Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 12 January 2007

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

• User talk:Thatcher131/SSB

Edit warring at Anthroposophy

The edit warring continues worse than ever, in my opinion. I wish it weren't so, but Pete K is completely interfering with my own efforts toward progress so far. He may not be the only guilty one, but Pete K is reverting my own contributions as if the article belongs to him personally. And he has kept me so busy by undoing what I've fixed that I haven't had time to see what other editors are changing. His latest with me is an edit war to preserve confirmed plagiarized language, including removing my good faith change to keep the message intact but to rewrite it so it isn't copied word for word. (It's ungrammatical also.) He has turned a deaf ear to all my explanations on talk pages. It is like talking to a wall. He only cooperates with administrators it looks like, but not other editors involved in the articles. Besides, he changes things like his own opinion is good enough to alter in the article what independent sources referenced have said. (See edit war over book Philosophy of Freedom.) Does the arbitration decision and policies at wikipedia apply to other people but not to him? It's a fair estimate that about two thirds of his edits to articles made since this went to arbitration, including most of those made since the decision, have been reverts. So far he's either rewritten a statement so its wrong, or just took out each of the independent source materials I've found for fact tages he put there. He has also restored the mistakes he's made that I've tried to fix (including that plagiarized sentence, which after telling him 3 times he can't do, added a sneered comment "boring" and put it back). And ignored my telling him of sources that he claims say something that they don't say at all. I mean, at all. After pointing one example of it to him over and over again, first he defended it in several messages, then he admitted I was correct, but I see the bad reference is still there.

His revert wars with me would be completely avoidable with good faith consultation between us on talk pages, but he has made little attempt I can see to work cooperatively, and won't take my concerns seriously and at least checking them out before arguing with me. With PEte K, it's revert first, talk only if he's got no more reverts coming. He's so bold, he reverted a source I found to replace a fact tag, saying "text doesn't say that" but he hadn't even read the text. When I quoted it to him, he pretended it means something altogether different than what it says--so now that he reads it, he distorts it and edits the passage in the article to new words that are the opposite of what the source said. So if he disagrees with something, he first pretended the source doesn't say it, then insisted the source is wrong if it did, and finally, that the source says something other than the words written in it clearly indicate. It's a crazy waste of time--5 or 6 edits back and forth over something that was obviously fine in the first place once an independent source was found.

I'm trying to remain civil threw this, but it is hard to accept this disruptive activity is done in good faith. But I'm finding it impossible to edit there without edit warring with Pete K. What little progress has been made has been achieved only after Pete K has reverted me more than once. I have tried to avoid reverting mistakes he has made, but he leaves little choice when he won't be persuaded to correct them himself. Venado 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it got through

There's been a little discussion of it too - but I thought I should put my opinion of it on-wiki. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerks

Good evening (GMT time); I am formally expressing my interest in becoming an ArbCom Clerk; I have already contacted User:MacGyverMagic and he referred me to you, informing me that although the clerk staff list is full, I can ask to be put on a backup list. I am currently looking to donate a large portion of my time on Misplaced Pages to a Dispute Resolution organisation, and I have decided that the Arbitration Committee is the best option. I understand the function of a clerk, and I am one of the current Checkuser standby clerks. Therefore, I am going to ask you to place me on the waiting list - so long as you do not doubt my abilities.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection

Hi Thatcher131, I have not been following the article for a long while, but I noticed that Kosovo has been protected for over a month. Is this part of the article probation? Thanks, Asterion 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected it due to edit warring, it seemed more reasonable than trying to figure out which editors to block or ban. There haven't been any other requests to unprotect or {{edit protected}} requests, so I've left it alone. I'll be happy to unprotect it if you think the parties have settled down. Thatcher131 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am as puzzled as you are that no one has even bothered to request unprotection. I will check the talk page and test the water. Cheers, Asterion 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If possible, would it be possible to downgrade the protection to semi-protection as an intermediate step? Thanks, Asterion 11:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DOne. Thatcher131 12:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

bibliography link at SSB comment page

Could you look at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Comments and tell me if you're ok with what I put there? I will spare you the longwinded policy justification for it if you think the url is ok based on its contents. If necessary I can defend it at more length. I think the link is valuable and will be helpful to anyone seriously trying to improve the SSB article, which is pretty weak right now. See also this comment. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?

