User talk:Thatcher/Archive23

You are an admin again
Welcome back to the land of administrators, Thatcher. :-) --Deskana (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Zomg! I didn't remember you gave away the tools :) -- lucasbfr  talk 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. By the way, I noticed both of your sandboxes were deleted. Should they still be listed on the page?  Enigma msg  17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a convenient link if I want to create them again to use them for something. Thatcher 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice to see this. :-)  Risker (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back also. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

 * Thatcher, Are you the admin for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba?
 * When looking at the second arbitration discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2 I came across your name. I wanted to bring to your notice recent serious malicious edits to this article.


 * Malicious Edits History::


 * From Jan 8th 2009 to Jan 17 2009 there were more than 190 edits to the article by User_talk:White_adept in just 10 days based on unreliable critical sources.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090112194443&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090113095053&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090115120459&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090117105156&action=history


 * Sources used for the Malicious Editing:
 * "The Findings by Bailey": This is the critical work of Bailey's on Sai Baba. It was already discussed in the earlier Mediation By BostonMa that this source cannot be used.
 * Robert Priddy: Second arbitration passed a ruling saying Priddy cannot be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy
 * Basava Premananda: This is another source full of POV views and is not a reliable source. Please see Mediation by BOstonMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source
 * He uploaded videos from Youtube of fake materialisation.


 * Major Restructing article with out discussion:
 * Comparison of the changes: Criticism section on Jan 7th 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463#Criticism
 * This is the Criticism section after White Adept changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Criticism_and_controversy
 * Restructured the Criticism segment with out any discussion in the talk page about restructuring the criticism section. Added unreliable sources and POV views.
 * Added a POV subsection "Murders in the Ashram" based on Basava Premananda and Robert Priddy. Added gruesome pictures to this sunsection again based on Basava Premanada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram
 * Added another POV subsection "Reports of Sexual abuse" based on the unreliable source "The Findings". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27
 * The whole article is written in negative critics perspective.


 * Improving the article: I have spent a lot of time familiarising with earlier discussions. I firmly believe that using Jossi Proposals and arbitration ruling will help in improving the article. I even added the arbitration rulings in the talk page.


 * The Problem: 
 * The article is imbalanced filled with unreliable sources and critics POV views. Its is in a much worst shape than it was during first and second arbitration due to User_talk:White_adept edits.
 * Now to remove these unreliable sources will involve serious edit warring with this user. But the article is filled with unreliable information and should be changed. Please advice.
 * Radiantenergy (talk)14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many months ago I was involved in managing a dispute at that article. I am not interested in becoming involved again. Sorry. Thatcher 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you cannot get involved please let us know whom to report this issue. I don't know who is the admin for this article? This article is totally biased breaking many arbitration rulings. Any suggestion from you will be greatly appreciated. : Radiantenergy (talk)14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles do not have assigned administrators. Since this relates to a previous arbitration case, if you believe that that are any findings of that case that are being breached, you may report them at requests for arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate it. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added this case here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings Radiantenergy (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the case again as it got archived with out any discussion. User_talk:White_adept has openly defied all the arbitration rulings. Why is nobody looking into this case? I don't know where to go next. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Second time response was better. This case was taken for discussion. Thanks for your suggestions and help. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits
I was the last admin to work with Vintagekits' topic ban. Whats up?--Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the AN/I thread and his edits to Boxrec.com and it's talk page. He has been pushing this particular soapbox for 2-1/2 years, and in the AN/I thread it was pointed out that he has been edit warring with and uncivil to MKil, and then he called me a moron and made insinuations that my user name somehow was connected to my opinions on Irish nationalism.  I have been contacted by two other people by email and theoretically the situation has been dealt with, but an independent analysis and a watchful eye could not hurt. Thatcher 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On face it isn't related to his topic ban, just standard Wikipedia user conduct policies. I'm looking into it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cornflex
User talk:Cornflex requesting an unblock, one of your rangeblocks. Thought you should be th eone to look into it, to see if this was collateral damage or not. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Web traffic from hosting companies usually involves misconfigured servers that act like open proxies. However there is at least one legit ISP using part of that range so so I lifted the range block.  If vandals find proxies then some checkuser will take care of it. Thatcher 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Backmaun back, mon?
Dear Thatcher, I am concerned that the sockpuppeteer who went as User:RasputinJSvengali, User:BackMaun, and User:Alien666 (who I suspected might be connected with User:Mattisse) may be back, and I'm contacting you since you were the one who indefinitely blocked them. I have noticed similar activity on some of the same articles once edited/vandalized by them. Examples include the introduction, twice, of “Satanists” in the section of Starwood Festival that pertains to attendees by User:67.177.27.74. This user edits articles once heavily edited by User:Hanuman Das and his socks like User:Alabaster Crow, User:Tunnels of Set and User:Khabs such as Illuminates of Thanateros, and Chaos Magick (also edited by BackMaun, RasputinJSvelgali and Mattisse).

Also, please note the unexplained deletion of a paragraph of Allen H. Greenfield by User:24.119.74.180. This user has only edited two articles, both created by User:999 and related to the O.T.O., and one had both Alien666 and BackMaun revert-warring with Khabs, Jefferson Anderson, and Frater Xyzzy, the other edited by Alabaster Crow.

I feel a real “here we go again” vibe here. I haven’t noticed any editor who seems to be the returning Ekajati/Hanuman Das/Frater Xyzzy/Khabs/999/Alabaster Crow/Tunnels of Set so far, but I do wonder whether there’s a connection between User: 67.177.27.74 & User: 24.119.74.180 and our old friends BackMaun/Alien666/RasputinJSvelgali. Could you take a look at this please? Rosencomet (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have checkuser any more. Sorry. Thatcher 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to post that unsigned. I'll ask Revolving Bugbear if he can help.Rosencomet (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama edit
Hi Thatcher - while not necessarily opposed to including something in the text, when things settle down I'd like to see some discussion on the specific wording that you added, because I think there is an implication, perhaps unintentional, that Obama was aware of the controversial comments for two decades but only resigned when they became public - and he has specifically denied that. Tvoz / talk 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording need to convey that the comments became the subject of controversy; I was trying to be compact and to avoid awkward phrasing. Thatcher 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that - and didn't mean to imply ill motives on your part - but I do think the wording now can be misinterpreted, so I think a discussion is in order at some point when the crowd thins. Tvoz / talk 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User box vandalism
Is the user box on your user page okay? I mean, should it read, "fucking retard"? Yesitsnot (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone called me a civility bigot and a fucking retard and I decided to celebrate it. Unfortunately the diff has been deleted so it doesn't make sense any more, and since the user has been banned I suppose the box is no longer relevant, although I do like the Puritan. Thatcher 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Old IPBE
Do you remember what block was causing ? Can it be removed yet?  MBisanz  talk 08:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall. Either remove it and see what happens, or ask another checkuser. Thatcher 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My Sock-puppets
Thatcher, I am growing more and more tired by the growing number of *my* sockpuppets. They just keep going on and on and on without any seeming end.

This is one of the earliest I have caught. Note the article and the "-romanicus" ending.

I just simply cannot stand this anymore, every time I look over at the Wikipedia. Isn't there anything that can be done at all? --09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am no longer a checkuser, and I deleted all my records. If you contact another checkuser for help, they can email me and I will try to recall your situation for them as best I can. Thatcher 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sock of User:Fredrick day
Hello! As you were involved with a checkuser of this editor, I am notifying you of this ANI thread. Respectfully, --A NobodyMy talk 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta
I am writing to give stability and accuracy to Wikipedia’s information about me.

First and foremost, I do not condone the actions of any group or individual purposely or accidentally spreading false information about me within the Wikipedia community or any other information portal.

Truth vs. Fabrications

Truth: I am best known for my stage work, including appearances in such vehicles as West Side Story, Bye Bye Birdie, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and Tony n’ Tina’s Wedding. I have been in semi-retirement since 2005, with cameos and telethon appearances being the primary exceptions.

Truth: Since 2005 I have worked primarily as a spokesperson for several national brand names.

Truth: I am credited as the first celebrity guest star in the Tony n’ Tina’s stage franchise – beginning in Chicago and spreading out across the U.S.

Truth: Broadway World News did publish an account that I was named one of the Top 5 actors to play the title role in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. According to Broadway World News I share this honor with Donny Osmond and Patrick Cassidy.

False: Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not related to John Travolta.

False: Despite published reports, I was not at any point in discussions to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond in Casino Royale, an honor that deservingly went to Daniel Craig.

Truth: I was in discussions to bring Bye Bye Birdie back to Broadway in 2004 (as title character Conrad Birdie), but the revival was canceled.

False: I have not been signed to play Thor in a Marvel film adaptation.

False: I have not been signed to play Captain America in a Marvel film adaptation

Truth: I did release two albums – Broadway Live and Hero’s Lullaby

Truth: I did publish a novel titled My Fractured Life in 2002. Along with a reissue in 2004, the fiction book has sold over 1,500 copies and was optioned by Port Magee Pictures for film adaptation.

False: Despite rumors to the contrary, my fiction novel My Fractured Life is not a biography and clearly states it is a work of fiction.

It is my distinct hope that this account of information will help stabilize discussions.

