting other articles - I like to write, I do not like to delete or revert. I know that neither you nor any other editor has massive amounts of time to devote to these conflicts, but I also think it is important that the wrong people are not punished due to inadequate time being applied to analyze the facts. I do hope that you will read my discussion and reply when you get the chance. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless all editors of these topics are simultaneously placed on all remedies, application is likely to be somewhat arbitrary, based on who complains at WP:AE, who answers, how good the evidence is, and whether the admin in question can pick up on whether the report is being made by someone who is the real troublemaker (so to speak). That is one of the reasons I put a 30 day expiration, because at this stage it is much too early for permanent remedies.  Reverting is never a good way to edit so my feeling is that 1RR/week is almost the least restrictive remedy that could be applied; certainly much less intrusive than a page ban.  I will review the situation if I can, and you can list a request for appeal at WP:AE per the Arbitration case. Thatcher 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this too?
Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Thatcher 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

KoreanShoriSenyou case
Are you closing it just like "inconclusive" without looking the evidences? The amazon fire report is a side report from KoreanShoriSenyou due to my long waiting (it's over 19 days). The amozonfire file just hold the recent activities of the suspected user after I filed the KoreanShoriSenyou case. Are you saying that KoranShoriSenyou is not the same person of Azukimonaka whom I strongly believe as a sockpuppetmaster? I feel aghast at the result because I've been patiently waiting by this time. --Appletrees (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered on the case page. Thatcher 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're active now, so could you take a look at a possible 3RR violation with sock ip which occured today? Or do I need to file another report at RFCU or add this to my completed previous report? You didn't tell me Amazonfire is unrelated to anybody, and the user is active now. And one more question. In the Amazonefire file, I made a lot of differs on their possible 3RR (violations, Amazonfire, Jusenkoguide, Kusunose, and Blue011011, and ips) But you didn't say whether they're related to each other. The 3rr reports were all in the very short period of time. But was it also not helpful for you to confirm their possible sockpuppetry? --Appletrees (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am going out right now but will look later. Sorry. Thatcher 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to know where I have to report it. --Appletrees (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IPs that were reverting you are likely Orchis29=Azukimonaka=KoreanShoriSenyou. Those IPs had similar interests on that day to Amazonfire (Manga, Imperial House, Timeline) but there is not enough technical evidence connecting Amazonfire to the others.  It could be one person who just hasn't slipped up yet (Amazonfire only has 57 edits, more would help).  It could be two people who work together, or just two people who have independently decided to target your edits.  Have you filed a report at suspected sock puppets?  Sockpuppets can be blocked and tagged based on behavior even without technical evidence; you need to get some uninvolved admins looking into this.  You can also ask to have disputed pages semi-protected at Requests for page protection which will block IP edits and force editors to log in when reverting. Thatcher 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, that's it. I wish Wikipedia only allows user with account to access. But I thought the checkuser is the last and conclusive way to confirm sockpupptry. If once sockpupptry case are not clear, admins suggest to file a RFCU report. With this report, I think I'm being a target of the other party. --Appletrees (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thatcher, I'm sorry to bother you again, but this is all about technical check. I looked through their whole contribution history and not surprisingly they didn't appear same day except a few occasion. If Azukimoanka appeared one day and the next day KoreanShoriSenyou appeared and then Azukimonaka showed up. The table shows closet time ranges between them, especially violet box are closet I can see. Tey all live in the same metropolitan city, Tokyo and odn users with same writing pattern, interest and degree of incivility. They might live closely to each other or craftily switch their ip address with some method, or one person uses several computer in an internet cafe or any other place. But if you look at these, I may get any proof of whether Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou are the same person or not. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkuser is not magic, nor does it allow me to look through the wires and see who it editing at the other end of the pipe. The best I can say is that there are certain technical similarities that make it likely that Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou and Orchi29 are the same editor. Thatcher 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I thought the violet-colored information especially 4 minutes overlapped one could be conclusive evidence to differentiate whether these 4 accounts are the same person or individual just like I cleared up the allegation of sockpuppetry between me and etch..83 with the time comparison. As of now, I have to compare each wording of them at WP:SSP. Thank you for your help again.--Appletrees (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)