I thnik I am going to drop the username soon, I have a million proxies I can use instead. Wouldnt that sucks to lose another contributor. --NuclearZer0 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that. You got off easy on the sock thing the first time, but not again. In my opinion, the two images have technical copyright problems. I'm sure that having them nominated by your regular opponents contributes to a feeling of persecution. It would be best to ask for a review by a neutral admin who knows a lot about images, rather than bickering among yourselves. I can help a little, or I would recommend Durin, to start with. I also don't think that your probation was meant to endorse complaints to WP:AE as the first attempt at communication, with no attempt to engage you on your talk or the noticeboard talk page first. But stubborness on your part does not help. You might approach User:UninvitedCompany about this. He is newly elected to Arbcom on a platform that included, among other things, resistance to the overuse of probation. You can reference me if you like, as well as the various comments I have made in past disputes. I would say that some kind of arbitration remedy is still needed in your case as you continue to get into conflicts, but maybe he has some creative ideas that would be less susceptible to abuse. Thatcher131 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am gonig to horribly violate WP:AGF but in the hope of explaining to you what happened. I was part of a clique that included Morton, Tbeatty, Mongo, Tom etc. we used to communicate off wiki for deletions, using the noticeboard basically. I would get emails telling me how I should vote and what guidelines etc. Kinda whats on the noticeboard now. Anyway I recently exposed the truth since its really not against any guidelines to tell people how they should vote and what policies, as long as you do it off wiki or in your own user space, meaning not posting to each persons. I cited this as a flaw and exposed how it worked etc, the admin protection we had under an understanding kinda thing, we were doing MONGO's dirty work and all. So Morton posts on my page basically saying he wont be my friend anymore, then removing me from his friends list all together on his own user page. Then in came the workers, I say workers because certain people play certain roles, like Morton removes sources from articles to prep them for WP:RS complains during the AfD, I pose as neutral to give the board a good image and play passive agressive, Tbeatty kinda does as Morton does. Arthur Rubin plays far neutral, not seeming like a member at all, Hipocrite does a lot of the agitating on talk pages and "snitching" and we all work together to preserve our versions. Tom reverts, the Morton, then Tbeatty, then Arthur, then Hipocrite etc. Since the article is on the noticeboard we know what to watch. We know what limits to push, what talk infuriates people. Just keep callnig the opposing party "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" and they will get annoyed, and usually say something stupid enough to be cited for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. The thing is Thatcher is the system works on 1 to 1 editing, 3RR stops revert wars when its 1 to 1, but when its 3-1, it just helps maintain a particular view. Its why Travb, FAAFA, Nescio, Seabhcan, Stone Put To Sky, etc ended up on the losing end or gone or de-sysop'd, they worked alone and didnt form up to make their own boards etc. Their own "teams". You can see usually from the AfD's, one person makes an arguement and everyone just rephrases it or says, "per morton", yet they appear to be a concensus because 7 editors on one AfD is higher then normal for such a little known topic, and they all vote the same ... Anyway happy new year, I am gonig to log my trends offline most likely for voting habits of people on that noticeboard as well as admin actions by some etc. Feel free to remove or keep, I mean, what happens when the truth is that people operate in bad faith? --NuclearZer0 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"I pose as neutral to give the board a good image and play passive agressive"? Irrespective of off-wiki organization, your admission of deceit (posing as neutral) describes gaming Misplaced Pages at its worst and in my humble view, is unacceptably tendentious conduct - saying nothing of your prior ban. I'm grateful for your honesty, but I think you've disrupted the community under your latest name long enough. I hope for WP's sake that the ArbCom agrees. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a "cabal" dreamed-up in Nuclear's head. I don't communicate with NuclearUmpf off-wiki -- he does not now, and as far as I know, has never had Wiki-enabled e-mail. I have not sent Nuclear a single e-mail. If Nuclear has sided with edits, it's because he independently chose to do so, not because of any secret "directive" from me. There is no cabal (unless of course, you're talking about the enlightened ones). Morton devonshire 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt certain parts of his story. But clearly you, Morton, have a habit of soliciting like-minders for off-wiki conversation. I noted this to MONGO some time ago, with links, in the context of your repeated vote-stacking attempts. To the extent that Nuclear is fibbing, he is simply exploiting a culture of secrecy and distrust that you have promoted by your actions. Derex 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand - and I'm intentionally limiting the scope of my observation to Nuclear, since his allegations about the conduct of others is essentially hearsay - but his view of his behavior (and his alone) as well as his described intentions is egregious and unacceptable in my opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One would wonder why I was included in this insidious cabal - I have not edited any of this conspiracy cruft, or talk pages thereof for months, untill I stepped on NU's new adopted savior of all that is nonsense. Could he just *gasp* be making things up? Say it isn't so! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor is that everyone is willing to say Nuclear is lying completely, except for his own involvement in the non existent cabal. So silly, you can't have it both ways, I could not operate for a non-existent cabal. --NuclearZer0 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Zer0, The reality is that if you're telling the truth, your conduct has been egregious and disruptive. If you're lying, your lies and accusations against others are egregious and disruptive. Do you understand? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You accused me on this very page of being a sockpuppet, if you stand by your words and find accusations to be disruptive, then accept a 2 day block and I will do the same. Both would be forms of punishment and preventative, but if you believe what you are saying truely then you will accept the punishment for disrupting Misplaced Pages by accusing your fellow editors of violations of policy. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ludicrous and illogical, so please just cut it out, since I won't take your bait. I stand by my previous actions and no block is warranted for what you claim I have done (which I have not). Do you stand by your actions (those you describe in your admission/lie)? It would appear not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This "off wiki" accusation is new to me. I don't think I ever contacted NU off wiki. I certainly don't recruit voters or send out alerts that an article is up for deletion. Nor do I revert editors in any coordinated effort. There is certainly no coordinated effort off wiki that involves me and I would appreciate it if you removed my name from the above accusation. --Tbeatty 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So any email addy I have, I can post, since it clearly would not be Tims email? --NuclearZer0 11:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could let some admins decide this, in confidentiatly, kind of like what happened with User:XP being booted indefinetly. The evidence was given to an agreeing admin in confidentiality.