Rikki Lee Travolta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkileetravolta (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with your statements, as best I can recall the earlier discussions. There were a number of very odd claims and some strange behavior surrounding your article, which poisoned the atmosphere at the time.  The best way for a real person to deal with their own article is to contact the volunteers who deal with these problems confidentially, through the email link on this page, Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).  It helps if you are willing to prove your identity, the proof will be kept confidential, but as you might imagine we have problems with people falsely claiming to be or to represent celebrities.  If you would like the article about you undeleted and corrected, I would use the link there to contact the volunteers about restoring the article.  I am fairly inactive lately and would not be able to devote the attention needed to shepherd the process fairly. Thatcher 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Truthsayer62

 * 12:18, 17 July 2008 Thatcher (talk | contribs) unblocked "Truthsayer62 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (explanation accepted)
 * 21:17, 15 July 2008 Thatcher (talk | contribs) blocked Truthsayer62 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (abuse of multiple accounts)
 * Hi, Thatcher. Regarding this block log of User:Truthsayer62, would you be able to share the explanation for this alleged abuse of multiple accounts, either with your own recollection or with diffs?  The reason I ask is because another account, User:Truthbody has been accused of being Truthsayer62. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. This is being discussed in various places, including WP:AN3.  Looks like another check is needed, but I suppose we will have to file it through WP:SSP. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the explanation is public knowledge or not, it gets into information that might be considered private. Essentially, there is a group of people who live in separate locations but occasionally attend gatherings together.  One particular user check found several editors editing from the same location, but a deeper search found older edits that were in widely different locations.  Even if Truthsayer and Truthbody fit this pattern, it would not be unreasonable to have concerns about coordinated editing.  A new checkuser will have to be done to see what their actual relationship is. Thatcher 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CU & OS flag
hello i have granted your CU & OS flags please subscribe to checkuser-l and please aslo contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser.And always act based on CheckUser policy--Mardetanha talk 08:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, Can I has a quick CU on... ow wait... nevermind :P -- lucasbfr  talk 12:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP horror
You removed a DYK nom from the DYK main page, but then should the page located here have the DYK note removed? T ARTARUS talk 12:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not familiar with the dyk procedures. I think the entire article should probably not exist, I have listed it at BLPN for a second opinion. Thatcher 12:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Cassidy
Since I'm an admin, I was curious, so I looked at the article history...talk about an unusual story! No disputing the benefits of what you did, however. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to clean things up there, again; sorry. Whatever404 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary sysop rights for Thatcher131
Your account Thatcher131 now has temporary sysop rights, per your request. Please hand in the reins at reception when you're done :-) --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thatcher 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm in sysopping Roaring Alternative Thatcher! Little Stupid (splash!) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Stewards, please desysop User:Thatcher131. Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Morgellons in Aug 2007 as an example for handling a current problem
Hello Thatcher. Do you remember the work you did on this article back in 2007, for example at Talk:Morgellons/Archive 5? The article was on a controversial medical topic that is in the. The article was full-protected for most of August, 2007 and you negotiated an improved version that you submitted in installments via editprotected. A different admin ruled on the requests. I'm thinking of the current World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Do you imagine that a system like that could work? There is a proposal at Arbcom to amend the 9/11 case to allow admins to take special measures to resist SPA editing of this article. It seems to me that the Morgellons system might work better and fit within the scope of current policy, needing no Arbcom sanction. In your opinion, was the Morgellons plan a success? How would you feel about it being used more widely? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There was not anything special about what I did. Any time an article is protected, editors can request an edit using the edit protected template, and the admins who answer should look for consensus before applying the edit.  It just takes a strong hand to manage the collaboration, and a group of editors who are willing to work together. Thatcher 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Waldorf education and associated articles: request for probation review
I suggest that this group of articles has been cleaned up and could be taken off probation; perhaps you could give your opinion - or, if you agree, begin the review process? I'd be happy to hear about and work on any further steps that need to be taken, of course. hgilbert (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1
Hi Thatcher. I'm currently involved with Ebonyskye as I userfied an article for that user. I noticed the above talkpage archive, and that you imposed a community topic ban on Ebonyskye in 2007 which was endorsed by Durova. Would you consider this ban still to be in place? It's not listed at Editing restrictions, and it has been a while. In the meantime the user appears to have done various modest but useful edits, and - other than a couple of AN complaints against User: Skinny McGee - has stayed out of any actual or potential conflict. I think it would be useful now to leave this incident in the past. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a community topic ban? I don't see it referenced on that page.  However, Ebonyskye is a reincarnation of GuardianZ and as such, is banned from editing articles related to the band Midnight Syndicate per this arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate (logged on that page).  Normally, arbcom bans can only be overturned by Arbcom.  If you are going to lift the Arbcom ban on Ebonyskye you would also have to lift the ban on Skinny McGee, and the article (and related topics) would have to be monitored closely. Thatcher 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see. The situation is that Ebonyskye is a sockpuppet of GuardianZ, and so falls under the ArbCom decision? The ArCom ban appears to be for editing Midnight Syndicate, while on the Ebonyskye talkpage you mention "any related articles". The ArbCom decision does extend to related articles for "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics" - which seems to relate to others involved in the case, not directly GuardianZ. I'd like this clarified, as the article I've userfied for Ebonyskye is Blood of Angels, a "related article". If it is the case that the topic ban for GuardianZ/Ebonyskye extends to Blood of Angels then I would need to delete the userfication. We may need to move this discussion to WP:RFAC as I'm not sure it is that clear.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is that Ebonyskye and SkinnyMcGee are (or represent) current and former members of the band who were having an extended dispute over issues related to the band's history, credit for compositions, etc. Remedy 2 says "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles" and Ebonyskye falls under that as far as I can remember.  I do not object to having the article in user space but he/she would have to have to find a sponsor to move it into article space and would not be allowed to edit it once it was in article space (unless the ban was lifted).  I don't object to lifting the ban on a trial basis as long as someone who is aware of the history (disputed sources, etc) keeps an eye on the entire set of articles. Thatcher 00:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was NOT Guardian. The checkuser that Skinny McGee did came back "Declined" Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GuardianZ. Thatcher based his decision on false accusations by Skinny McGee but there were about 12 other editors (about 8 of whom were all socks of Midnight Syndicate aka Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee). Finally, Blood of Angels has nothing to do with Midnight Syndicate. They aren't the same band, not even the same label. The issue I had 2 years ago was being falsely accused of making edits I never made. However, if you'd like to check the user OmahaStar, I think you may find that user's edits match the edits for Skinny McGee, and began right around the time I reported Skinny McGee for breaking ban (after he made false accusations against me). I was not aware of any ban on Nox Arcana articles (Blood of Angels is a Nox Arcana album, or partly, as it's a collaboration). Ebonyskye (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After Voice of All declined the check, I asked another checkuser to look at it, and he confirmed it to me over IRC, but didn't log it to the RFCU case page. I'll grant that people do make mistakes sometimes.  The bottom line is that I do not believe you are unrelated to the parties involved in the dispute at Midnight Syndicate and related articles (which specifically includes Nox Arcana) and if the topic ban is going to be lifted, someone will need to keep an eye on things (and it won't be me). Thatcher 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to keep an eye on the articles? I don't know enough about the situation to do that. In Ebonyskye's favour is that the user has not been a problem since the date of the ArbCom case so there appears to be little risk here. As the Midnight Syndicate article was the cause of the conflict, it would make sense to keep the ban on that in place in case things kick off there again, but allow Ebonyskye to edit other Nox Arcana material.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am fairly inactive on administrative matters. Sorry. Thatcher 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request
I've asked for clarification regarding the extent of the topic ban. Requests_for_arbitration. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input. Best, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow
Thanks. It appears that I'm pretty brain dead at the moment. I'm going outside & taking the rest of the night off. :P Thank you again for the quick fix,  hmwith τ   20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New Kadampa tradition banners
Dear Thatcher There are multiple issues arising on the above page in relation to Truthsayer 62 who you observed on that persons talk page some time ago in a dispute. He/she stated Thanks Thatcher, I can assure you that there is no concerted effort by a group of people to influence the article content, but please make any investigation that you feel to be necessary. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I would appreciate your looking at the NKT talk page as there issues of COI/NPOV relating this editor and what appears, once again to to be a 'group of people trying to influence article content'.Yonteng (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting involved here, sorry. Thatcher 11:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL?
Under Arbcom convention, established by decisions taken and cases rejected, the second action does not constitute wheel-warring, no matter whether it was done with or without discussion or consensus - are you sure? Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley suggests otherwise: administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion. Though WP:WHEEL supports your interpretation: Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Which arbcomm decisions are you thinking of? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainly, there have been a number of cases filed for second-action wheel wars that were rejected. I filed at least one of them.  It was about the time that WP:WHEEL was clarified to incorporate bold-revert-discuss, I think.  Probably mid 2007-mid 2008 since I became much less active toward the end of 2008.  I think it's a bad idea; whenever an admin says, effectively, "I am so much smarter and more reasonable than you (or I have so many more wiki-hitpoints that you) that I can reverse you without consultation" it is a bad thing. Thatcher 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I may have to poke around the old cases William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Template fix
Thanks for catching that. I hadn't worked with this new format before. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indexing user talk pages
For what it's worth, all user talk pages on en.wiki are noindex'd (see "" in the page source) unless a user explicitly indexes them using  __INDEX__ . --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thatcher 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vomit as a recommendation at AfD?
Not sure why you felt that the above was necessary at the Sam Blacketer controversy AfD, but it seemed a bit over-the-top to my eyes. Whatever you may think of the mess SB made (and it appears he did make the mess), and the mainstream media's reporting on it, how is writing "vomit" at the AfD, and claiming that the article is a "BLP violation in disguise" helpful to the discussion at all? Unitanode 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An article that says "John Smith is a minor politician who got into trouble on Wikipedia" is a BLP violation because of NPOV, Undue Weight, BLP1E, and so forth, and calling the article "John Smith controversy" does not change the essential content of the article. Wikipedia should include people whose long term importance is such that there are reliable source biographies written about them, and should include far fewer people whose short term importance results in a smattering of reliable source newspaper articles about one particular event. Thatcher 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain the article about the Essjay controversy in light of your claims above. Unitanode  00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate it, wish it was gone. Thatcher 00:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So because you can't find consensus to get IT gone, you fight to get THIS one gone? I realy don't get the whole political game that goes on here. Unitanode  00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm? If I don't like A or B, and A is currently listed at Afd, am I somehow barred from commenting on A unless I also nominate B?


