Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 18 September 2006

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Timing for going up for RfA

I'm nearly complete with my evaluation. I'd like to go live with this on Friday. Will you be available for the time period of the RfA from that point forward for seven days to answer any questions that may arise? --Durin 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll be away Sat-Sun the 23rd-24th so it would be best to have it completed before I go. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, works for me. We'll plan on going live with it Friday then. Any particular time of day (UTC) that's best for you? I can have this ready to go on Thursday evening, giving you time to answer questions, etc. --Durin 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the U.S. East coast, so I'm awake until 04:00 UTC Friday morning (my Thursday night); then I have about 30 minutes around 11:00 at breakfast, then I'm at work until 22:00 (I can edit briefly, as now). So I guess it depends on when you think there will be a lot of action and how long a question can sit before I get to it. Do you want to recommend something based on that? Thatcher131 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in the same time zone, so let's talk EST :) So your primary availability is in the evenings then? If so, then I'd recommend I get the RfA to you on Thursday evening, and we launch Friday evening, sometime after you get back from work. How does that sound? --Durin 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Thatcher131 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to read through User:Durin/My_guidelines_for_admin_nomination#What_to_do_if_I_have_nominated_you now, in preparation for Thursday evening. --Durin 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, glad to see this conversation. About time. JoshuaZ 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:CHILD

I know you'd like your proposal to be given equal consideration, but replacing the one most people are talking about with it gives the impression that you're trying to make it seem as if your proposal is the better-known WP:CHILD rather than an alternative to it.

In any case, I've reverted it back to the last prior version, and in future please don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make your point. CameoAppearance 07:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I wrote both proposals to start with, and the reason I wrote WP:CHILD2 was based on the direction of the discussion at the first proposal. Since User:Radiant! unilaterally blanked WP:CHILD2 and redirected it, he/she effectively killed it before it ever got fair consideration. Thatcher131 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lorrainier

Sorry to disturb but I am unable to ascertain the outcome of this users CU request? Was it conclusive as I would really like to remove this troll from our midst, thanks - Glen 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a disturbtion at all. The case is Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee. It looks like Aeon tried to get Mackensen to check all the contibutors to the MFD at about the same time you added Lorrainer, and Mackensen dismissed it as a fishing expedition. (Mackensen will generally look at specific requests within reason but asking for a check on an entire MfD without even specifying which accounts were suspect was never going to cut it.) If you don't have enough evidence on behavior to block Lorrainer, you can make a new request on the page listing just Lorrainer and Dr Chatterjee as the main account; or listing by name other accounts you are suspicious of. Thatcher131 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitration hearing evidence for Thatcher

This is being submitted anonymously to protect the identity of my username--too much retaliation going around these days for voicing any opinions contrary to certain mind sets. Please add this as corrolary evidence to the MONGO ArbCom as the active clerk working the case. All the arguments about the ED article being deleted for "non-notability" were/are a sham--see all the news sources, including broadcast & print media, all covering the site, which is *very* notable. It's alexa rank has bounced from 15,000 to 1,500 this past month, up and down. Which goes back again to the arguments on there--if there is a new official policy that any hyper-critical sites cannot be linked out to or have articles, they need to honestly stop pussy footing about it and using passive aggressive language. The article should not have been deleted, as there is *NO* policy, rule, or reasoning to delete articles about sites that are critical about Misplaced Pages/ians. Again... Wikitruth. Thanks for your consideration.

Requesting that as this is ARBITRATION COMMITTEE EVIDENCE, no one but Thatcher is allowed to edit these comments. His decision whether or not to submit this evidence.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/ED:PRESS

June 2005:

• The Guardian, a major United Kingdom newsmagazine, reported on ED's political commentary about the George W. Bush role in the TL;DR article on ED.

January 2006:

• Bantown claimed responsibility on ED for discovery of a critical Livejournal hack, as reported by the Washington Post.

September 2006:

TV news coverage

• MSNBC TV - MSNBC, the major and leading cable news network, reported on ED and its role in the RFJason Craigslist Experiment, including screen shots of the website and the URL, and specifically talking ABOUT the site by name repeatedly. Google Video mirror, and YouTube mirror.

International news coverage

• The Ottawa Sun referenced ED, quoting our take on the evolution of the Emo scene.
• The Toronto Sun also reported on our coverage of that music scene, in a much more expanded article.
• Spiegal, a major German news source, reported on ED and Jason Fortuny.
• La Press Affairs, a leading Francophone news source, also covered ED and Fortuny.

Major blogosphere

• Boing Boing - http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/10/the_seattle_craigsli.htm
• Broowaha - http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=88
• Good Morning Silicon Valley - http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/09/perhaps_youd_be.html
• Waxy - http://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1553329
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog? entry_id=1553813

Reply

I appreciate your confidence in me. I think this evidence has very little to do with the ongoing arbitration case. Regardless of whether the deletion of the ED article was "right" is some abstract sense, the problem is the conduct of the parties during and after the AfD debate.

What you have done here is to begin to make a reasonable case for the recreation of an ED article. I still think one important factor is lacking--independent verifiable info about ED that does not come from its own web site. Who founded it? What are their goals? Who runs it? Who pays for the bandwidth? When an independent article comes out from somewhere addressing these issues, more editors will switch sides on the topic. Thatcher131 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That backslasher proxy

I blocked them based on your report, and their contributions after the rfc pages were all spamming crap. I also deleted the empty rfc created by them. Cheers. Syrthiss 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terryeo's subpage

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

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

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

Re: Squeakbox and Hagiographer

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

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

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

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

Arbcom appeal

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