User:NuclearUmpf: Do not post anyone's e-mail address though, because this will lead you to be booted immediatly. You could e-mail me the chatboard address if you like Nuclear, I would be interested. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt actually do it, I know the tears that would flow. But Since Tbeatty knows they emailed me and wouldnt show up here to state I can post the email, I think the point is proven. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, you are just blowing my mind Nuclear. :) I don't know if I should embrace this change or be weary of it. I just love wikipedia...Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do it to let this drop. I certainly can't see how posting e-mail addresses or messages to prove a point will help any of you edit more collegially with each other. I'm not even sure the alleged contact is wrong. If editors get together on-wiki its called noticeboard or a wikiproject, and if a bunch of people feel the same way about a topic, it's usually called "consensus." There's nothing wrong with editors having strong points of view as long as it can't be detected by a third party reading the article, and as long as the editors follow the rules, play nice, and respect each other. I'm certainly not wise enough to decide this conduct was good or bad and take steps about it. Anyone who really wants to take steps will probably have to go to arbitration. Public disclosure of (alleged) e-mail addresses in an RFC would be a bad breach of privacy and ethics, and the arbcom has a closed mailing list for considering such things. I'd like to think that you can all put this behind you, though. Thatcher131 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bedtime

Please excuse delays in my responses to comments on the AN/Enforcement page, as it's bedtime. Good night, and be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd ge happier with a third opinion, at this point. Thatcher131 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I would, but I wish you well nonetheless - and similarly, I hope you bear me no ill will among our long-standing disagreements. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No colored hats

I don't wear a hat, don't work for the feds, and don't belong to any organized group of editors who are ganging up on NuclearUmpf. If action is unwarranted, don't take action. But I'm increasingly annoyed by these accusations that I edit on anyone's account but my own. I get enough of that with Cplot, and I don't really care to have more of it from respected members of the community. Tom Harrison 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said or endorsed that view. White hat/black hat is a dramatic metaphor. There are certainly editors who tend to agree with Nuclear and editors who tend to disagree, and you don't get drama unless you have at least two sides. I don't know or care who is right on the content issue; I certainly don't accuse anyone of editing in concert inappropriately, despite the "admission" above, which I take with a grain of salt. (When a bunch of people share similar views on a topic isn't that called "consensus"?) I just think in this case that probation was not meant to be enforced in the way you want. I could be wrong. I have asked for clarification once and was ignored, I plan to ask again. Thatcher131 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 'people who share a similar view' is much better than 'cast of characters.' I don't care so much about the enforcement issue - if you think it does not 'rise to the level' or whatever, fine. I'm a little touchy I guess about accusations that I conspire behind the scenes to suppress the Truth, and that led me to read your comments in a way you didn't mean. Tom Harrison 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, my concerns are echoed and dealt with by this response also. Thanks, T131. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

retake of "Surprise, how did that happen"

Hi I was on vacation and your reply was already in the archives...