 * For the record, I dislike all articles which are essentially about how some guy got into trouble editing Wikipedia. Even the worst inclusionists (well, most of them) realize they can't write a biography about a person based on 3 newspaper stories about one event, so they call it Some guy controversy instead of Some guy and claim it's about the event, not the person, but that doesn't change fundamental reality.  Today's newspaper is tomorrow's bird cage liner, encyclopedia articles should be about things that endure. Thatcher 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you see no substantial difference between David Boothroyd and Sam Blacketer controversy? From a relative outsider, that seems a bit absurd. One is an article about an actual human being, using the actual human being's name. The other is about an imbroglio caused by a person using a given pseudonym. In theory -- and perhaps it should be this way in actual fact -- the second article could be written without even invoking the name "Boothroyd." Unitanode  11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, there is no substantial difference as far as I am concerned. Thatcher 11:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain that to me, given that the second article could be written and understood entirely independent of the real-life name "Boothroyd"? Unitanode  11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In part, I don't think you can write such an article without referring to him by name. Stripped of that, you have a Wikipedia editor who had some behavioral problems, and who came back with a new account that was so well behaved he was elected to Arbcom. How is this an encyclopedia article, or even a news story. It may have happened dozens of times, we only know the ones that get caught. If you add the "controversy" that he was allegedly editing articles related to his real life in a favorable matter, you either have to refer to him by name, or use the pseudonym but link to the news stories with his real name in them. Not using his name in the article in that case is like eating cookies all day and claiming you won't gain weight because you're calling them "carrots" instead. Or like watching an advertisement for Coca-Cola where they do a taste test with "Brand P" and you're supposed to pretend you don't know what that is.

But going further, what should an encyclopedia biography look like? For a political figure, I would like to see something about his education and schooling, early political career, who his mentors were, where he developed his political philosophy, who helped him get elected to office, what figures were influential on him, who was he an influence on, what laws did he help pass, what are his legislative positions, and so on. Preferably those things will be written about by an independent biographer and published in a reliable source, that we can cite (Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary source.) Let's look at the citations in User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd. First, eliminate primary council documents. Citing primary documents is acceptable to flesh out a person's career once their basic importance has been established, but constitute original research when trying to determine if a person is important on their own. Also eliminate self-sources (his blog) for the same reason. May help to establish non-controversial facts about his life but does not establish importance. What are we left with? A minor politician who 1) wants to fly the gay pride flag, 2) supported a grafitti artist, 3) supported a statue of Ronald Reagan, 4) gets quoted by newspapers as an election expert, and 5) wrote one book. Does that meet the usual standards of notability for a biography?  Does that meet the test of time?  Does it endure?  Will anyone care in 5 years that he wrote a book about election history? (probably yes)  Will anyone care in 10 years that he was the only Labour politician to support a statue?  (probably not)  Should we add "He fooled a bunch of people on Wikipedia" to his bio?  Is that important outside of Wikipedia?  Will anyone care in 5 years? Thatcher 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Couple of points. First, the BLP policy is indeed designed to protect people from harm, but harm comes in many forms.  What do we do when this incident is long past, 2, 3 or 5 years, and Mr. Boothroyd has moved on in his life and continues to do whatever it is that he does. As a minor politician (City_of_Westminster is formerly a city now swallowed up by London, it has 200,000 citizens in 8 sq miles and is served by 60 councillors; name any 3) he may never get his name in the paper again as anything other than "election commentator". Honestly, are the three events for which he made the newspapers really all that important? So then, 5 or 10 years from now the article stays the way it is, it can't be expanded, and so remains "David Boothroyd is a minor politician who got caught fiddling around on Wikipedia in 2009" indefinitely. Who knows how long Wikipedia will be around, or how long the mirrors will exist. (Some serious people have devoted serious thought to "off-planet backups" of Wikipedia as a safeguard against the collapse of civilization. Seriously.)  Will you be around in 10 years to make sure that the articles are accurate, up to date, and reflect the full spectrum of Mr. Boothroyd's life and influence, rather than focus on one minor distasteful event?
 * Isn't that the rub though, Thatcher? One piece of why he's notable is for his various (mis)adventures editing the project, and how that has been covered in the mainstream media. To my rudimentary understanding of it, BLP is designed to protect individual living persons from undue harm to their reputations based upon spurious and poorly-sourced material. If the controversy surrounding Boothroyd/Blacketer is dealt with succinctly, and with appropriate subtlety, I find it hard to believe it would cause his reputation any undue harm. As to your points regarding writing the "controversy" article without mentioning Boothroyd's name, they're well-made. I concede that it would seem very forced to write such an article with no mention of his name. Unitanode  03:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, I favor the concept of importance over notability. It used to be that WP:N said that encyclopedia articles should be about important topics, and that the notability guidelines were one way, but not the only way, of determining importance. And I just don't think that when a person who is otherwise unimportant gets caught fiddling around on Wikipedia, they suddenly become important, even if there are newspaper articles about them. Take for example the CEO of a large company, who goes online at Yahoo Groups or on Wikipedia to anonymously post good things about his company and bad things about his competitors. This is a violation of SEC regulations, and results in an investigation. As the CEO of a large company, he is probably already important enough for an article, so the new material can be added. On the other hand, suppose a low level manager does the same thing. Even if his name is reported in the press, is this sufficient importance to make an article? Should we write an article (ostensibly a "biography") on the person? Should we write Joe Smith controversy? Or should we note in the article on the company only, "in 2009 the company was sanctioned by the FCC over the anonymous web posting of a low level manager".

Bottom line, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that if you are not important enough for an Wikipedia article before you get caught fiddling around on the site, you aren't important enough for an article after you get caught fiddling around on the site, even if someone writes about it in a newspaper. Thatcher 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree in principle with anything you've written above. I would have no problem with a much stricter notability policy that favored importance over other concerns. However, what you or I might prefer takes -- or should take -- a back seat to what is. And what is does not require so stringent a standard, at least the way I read the current notability standards. In my view, David Boothroyd met these standards -- though barely so -- even before the minor scandal. After it, I think there's no question he does. While I share your concerns regarding the future of such articles, the article as it currently stands in userspace presents no viable BLP concerns as far as I can tell.
 * On a tangent, I am actually considering reworking the notability standards in a way that addresses your concerns above as my first Wikipedia-space project. There are so many "nobodies" that have articles currently that I think this is a rather necessary change. As this would be a major shift, I don't plan on working on it on the actual page, but using a sandbox of some sort. Could you advise me as to both the feasibility of taking on such a project, as well as how to creat a draft like CoM's current Boothroyd article? Thanks, Unitanode  16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Standards are just the aggregate result of hundreds of individual decisions. If more people felt the way I did about importance, the standard would change, so I see no reason to change my opinion to fit the current standard.  We make the standards, the standards don't control us.  As for creating use subpages, just make a link on a page somewhere else and click on it.  For example, on your user page create a list of projects, then add links like this User:Unitanode/Notability, then click it to start the page.  You can advertise your draft and ask for help at the Village Pump WP:VPP and the talk page of the current notability policy, among other places. Thatcher 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've followed these instructions, and created the page. Haven't done any work yet, but I appreciate your advice. Unitanode  20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, however I feel that "substantial and enduring contributions" ought to mean editorial, not administrative, and I recognize my own shortcomings in that area. Thatcher 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Fahrenheit92
Hi there; this user, whom you have blocked as a sockpuppet after checkuser inspection, has requested unblock. I have already pointed out to him that there is no chance of your investigation being wrong, but he continues to post unblock requests. Could I ask you to look at his page, and make whatever comment you feel appropriate? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. What a waste of time. Thatcher 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sam Blacketer controversy
"The Sam Blacketer controversy is narcissism and self-absorbed navel gazing at its worst". That about sums it up. Well said. Peter Damian (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I came here to trout-slap you, Thatcher, because of another comment on the same issue, your !vote at the AfD. Since the closing admin might be an imbecile and the existence of the article would do real-world harm, keep your head and contribute language that the next !voter or the closer could use to justify deletion. The calmer the atmosphere, the more likely for the better arguments to win out in the end. This beats running around like a chicken with its head cut off (speaking as one with experience in that kind of running). We Suffer Fools Here. -- Noroton (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An article that says "John Smith is a minor politician who got into trouble on Wikipedia" is a BLP violation because of NPOV, Undue Weight, BLP1E, and so forth, and calling the article "John Smith controversy" does not change the essential content of the article. Wikipedia should include people whose long term importance is such that there are reliable source biographies written about them, and should include far fewer people whose short term importance results in a smattering of reliable source newspaper articles about one particular event. There are too many of these articles, and the large number of people who apparently think that such articles have a real and lasting place in an encyclopedia are one of the reasons that I am much less active than I used to be.  Today's newspaper article is tomorrow's bird cage liner, but today's Some poor guy got caught in the Wikipedia meat grinder could be around 5 or 50 years from now. Thatcher 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered you about this. I didn't realize how overwhelming the delete votes were. I've gotta stop counting on my fingers and toes. -- Noroton (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Audit_Subcommittee
I left a message on the talk page - any idea when we might see elections, and in what form? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered there. Sorry I don't have more info. Thatcher 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the reply - the agenda is a good innovation and the calendar rather whizzy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ScienceGolfFanatic still editing?
On my watchlist I still have Phil Mickelson and I believe that ScienceGolfFanatic is back with more obvious sockpuppets matching the P_____number pattern: Pctzgan37 and Pabriella36. I think that from their edit history it is quite obvious that they are the same person that was recently blocked, but I am afraid to start an SPI because I worry that to a user who hasnt seen this case it may look like a random vandal and the case would be denied. Please help if you can, or if not, tell me what I should do. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, found and blocked a few more. Thatcher 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren notice
Hi, Thatcher. Could you give the same warning to User:Vecrumba? I'm not sure if he's already been warned, but I outlined my concerns as far as civility just hours ago at his talk page and let him know about WP:DIGWUREN. (However, I am no administrator.) Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, he is already on notice. Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning me of behavior (invoking DIGWUREN twice) is not reaching out. Given PasswordUsername's posting was my first (I believe) discourse with PasswordUsername who had refused prior invitations to discuss disputed article content, as here, mine was an objective response. Please see thread on my talk (note time stamp of last contact from PasswordUsername after posting punishment request here, no mention thereof) and associated thread on Great Soviet Encyclopedia. I have asked PasswordUsername to not talk about me behind my back, most recently here which was in response to this. I consider lobbying admins behind my back to punish me a violation of that request. When I mention an editor in discussion, especially with regard to WP contentiousness, I let them know, as here, which I expect as common courtesy. I did not view PasswordUsername's contact as reaching out or conciliatory, rather, it took it as an attempt at intimidation, which (my perspective) was confirmed by PasswordUsername's iteration of the DIGWUREN sanctions, and (my perspective) reconfirmed by his advocacy for punishment here because, apparently, the more the merrier. Lastly, this is a response and not a "counter-request" for punishment. I have no issue working with PasswordUsername should they observe a collegial atmosphere. Vecrumba  <FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT> TALK</SMALL> 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, that you construe a request to ask an administrator to let you know about WP:DIGWUREN an attempt at lobbying administrators to "punish you" really says it all. I don't think I've insulted you here, ever. Lastly, I asked Pjoef if your editing the same material as him after you found his comments at a different article could be construed as stalking (as he's been here a lot longer than I have, and would probably understand the situation better). Need I say that this was after you insulted Pjoef as a "Soviet apologist" here? I'd really better say that I've never accused you of stalking at Hiberniantears' page or anywhere else; the most I'd said was that the fact that you, Biophys, Digwuren, and Martintg seem to continuously edit with one another should be examined as a possible violation of WP:TEAM. (Viriditas, who is uninvolved with your work outside of Human rights in the United States, expressed just the same concerns about bloc editing.) The fact that you and other users repeatedly came to edit the same pages that I did was disconcerting. None of that is "lobbying." Let me simply say that civility and a bit of good faith would be a good thing at this point. If you're not trying to blockshop out of a personal vendetta or deliberately trying to keep battling me, I fail to see what your response to my stricken-out comments here accomplishes. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think dialog is having the effect on me that you hope it will have. Thatcher 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. I struck out my initial comment a day ago and would rather end the charade still continued in spite of that. If my behavior is a concern for anybody, I am always available to discuss at my user talk space. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe
Are you aware that another admin was conducting a thorough investigation of the issue? Offliner (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, see my comments on the case and on Shell's talk page. No one ever needs to revert in order to edit cooperatively; I consider it the mildest sanction that could be imposed. Thatcher 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Thatcher – 1RR is probably a good thing for a lot of users, though I do have a procedural question. Why wasn't Martintg placed on a 1RR editing restriction? He wasn't involved as a filing party at WP:AE (though he participated in the discussions, giving evidence of others' conduct, as I did), but neither was I a filer of any enforcement requests there. Many of the edit warring conflicts there have involved him, and he appears to have a pretty strong record of taking sides with Digwuren. Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how managed to avoid being placed on 1RR and official notice. Please explain. Colchicum (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Martintg also has a block log for edit warring on an Eastern European article (Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee)): . He was only unblocked because he promised to stop edit warring. Offliner (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, it was preliminary, and it was based on the diffs and arguments presented in that report. There is a second report still open.  I may also review the Digwuren report again.  As I said on AE, the perfect has become the enemy of the good.  AE has always been about rough justice, not perfection.  If someone who "deserves" a sanction gets missed, I'm sure there will be another report about them sooner or later. Thatcher 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}
 * Agreed with respect to Martintg. Thatcher 10:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a bit surprised to see my "Notice of Editing Restriction" followed by a 1RR parole, particularly given your initial assessment. Had I have know that the dialogue above was going on here I would have said some words in my defence. The circumstances surround my previous block was as follows: Normally I am careful, but in the case of Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee I had exceeded 4 reverts. I was informed on my talk page that this had occured and immediately undid my last revert. It was subsequently reported to AN3 by Offliner. The report remained open until for almost 24 hours (during which time I made no further edits) before William Connelly initially rejected the report, but after further representations by Offliner (much like he is doing here), William blocked me. I had contacted William and he wasn't aware that I had undid my last edit, which was my fault as I didn't indicate this in the edit comment. For this reason and my undertaking William unblocked me, (I can supply diffs to support all this). William does have a bit of a record for messing up blocks. So I have been careful to restrict my reverts to 2 per day since, but evidently this wasn't acceptable either, which I accept. Certainty PassowordUsername a longer block log than I, so I don't think it is eqitable that I should have the same sanction as he. Certainly your original formal "Notice of editing restrictions" was sufficient. --Martintg (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been edit warring for longer than I've been here. If block log length were the issue, Digwuren would be banned indefinitely at this point. (See his history.) Incidentally, I have one more block than you, so I wouldn't use myself as a comparison. I was about to file an AE request, but I figured that the admins were going to get around to looking at you as soon as a full review of the case came up with regard to everyone involved in the recent reverting. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview which indicates recent edit warring on Russian diaspora and Timeline of antisemitism. Unfortunately, arbitration enforcement is not a scalpel, it is rarely possible to craft remedies with surgical precision that take into account finely discriminated differences in behavior. 1RR is, to my way of thinking, the mildest sanction I can impose, since no editor should need to revert in order to edit cooperatively (as opposed to article or topic bans).  Editors who can't live within 1RR, or who game the system by making edits which have the effect of reverting while not being technical reversions, or who return to their battleground articles to make the same revert every 7 days, will find themselves subject to further sanction.  Editors who can edit cooperatively will not be troubled at all and will find the limit lifted without too much trouble. I'm willing to consider lifting the limit earlier than 6 months if that is warranted based on behavior going forward. Thatcher 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. Could you place a similar 1RR parole on Russavia, in the interests of equity. He regularly edit wars like Offliner according to Shell and has quite a long history of 3RR blocks too. In the articles examined by Shell, Russavia edit warred in 11 out of 18, while I edit warred in just 7 out of 18. --Martintg (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two more editors mentioned in User:Shell_Kinney/EEreportsreview, one of them is found to edit war regularly, like Offliner and Biophys, and more than others, what about them? Colchicum (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Their last contentious revert is very recent:. Colchicum (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to that analysis, Russavia has not been involved in edit warring for a while, except for 3 edits to Kaitsepolitsei on June 6-7, and Ellol just got back from a break. It is certainly reasonable to put them on formal notice, I'd like to see evidence of more current edit warring before imposing 1RR. Thatcher 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, according to that same analysis, most of Russavia's edit warring occurred during the March April May, same as me. I had one episode in June regarding Timeline of antisemitism, Russavia had the one episode in June you mentioned with Kaitsepolitsei, but also Nashi (youth movement) ,,. A 1RR parole is meant to be a preventative measure, given Russavia's record, there is just the same likelihood (if not more given his block log) of Russavia edit warring in the future as me. --Martintg (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You raised an issue of inappropriate summary of edit in this diff. However, there (One intermediate revision not shown), so probably Biophys' edit summaries are better than you think. (Igny (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you, Igny! Although I am retired and would not comment any more, I can not bear that kind of evidence, especially in view of my still active AE case and possible sanctions. Shell said in her summary about me:


 * He sometimes uses misleading edit summaries during content disputes or allows his POV to get the best of him .  He's also shown some bad judgment for example when removing warnings from other editors talk pages."


 * [3] - this is wrong diff (one intermediate version not shown). I said "wikilink" about indeed inserting a wikilink.


 * [4] - I said her that I fixed edits by a sock of banned User:Jacob_Peters, but she still did not adjust this her statement


 * [5] - I removed a misleading 3RR warning, because I saw previously an  administrator doing the same at my talk page. The misleading 3RR warning was placed by a perpetrator, User:Viriditas,  who currently serves 48 hours for 3RR violation about which he warned another user.Biophys (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At least regarding the diff, you are right and Shell was wrong, I did not notice when I copied it from her analysis. Thatcher 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite, Biophys: in [4], I (not blocked user User:Jacob Peters) insisted on keeping well-sourced material by historian Arno Mayer and you kept deleting it repeatedly as it did not show Kolchak very positively. You also deleted and altered content from Offliner's version in Political groups during Vladimir Putin's presidency, although in your edit summary you merely said that you combined two competing versions of the page. How's retirement? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (I won't say anything about removing a passage critical of political opposition leader Garry Kasparov with the edit summary "undue weight for a world chess champion" - that's pretty telling itself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PasswordUsername (talk • contribs)

Another question
Could you please explain to me how a newbie like PasswordUsername, having received two blocks after just two months of joining in April 2009, including a 72 hour block for inserting this, managed to pursuade you to apply a 1RR restriction upon me, yet you seem to be unwilling to apply a similar restriction on Russavia when requested by an editor such as myself having received my first block after two years of joining. I wasn't listed in the original AE reports and I only made a few comments in them and was sucked into this via Shell's investigation, just like Russavia. Unlike me, Russavia has been blocked for two weeks for harrassing Biophys and has two blocks for 3RR. Look at the following table derived from Shell's analysis:

--Martintg (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like you promised William M. Connolley to stop edit warring to get your unblock and then continued edit warring not long after that. You have a pretty good number of reverts at a decent number of articles in just the past month, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My promise was to be more careful and not to re-do the same edit again. I reverted Alexander Litvinenko twice on April 29, Russian diaspora once on the 7th and twice on the 16th of June and similarly low level with Timeline of antisemitism. Note the gap in May, unlike Russavia who edit warred two articles during that month. --Martintg (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I started with the AE report and acted on what struck me the most. Then someone told me about Shell's page so I read it and took additional action.  That page did not mention the Nashi article. Thatcher 02:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand this. A 1RR parole for those that already have one is probably the best approach to cool things down, and I'm willing to accept mine for the good of the project, just that knowing Russavia as I do, I wouldn't like him to be tempted into exploiting his position to get the upper hand in future content disputes (and there will be), and the hassle of having to report him in the future. It's all about preventative measures, not punitive measures, right? --Martintg (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your latest action, thankyou. Some sanity should hopefully be restored now. and this whole sorry saga that has consumed the time of a great many people can be finally closed. Cheers. --Martintg (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Thatcher, would you mind commenting here on a CU issue, if you have time? Casliber mentioned your views would be helpful, and I agree. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thatcher 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello Thatcher, I would like to comment on your recent decision on Eastern Europe arbitration case if I could. I was following the case because some of the people I have interacted with before were sanctioned there. I think that some users were punished a little too harsh. This is just my opinion of course and I am not that experienced but this is what I think. I have to say that you guys (administrators) are doing difficult work trying to resolve problems. I also think I don’t even want to become one since to be fair here is not that easy and tasks are too stressful. You did an excellent job analyzing the case but in your final decision, I think you made a mistake. Some people who in my opinion deserved the sanctions more were punished the same or very similar way as the people who were not as much in fault. Some punished people were not even mentioned in Shelly's report at all. I think that was very unfair to them. But again, this is just my opinion which I would like to share with you. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments. 1RR limit is not intended to be punishment, although some people may see it that way. No editor should ever need to revert if they are editing cooperatively with others. 1RR prevents future disruption by forcing the parties to discuss their concerns and make a consensus decision rather than "winning" their version of an article by pure force of numbers or attrition.  It's true that Shell's analysis did not mention certain editors whom I covered with 1RR, I don't think it's possible to conclude that editors not mentioned on Shell's analysis have not misbehaved; the analysis may be incomplete, as indeed it did not include the recent edit warring at Nashi (youth movement).  That incident is striking, because there were something like 28 reversions of the category over 10 days, with no discussion on the article talk page.  Some editors reverted 5 times, others only 2, but everyone who reverted had the opportunity to look at the history, and the talk page, and rather than trying to hold a discussion, or requesting outside assistance (like a content RFC, third opinion, or page protection), they each decided to just jump in and revert to whichever "side" they were on.  I take this as an indication of long term behavior problems involving these editors, and so the 1RR limit is imposed on all of them.  Assuming some of those editors have never edit warred before, never gotten into a battle of sterile reversions without discussion, and this was just a momentary lapse in judgement, then I am willing to consider an appeal and lift the 1RR early.  I will, of course, examine their entire recent edit history. Thatcher 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer, I appreciate it very much.:) I was wondering, if the "less guilty" people appealed maybe they could be restricted for less time or maybe they could just promise to stay away from the certain articles for a while and pay special attention to edit wars? I'm talking especially about those who have good and clean block history and just happened to be editing inappropriately disputed article last month. I'm sure that they will respect that and they will avoid similar situations in the future. But anyway.. thank you very much again for answering and for all this hard administrative work you are doing.--Jacurek (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would listen to any reasonable requests. Thatcher 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I apologize to intrude. I was on a wikibreak and now i'm trying to catch up, something that might take weeks. I noticed the 1RR on the Eastern Europe arbitration case record of bans. I read part of Shell's notes and checked part of the history of several articles. Basically I have similar concerns as Jacurek. So, if you could allow, I'd like to follow this discussion if it continues. One thing I don't understand is where 1RR applies for these people, in which articles? Broadly defined? Narrowly defined? I believe that people who have not had a history of mischief should not be placed on 1RR, at least not in the broad sense. Otherwise, where is the difference between editors which make constant problems and editors that where caught in editing the wrong article at the wrong time? Also, perhaps it would be wise to set up a dynamic list of articles with recent problems, so in time we could try to address the problems also content-wise. I believe that many articles suffer from the lack of editors because of problems in a reduced number of articles. Thank you very much for listening to me. Dc76\talk 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope is "Articles related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined" as described at Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren. I agree that "people who have not had a history of mischief should not be placed on 1RR" but I don't believe I have done so.  Do you have a specific user in mind? Thatcher 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope nobody will mind much if I reply to this, as I was about to ask this in a new thread - and here I stumble upon the perfect place to do so :) First, for the record, I do think that Thatcher has acted very wisely, and his actions and given out restrictions will bring much desired peace and quiet to the BalticEE topics (thanks T!). But in Poland we have a proverb "where axes are at work, splinters fly" and I think that there is a case for a "flying splinter fatality" here. I am surprised about one restriction, that to user Radeksz. I was actually reviewing his edits independently over the past few days, assessing whether he has a potential to become an admin, and I was about to conclude that yes, I cannot find any significant problems. He reverts occasionally, as do most content creators, but he seems to follow WP:BRT pretty well; he uses edit summaries commonly, he uses talk, and keeps far from the 3RR territory. Further, I don't think any editor has ever complained about Radek being disruptive or edit warring, minus one stale incident seen in his block log (nobody's perfect...). He was not a party to any former ArbCom or AE requests, as far as I know, not even discussed on AN(I) - despite being a highly active user with years of wiki experience. And here, suddenly, an esteemed editor like you puts him on a major restriction (or what at least in my experience is seen as such), which caused me to think about my review and conclusions again. Do you think that Radek is an edit warrior or an otherwise disruptive editor who needs a blemish of a half-a-year-1RR restriction in his wiki history? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, Radeksz edit wars a lot, and his behaviour at Nashi (youth movement) is not an isolated incident. One only has to look at his involvement in Johan Bäckman or Historical Truth Commission, which includes lot of reverting and little discussion. I think 1RR is justified for him. Offliner (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that a user occasionally disagrees with you and has reverted you several times over the course of a month on a given article, with edit summaries and discussion page comments, is not edit warring. PS. I find it somewhat amusing that a 1RR restriction was imposed on a user who hardly ever reverts more than once a week on a given article :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Radek emailed me and I gave him an answer privately, since it has become a matter of public comment, I will reproduce my answer here. Basically, I'm using the Nashi article as a canary in a coal mine. I believe that editors who participated in the edit war there are likely to have misbehaved on other articles within the area of dispute.

Between June 11 and June 21 (mostly on the 11th and 13th) the addition/removal of the anti-fascist category was reverted 25 times according to my count, with no one attempting to discuss the issue on the article talk page. (You were the 3rd, 11th, and 22nd reverts.) 25 reversions without discussion is edit warring, no matter whether any of the individual editors exceeds 3RR. In addition to the specific article, it is a symptom of a wider problem. Some editors treat the Eastern Europe/Russian/Baltic/Etc articles as an "us against them" battle. There is a profound unwillingness to compromise and a profound disrespect for cooperative editing and consensus.

You've been a wikipedian for 4+ years, I hope you can see the basic problem here.

So the question is what to do about it, and whether or not to include you. I consider 1RR to be the mildest sanction I could impose, as it allows you full freedom to edit any article, it only prevents you from "winning" by having the most reverts. Article bans, topic bans, and blocks are all more restrictive, as far as I am concerned. In this case I treated the Nashi article as an indicator of likely problems. All the editors involved should have known better, but chose to revert rather than taking a more appropriate course of actions, such as requesting a content RFC, third opinion, or even page protection while discussion occurred. So I considered all the editors suitable for the 1RR restriction.

Looking specifically at your interactions with other editors on this topic area, I see that you were warned about reverting in Feb 2009, and twice in May.

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=268517532&oldid=268477758

And Shell finds edit warring on Russian diaspora and Kaitsepolitsei in June. While you only had one edit on Russian diaspora, it was in the context of taking sides between Digwuren and PasswordUsername, again without discussion. On Kaitsepolitsei you reverted twice as part of a larger battle, in this case there was a discussion (that has not resolved the issue) but you did not participate in that discussion.

Under the circumstances and considering you've been noted as part of the wider problem on 4 articles in the last month or so, I think 1RR is appropriate. It's true that others have behaved worse. If I was applying topic bans or blocks, there would be some basis for making some blocks and bans longer than others. But since the goal of 1RR is to force editors to discuss their disagreements, I'm not sure there is a good argument for requiring some editors to discuss their concerns only for the next 2 or 3 months, while other editors must discuss for the next 6 months.

Anyone who can't edit under the 1RR restriction and continues to edit without cooperation and discussion will be subject to further sanction, of course.

-- Thatcher 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thatcher. Radeksz's revert ratio as far as a number of Russia-related articles has been disproprtionate to his usage of the talk page. A very good example is the revert editing on the Mark Sirők page, where Radek also has a large volume of undiscussed reverts to previous versions. As I point out right here, Radeksz even reverted an edit where I'd given him new references – and did so with a blind edit summary of "please provide sources." If instead of doing that he'd participated in the discussion instead of undoing my edits, he would have found them. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What you'd given me was a self published, self referential, advocacy source whereas what I requested was a RELIABLE source. This was previously pointed out to you - that the source you were including was not reliable, yet you still continued to try and cram an unreliable source in there. Yes, I reverted you. As would any reliable editor when somebody tries to back up highly controversial text with a non reliable sketchy source. This is not edit warring. This is ensuring that the encyclopedia adheres to its proclaimed standards. Please refer to this quote from Jimmy Wales on AGK's talk page: which I find quite instructive in this context.radek (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what you deleted with the edit summary "again, please provide sources" was material from the Regnum information agency and the International Federation for Human Rights (see diff). These are not sketchy sources - either self-published or self-referential. Regnum is a news bureau and not an advocacy group, and the International Federation for Human Rights is about as "advocacy" a group as Amnesty International. All this is very clear from the diff. And noting what you are reverting will be certainly more important with a 1RR-a-week restriction. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked PasswordUsername to contain content dispute to article talk. The International Federation for Human Rights' (FIDH) Latvian member is Ždanoka's political party, so let's not belittle other editors on admin talk as if something were self-evident, in this case, that the FIDH cannot be regarded as an "advocacy" group. Thank you. PētersV <SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">  </FONT> TALK</SMALL> 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please let me explain why all these people reverted each other without talking. I too made a revert in this article with an edit summary that I thought was understandable for all EE editors. Word "Nashi" gave rise to Nashism, a term that has been invented to sound  like "fascism" (that was widely discussed in Russian media). Categorizing such organization as "anti-fascist" sounds like a humiliation, even if such view was claimed by certain source(s), like the unofficial propaganda agency of the Kremlin (Regnum). Each editor on every side knew this even better than me. Why explain something that everyone knows? How about inserting "antifascist organization" about Gestapo? Would editors who reverted such category at spot be regarded as edit warriors? This case is indeed a litmus test of who is doing what here.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get involved in a content dispute. If the situation is as obvious as you claim it is, then some outside uninvolved editors, recruited via RFC or third opinion, would have confirmed that.  Yet in 25 reverts by 9 editors, no one bothered to ask for an outside opinion.  Each one of you was convinced he was right, so no discussion or outside opinions were needed.  That's fine for your blog or twitter, but not on Wikipedia. Thatcher 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that there is a clear distinction between "content disputes" and editors' revert behavior is silly. Is the removal of this piece of text, inserted by PasswordUsername, a "content dispute":, and hence an instance of "edit warring"? Uninvolved editors DID comment, via AdjustShift's accurate description in PU's block: blocked PasswordUsername with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: the user has repeatedly inserted nonsense in the Estonia-related articles.) (my emphasis). Now, granted that most of PU's edits aren't that blatant. But that particular edit is a good characterization of the pattern. But supposedly these are all just content disputes, and reverting such "nonsense" (AS's words, not mine) apparently requires that each time an epic treatise be written on the talk page to justify its removal or otherwise it's "edit warring" (irrespective of the number of reverts actually made). And BTW, in the past I've made several requests for third opinion or comment. I can't recall a time that someone actually complied. Most editors avoid getting embroiled in the controversy and usually RfC or 3O just falls on deaf ears. Until that situation - no response on 3O's and RfCs - changes, it's not surprising that many editors have ceased to bother with it.radek (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't file an appeal, because I have long been semi-retired and it doesn't matter anyway. However, your decisions went against this discussion, and in particular I would like to make you think of the following issue. Once the regulars are restricted, who is going to tackle tendentious editing by opinionated newcomers, who will undoubtedly appear in this sector and who will be able to revert 21 times more often without getting themselves into too much trouble? It would be unwise to expect that they behave more cooperatively than the regulars. Is it now your personal responsibility? It is not mine, at least. Good luck in persuading them to edit cooperatively. Colchicum (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with regard to Radekcz .Biophys (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IPBE candidate needs review from you...
See User talk:Darwinreynolds. Per your instructions, IPBE was only to be granted for users at the hard-blocked IP address if they were created before June 18; this account was created June 21 but has no vandalisms since being created. Could you review and grant the IPBE yourself if they need it? Thanks! --Jayron32. talk . contribs 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied. Complex situation. Thatcher 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with that. I blocked the User:Fuelthefilm account, as its name violated spamusernameblock, and since there is already an account which a) is compliant with WP:UN, b) has IPBE c) is active, and d) is obviously the same person, I saw no reason to leave the prior account open to edit, given the violation of WP:UN.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I could not retire, although that was my intention. Editing here became an addiction. Yes, I am well aware of editing restrictions. And, yes, I remember and appreciate your advice.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, best wishes. Thatcher 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning arbitration
Hi - I see you are active on the arbitration enforcement page today. I posted a question to the associated talk page and am wondering if you could offer me some quick advice on how I should proceed. If you think my concern is misplaced or that I'm going about it the wrong way, could you kindly advise me of that here? I would prefer to keep this very simple and avoid any conflict or extended discussion on the subject, given the "no interaction" editing restriction and the editing history that lead to it. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically, you are enjoined from talking to each other, so he his badmouthing you to third parties. I would say this is a breach of the arbitrators' intent even if it is not a breach of their specific language.  Probably the best course is to post a request for clarification, ask a clerk to notify CoM for you, and have the arbitrators comment.  Enforcement might be controversial if the arbitrators have not commented first.  But I will nudge them by email to see if they can make it quick. Thatcher 14:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. I don't seek enforcement as such - I would just like to be free of accusations about my editing intentions.  Cheers,  Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Biophys 1RR
Shouldn't Biophys be formally placed on 1RR now that it's clear that he won't be retiring after all? Offliner (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thatcher 01:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got your notice. I hate to ask this question, but you just said this. You are right. Indeed, according to the ruling "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia..." and so on. Thus, an editor can be sanctioned only for the violations taking place AFTER him receiving the official warning. Although you issued such warnings to several users, the alleged violation in "Nashi" took place BEFORE your official warning. I am sure that none of the sanctioned editors could imagine that a single revert in this article could result in editing restrictions for indefinite period of time, although they knew about this ruling in general. That is why your advance warning was required per ArbCom ruling. This is not to tell that following the 1RR rule is so terrible (and I am pretty comfortable with it), but some editors feel themselves unfairly treated, as clear form the discussion at your talk page. I am sorry if my question seems disruptive, but some clarity would be important.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my answer to Martintg below. Thatcher 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Honour and Passion cleanup
In the delete-restore cycle, the protection got lost. I reset it. I have no idea if the anon edit since then that would have been prevented is good or not (no clue about anything on this page except it's a vandalism magnet). DMacks (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg
I think you are correct on barring IP address edits on this article for a time. However, if you review the edits, you will not see evidence of "edit warring." Instead, you will see a set of IP addresses making edits that only the subject of the article could have authored, and other people replacing them with verifiable content. I will not edit the article, but the autobiographical nature of the article is the subject of weekly discussion at local running clubs, and I assume that those individuals will continue to follow it. Racepacket (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brave edit
This suggestion seems a bit brave in my honest opinion. I suggest that you strike it out. :/ --194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this comment need striking out? It's actually a comment that helps establish your history as an editor, and gives some background as to how your first edits as 194x came with an already-establish knowledge of wikipedia principles. Dayewalker (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he spoke of going out on a limb, just an attempt at humor a failed joke on my part obviously.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I got it. Thatcher 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. I apologize to both of you for the mistake on my part. Dayewalker (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345
This may have been just a typo &mdash; "Halfacanyon appears to be Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level" &mdash; but if it really was Halfacanyon you checked, it was actually  who is suspected of being associated with the CAMERA accounts, specifically with Tundrabuggy/Dajudem, though not necessarily the same person. Dajudem's IP address by her own acknowledgment was 75.164.50.27, in case that helps. More details here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well there is still nothing useful to see for either of them. Thatcher 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Radeksz and Colchicum
Hi Thatcher, having read this, I was wondering if Radeksz and Colchicum should have been afforded the same benefit of only a formal notification that you seem to be recommending for Skäpperöd, Loosmark, Elysander and Jacurek? You did formally notice both Radeksz and Colchicum, but then slapped an essentially indefinite 1RR on them two days later. I've been working in the area covered RFAR/Digwuren for quite a while and as far as I can tell Radeksz's and Colchicum's involvement in this space is quite sporadic, so I don't know if they would have been fully aware that they could become subject to discretionary sanctions. Cheers. --Martintg (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Last night I reviewed the contributions of all the editors I sanctioned, looking specifically for knowledge and awareness of the arbitration case. Given the number of ANI, editwarring, and previous enforcement complaints, I don't think someone could reasonably conclude that these editors had no knowledge of the possibility that their conduct on these articles could be subject to sanction.  Radeksz in particular, participated at 3 prior requests for enforcement against other editors.  See User:Thatcher/Sandbox1.  The history of disputes in this area is very disappointing, 1RR should probably have been applied much earlier. Thatcher 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, every editor was well aware of the case and sanctions. However, no one expected to be sanctioned for the rare reverts (one in a few days) in article "Nashi". I do not know what Radek and Colchicum thought, but I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an  official EE warning if my behavior was problematic. Once receveing the warning, I might stop editing in ths area, change my editing habits, or whatever. I thought so precisely because I knew these ArbCom rulings. (I realized that I was possibly wrong only after reading the comments on AE appeal by Grandmaster). There are also other questions about the restriction you issued. First, you issued an 1RR restriction for editing article "Nashi", although some of the editiors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Does it mean that anyone in general can be sanctioned for edit warring even if he follows 1RR rule? I am not quite sure. Second, you used an argument about "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it s very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus.  Does it mean tag-teaming?  To summarize, there are several very general  questions about the discretinary sanctions that might worth a clarification request to ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any affected editor is free to appeal to other admins via the admin noticeboard or to Arbcom. Thatcher 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark
Dear Thatcher, can you look at the activities of Loosmark? He seems to be a nationalist POV editor. I have seen him trolling at different pages. AdjustShift (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * POV pushing by itself is not necessarily a problem, as I noted at Enforcement, While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. The prior complaint dealt only with Expulsions....  Are there other articles?  Specifically evidence that he is rude, ignores consensus when it is against him, or refuses to participate in good faith negotiations?  This is also why the RFC and third opinion mechanisms are so important; when committed regulars go around in circles and are unwilling to bend one way or the other, great weight should be given to the opinions of uninvolved editors. Thatcher 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read his comments on my talk page. I had to erase three of his comments from my talk page because they were trollish. His argumentative comments are disruptive and trollish. AdjustShift (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the minor dispute is over. AdjustShift (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah after I brought your accusation of trolling to the Administrators' noticeboard attention and the cunclusion there was Not trolling, but a content wording dispute, nothing for an admin to do here. However, please don't call other editors trolls or their edits trolling. you admited I wasn't trolling and returned my deleted comment. So yes the "minor dispute is over". Loosmark (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is I completely reject the claim that I'm a "nationalist POV editor". I most probably have a POV which is much closer to a Polish POV rather than a German one but then the opposite seems to be true for every German editor on wikipedia I've encountered. And isn't that completely normal? Having a completely NPOV is, IMO, almost impossible. However being a nationalist is something very different, and I think I'm light years away from being a nationalist. Therefore AdjustShift, I'd ask you again to please don't throw accusations such as nationalist or troll around so easily. Loosmark (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark AE, Request for clarification by Skäpperöd
To not troll the AE thread you just closed, I post here and I really hope that you will find the time to answer the clarification request I posted in that thread, collapsed below:

I think I have adhered to the principles of wikipedia in my editing conduct, and would like Thatcher to give me a feedback where this was not the case. In my understanding, the removal of an unsourced statement without prior discussion is justified if one has reason to believe that it does not comply with the core policies and neither is benefitial for the article, and if one states these reasons in his edit summary. I did so twice in a period of two days, and did not repeat this a third time when this was reverted but tagged it and started a discussion. I understand that this was a courtesy, and that I would have been justified in removing this statement again if I had chosen to do so. I understand that any editor chosing to re-instate a disputed unsourced statement should at least utilize sources supporting the accuracy and relevancy of the statement, and that the discussion should focus on the evaluation of such sources. I understand that in the discussion, I did everything right by not participating in discussions not concerned with the statement, ignoring provocative statements, only focus on the issue, and make alternative proposals I feel everyone could accept. I also think I was right in exchanging the disputed statement for the proposed change when the proposal was not commented on for two days despite ongoing discussion not related to the line. That said,I really would appreciate it if my above question in the section "Additional comments by Skäpperöd" ("give some advise how to deal with situations like that") would not be left unanswered, and that it is pointed out which of my actions/understandings are supported and which are objected to. With a warning, as proposed by Thatcher, I can't do anything useful. I am aware of the cases, I do not need to be warned. I need a decision on what actions detailed in "Additional comments by Skäpperöd" are valid in respect to the policies and remedies and which are not.

It is really important to me that I do not get an unspecific warning but a specific answer where exactly you think I am right and where exactly you think I am wrong and what exactly I should have done different. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples include Soviet prisoners of war murdered in the millions; those in Soviet-occupied territory who disappeared into the GULag system; those who were forceably resettled (e.g., the Volga Germans); or millions more, civilian and PoW, who were forced into slave labor, often in appalling conditions in Germany and in the Soviet Union). During the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, many citizens of German descent registered with the Deutsche Volksliste. Some of them held important positions in the hierarchy of the Nazi administration or otherwise participated in Nazi atrocities, causing enmity against Germans generally, which would later be used as one of the justifications for their expulsion
 * I am not really trying to finely calibrate my response to variations in behavior. I think (at least as far as the recent problem at Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II) you have been a bit more flexible and willing to discuss the situation than others.  Still, the problems with that discussion were primarily, reverting while Loosmark still objected (which shows a certain amount of disrespect) and, failure to bring in outside editors via the RFC or 3O mechanism.  12,000 words spent on the talk page discussing one sentence is almost worse than no discussion at all, are you any closer to a solution?  As an outside editor, I might point out that the initial removal  looks reasonable, because that paragraph is about pre-WWII actions.  But the next paragraph already has some examples of atrocities,
 * So it does not seem unreasonable to place the example of Warsaw there as well, although with an appropriate source and the language needs improvement (perhaps "Another example" not "The most dramatic"). This is the sort of comment you might get if you solicited advice from outside the narrow circle of committed editors.  In the case of prolonged disputes between editors with strong opinions on both sides, the advice of neutral outside editors should be given great weight.  The time and place to ask for outside help is at the article talk page very early in the dispute, not at Enforcement after a long edit war.
 * It is difficult to sort out in these disputes who precisely is most in the wrong. On scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being an obstinate irredeemable edit warring POV pusher and 10 being the perfect collaborative editor, is Loosmark a 4 and you a 6?  Even if so, the available remedies are limited.  At this point, nothing has been enacted.  Article bans or blocks can be handed out as needed in the future, hopefully they won't be needed. Thatcher 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I understand that you consider my reverting Loosmark unconstructive, and that I should have recruited outside oppinions. Especially concerning the outside oppinions, I would value some additional advice.

Regarding the Loosmark revert: I have to accept that you got the impression that it was "disrespectful", but it really was not meant to:
 * I had posted the proposed change on 25 June, and although some discussion continued on this day, it was about general stuff and not about the proposed change. From the evening of 25 June until 27 June, there was no discussion at all (scroll down to the bottom to see that noone objected to the change).
 * I introduced the change using two edits on 27 June . Loosmark reverted only my last edit, stating in the edit summary "no consensus was reached for this removal" . The quick reversion (within 7 minutes) of only one of my changes, leading to the odd situation that now both the proposed change and the disputed statement were in the article, and the edit summary made me confident that Loosmark had simply overlooked the preceeding insertion, and I thought that after pointing that out in my edit summary  he would not revert again. When they did, I took no further action.

Regarding 3O/RfC: As I already mentioned in my opening statement of the AE thread, I had thought about an RfC. I dismissed the idea that an RfC is a proper venue for this dispute because:
 * The statement did not fulfill RS and V (obviously)
 * Though RS and V must be fulfilled before NPOV and UNDUE can even be considered, it would obviously have been violating these two even if it was sourced. I mean it starts out with "The most dramatic ...", and any experienced user MUST have seen that at least parts of the statement are not complying with NPOV and NOR.
 * I think that every user, including Elysander and me, is justified in removing such statements without establishing consensus on talk first, because consensus is already established that the removal of statements obviously not complying with the content-directed core policies is benefitial for the project. Especially WP:BURDEN leaves no doubt on that, though 3RR would not exempt it from prohibition if it gets excessive (>3/d). Are you with me so far?

I thus did not consider this a genuine content dispute, but nevertheless acted almost like it was one (not quite in a BRD, but in a RRD manner). I was the one who initiated the discussion and tagged the statement instead of removing it. I felt that with initiating a 3O/RfC I would have even further legitimated the reverts of Radeksz and completely inverted the BURDEN rule.

Thinking about your comment however and in respect to the developements at the article's talk page, which has pretty much turned into a WWII forum, I realize this approach was counter-productive. You are right that it indeed was an option to focus the discussion and probably even prevent this to flare up again on 27 June after the discussion had ceased for two days (though I really had not expected that as outlined above). Having looked at it from that angle, I think an RfC would still be benefitial because the discussion is still going nowhere in ever new forking threads.

I would value your answer to the following questions: Thank you again for your time. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) The "Are you with me so far" question above - a technical answer if I was anywhere close to trouble with my actions or if they are as legitimate as I view them (technically). It is important for me to know whether I misinterpreted something.
 * (2) The belated RfC, how do you like the idea of trying it the following way: I announce that idea on the article's talk page and invite everyone who wants to include the destruction of Warsaw to settle on as few proposals as possible for the actual phrasing. Once that is done, I (or someone else) initiate(s) the RfC for comments on whether and how to include.
 * (3) I see 3O as an option only available in early stages of a dispute. Is 3O also an option if more editors are involved, but the dispute has not yet been going on for so long?


 * Maybe I'm totally blind or it's the talk page which is mega messed up but I completely can't locate this "unanswered proposal" Skäpperöd keeps bringing up. To the best of my knowledge I immediately opposed any proposal of removing the mention of Warsaw's destruction and associated crimes. Regarding the phrasing of those events I'm open to trying to find a phrasing which would achieve largest possible consensus and I don't think anybody would oppose any such process either. Loosmark (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, I would like you to look at the activities of Loosmark. He is constantly trolling and making disruptive comments here and there. AdjustShift (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I request you present evidence that "I'm constantly trolling" or withdraw the accusation. Loosmark (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Loosmark, I've already withdrawn my accusation. You were not trolling. I made that comment before you started the thread at ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the EE corner. Could you also look at the activities of the editors such as HerkusMonte and Skäpperöd? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at Skäpperöd as part of the Loosmark complaint; there are some issues there but not as bad as some others. I have not looked at HerkusMonte.  Can you point to some specific diffs, or perhaps file an Enforcement request asking for a review of his edits with a request to notice him in on whichever case is involved. Thatcher 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Herkus, I'd point out to edit warring with uncivil edit summaries, for recent diffs see:, and . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From Jacurek
I was thinking about it a lot if I should even confront you with this question... simply because I think that overall, you have made a right decision placing both sides on notice not just one and in general you are always quite fair and I respect you. But.... do you really think that my one revert [] with this comment attached to it: - ''it may still have to be here. We do not know yet. Please wait for others to discuss it and then we will all make a right decision. I'm sure we can come to the agreement. Thanks'' - versus 26 edits on the articles talk page at the same period of time[] (please also check what I had to say there) justifies your decision to place me an warning as well? I realize that you will answer with some examples of other pages regarding EE I have edited/reverted in the past to justify your decision or you will ask me to appeal. This is natural and anybody would do it. There is always something one can find for somebody if one really wants too, I have learned that already. I also would like to point out that I will not appeal your decision. Why? Simply because I'm sure I will not do anything wrong in the future for that warming to take effect unless somebody will "come after me" and use the fact that I'm on that list against me. Not that long ago I went through such situation. This is my only concern. But what I also think is that I should not be on that list for making ONE careful revert with polite explanations why I'm doing it. I'm shaking my head with disbelieve...Thanks Thatcher and I hope you don't mind this little criticism but I had to ask you because the whole incident just "blows my mind" Remember, we are all humans and we all make mistakes...even administrators do. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Thatcher, I did not hear from you but I understand that you are busy being an administrator and all. When you get a chance could you honestly answer my question. This is very important to me. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got a couple of 3RR reports, and been involved in several Enforcement complaints as a party or a commentator. Is there some reason you should not be officially "notified" of the existence of the remedies in the Digwuren case?  No actual sanctions or restrictions have been applied at this time.  Regarding the content dispute, you may be interested in my comments to Skapperod of 13:20, 2 July 2009 above on this page.  It is important, as a matter of respect, I think, that when there is a discussion on the talk page, no one should be reverting either way, as it undercuts the discussion; what is the point of a polite discussion if the reverting goes on at the same time?  I think it is also important to be aware of editorial factions.  Your reversion, if it had been done by Loosmark instead, would have been his 4th revert.  This may have been collusion or coincidence, it is not particularly important which.  But is does point to the fact that you are involved in the dispute and should be put on formal notice in the event that future Enforcement requests are made.  Hopefully, of course, there won't be and future reports. Thatcher 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal
I've filed the relevant appeal, per your suggestion at. I wasn't sure about the proper formatting.radek (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, if you have the time, could you reply to the issues raised at the link above, especially with regard to the alleged lack of notification? I believe we can't really go ahead in evaluating this appeal without hearing your take on the matter.  Sandstein   17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read this: User:Thatcher/Sandbox1? Offliner (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Awareness of a particular case is not the same as a warning related to specific behaviour. The remedy states "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". It would be pretty unreasonable to expect someone to think that doing three reverts in 10 days would elicit a 1RR restriction, regardless of them being aware of the various Arbcom cases, hence the need for a warning that such continued behaviour will result in a sanction. Where was the counseling on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing? --Martintg (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see now also Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.  Sandstein   13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

admin civility
I agree. My take is that policy already supports this and the way you've put the lingering questions is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed
Hi Thatcher, since I have been given a 1RR restriction, could look at the recent edits on Battle of Narva (1944). The casualty figures were already previously discussed extensively here, yet we have this IP reverting to numbers derived from the period after the battle (while claiming in his edit comments "here was no "battle of Narva" before september", when the scope of the article is clearly February to September 1944). Also check out his uncivil comments on talk justitfying his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Narva_(1944)#This_is_ridiculous. edits]. This kind of thing happens quite often, but now it seems IPs are at an advantage now that other established editors don't seem willing to do any more reverts lest they get sanctioned and I have used up my 1RR on this article, so could you assist? --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a blocked editor evading his block. I've reverted it back. Thatcher 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi!

By this, did you mean to say that CheckUser confirms the accounts to be related or was it a general observation? I ask because I'm pretty convinced they are the same person and I'd be willing to formally file an SPI if the relationship of those accounts is something you cannot discuss outside of SPI environment.

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are the same person, per checkuser. Sorry for being abstruse. Thatcher 20:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Russavia
It seems you have left Russavia's 1RR restriction in place. Can you point out where exactly did he receive a formal warning about the Digwuren sanctions? Offliner (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He had been blocked based on the decision, recorded in the log on Sept 15, 2008. There is no record of the block being successfully appealed.  I would be surprised if you can find anyone who thinks that being blocked is not "notice" of the possibility of editing restrictions.  However, should you find an uninvolved admin (other that Deacon or Piotrus) who agrees with you, that admin may vacate the 1RR restriction without further consulting me.  Good luck. Thatcher 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, I have never been blocked under the terms of WP:DIGWUREN. You have lifted the 1RR restrictions on other editors based upon the notion that none of them were advised of sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. The first I learnt of Digwuren was some weeks AFTER I was blocked for the placement of a WP:COI notice on Biophys' talk page. At no stage was I ever advised of Digwuren restrictions, as is written. I am aware of the Arbitration case, as are the other editors who have had the 1RR restrictions lifted by yourself, however, I have mine in place because Moreschi blocked me, and placed my name on the block log...at no stage did he, or any other admin, advise me of that arbcom, so I have never formally been advised of the case, and hence, I would request either 1) my 1RR restrictions be lifted or 2) the restrictions be placed back upon the other editors because, and I speak frankly, to have those restrictions on myself but not on other editors who have edit warred is ridiculous. --Russavia Dialogue 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'm sure that with all the edit warring described at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview, you had no idea that your behavior was in any way questionable, it was all someone else's fault.  Vacated against all editors.  I'm sure Wikipedia will be a better place because of it. Thatcher 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From Jacurek - retrieved from the archives ( I'm still preparing an answer, would like to keep this open, thank you Thatcher)
I was thinking about it a lot if I should even confront you with this question... simply because I think that overall, you have made a right decision placing both sides on notice not just one and in general you are always quite fair and I respect you. But.... do you really think that my one revert [] with this comment attached to it: - ''it may still have to be here. We do not know yet. Please wait for others to discuss it and then we will all make a right decision. I'm sure we can come to the agreement. Thanks'' - versus 26 edits on the articles talk page at the same period of time[] (please also check what I had to say there) justifies your decision to place me an warning as well? I realize that you will answer with some examples of other pages regarding EE I have edited/reverted in the past to justify your decision or you will ask me to appeal. This is natural and anybody would do it. There is always something one can find for somebody if one really wants too, I have learned that already. I also would like to point out that I will not appeal your decision. Why? Simply because I'm sure I will not do anything wrong in the future for that warming to take effect unless somebody will "come after me" and use the fact that I'm on that list against me. Not that long ago I went through such situation. This is my only concern. But what I also think is that I should not be on that list for making ONE careful revert with polite explanations why I'm doing it. I'm shaking my head with disbelieve...Thanks Thatcher and I hope you don't mind this little criticism but I had to ask you because the whole incident just "blows my mind" Remember, we are all humans and we all make mistakes...even administrators do. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Thatcher, I did not hear from you but I understand that you are busy being an administrator and all. When you get a chance could you honestly answer my question. This is very important to me. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got a couple of 3RR reports, and been involved in several Enforcement complaints as a party or a commentator. Is there some reason you should not be officially "notified" of the existence of the remedies in the Digwuren case?  No actual sanctions or restrictions have been applied at this time.  Regarding the content dispute, you may be interested in my comments to Skapperod of 13:20, 2 July 2009 above on this page.  It is important, as a matter of respect, I think, that when there is a discussion on the talk page, no one should be reverting either way, as it undercuts the discussion; what is the point of a polite discussion if the reverting goes on at the same time?  I think it is also important to be aware of editorial factions.  Your reversion, if it had been done by Loosmark instead, would have been his 4th revert.  This may have been collusion or coincidence, it is not particularly important which.  But is does point to the fact that you are involved in the dispute and should be put on formal notice in the event that future Enforcement requests are made.  Hopefully, of course, there won't be and future reports. Thatcher 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

76.203.0.0/17
I recently created an account which bypasses your range block of 76.203.0.0/17. I intend to closely monitor this account, but would appreciate, by Wikipedia mail, any information you remember regarding the problem which resulted in the rangeblock. Fred Talk 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Email sent. Thatcher 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

75.37.0.0/20
I recently created an account which bypasses your range block of 75.37.0.0/20. I intend to closely monitor this account, but would appreciate, by Wikipedia mail, any information you remember regarding the problem which resulted in the rangeblock.  Lourie Pieterse  18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a template now? Email sent. Thatcher 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As you suggested at my talk page
See Sockpuppet investigations/MataNui44. If you could comment or provide any additional evidence, that would be sooper... --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I too subtle for my own good? Next time I will jump up and down while wearing my checkuser hat with the bells on it. Thatcher 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on. How come I never got the hat with the bells? Please forgive this impudence, Risker (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators get a different hat. Thatcher 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't that. I knew what was up.  However, I always tend to want to do these things "by the book."  As a regular patroller of CAT:UNB, it's somewhat of an annoyance when it is unclear why an account is blocked.  Invariably, these blocked accounts show up requesting an unblock, and when they do, the responding admin has to track down the blocking admin for an explanation.  The nice thing about the SPI report is that it makes it much easier for responding admins to deal with the unblock request.  Just crossing the t's and dotting the i's here. Just thinking of avoiding the downstream problems, ya know?  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)