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive7#surprise.2C_how_did_that_happen.3F

I still like to clarify something. You wrote:

1. Another is the issue of the Undue weight section of NPOV; not only should fringe topics be covered but how much. So for example if you want to write about "tired light" being responsible for red shift rather than the expansion of the universe (an idea which almost no one believes) you can right about if there are reliable sources describing the theory, but you should also say that almost no one believes it.
2. You should look at the principles that passed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles; that's the final decision anyway. If you believe those principles are too restrictive, then I suppose you won't be interested in editing any more. If you would like clarification, you could ask at the RFAR talk page, or for a more general discussion on editing policy try the Village pump. The other thing to do is to keep editing articles the way you want, keeping in mind the need for cooperation, collegiality and consensus, and you may be able to work things out with individual editors as you go along. I'm not sure that is a specific enough answer to help you, sorry. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: I fully agree.

Point 2: I had not seen that, thanks! I also fully agree.

The problem is that, IMO, the editor in question has clearly shown (both with words and with actions) to disagree, and that was what I thought that the case was about. For example, for some time he edit warred with me in an attempt to delete modern peer-reviewed tired light theories from the article "Tired light", while proper reference to a few of such fringe theories should be included, especially in an article about the subject. It was only after a long struggle that he agreed to include a minimal reference to such ideas.

He doesn't seem to have changed much so that IMO general articles are at risk of being made more tunnelvision (single POV) by suppression of scientific minority opinions by all possible means (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression ). I also provided one or two more recent examples in the arbitration discussion. It's a bit like a court case in which one person accuses another of stealing and other witnesses confirm it, but the accuser is jailed for fraud and the accused walks out free. Harald88 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I would suggest (at least) semiprotecting the arbitration pages you courtesy-blanked. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted them. We'll see. Thatcher131 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marsden

Thatcher, was it the article you intended to sprotect? There hasn't been any recent anon editing to it, but there has to the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected Rachel Marsden last week but forgot to tag it. I think Marsden, Kinsella, and Bourrie should all be permanently s-protected based on Jimbo's view quoted at WP:SEMI "...minor of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, Vandalism." They always end up that way anyway, some admin checking the protection list but with no background in the articles unprotects as "long enough" or some such, and sooner or later one or the other "side" will discover that they can edit anonymously again, and it has to be re-protected. Protecting the talk pages should be more limited but seems to be required from time to time as well, unfortunately. Thatcher131 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good to me. I've sprotected Talk:Rachel Marsden because an anon kept adding a legal threat. I also archived the page, because people were reposting links that aren't in the article, in what looked like an effort to have them published via talk. I'll leave talk sprotected for a day or so; I'm happy for the article to stay sprotected. SlimVirgin 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

True, but no one likes personal attacks either, hence the discussion generated by JzG's various posts. You calling me a "smartass," and Grace Note now referring to the user as a "twat" can hardly be construed as helpful. KazakhPol 07:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages

Thanks for your response to this issue. It does seem problematic that users may delete notices, such as this . Now that I have read through your response, I realize that I may have been in error in protecting that page temporarily from further blanking. Should I go back and fix that now? Thanks for your patience, I am still in my first year as an admin, so the learning curve remains. Best, --Kukini 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you protected someone talk page to stop them from removing warnings there I would definitely unprotect it. Cheers. Thatcher131 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm much less concerned about IPs, and particularly blatant IP vandals. I have also s-protected the talk page he was vandalizing, and deleted some revisions with libelous edit summaries. Thatcher131 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be sure I do what is right...in the above IP case, should I unprotect the page now? --Kukini 01:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium Incident(s)

Sorry to bother you, I don't know if this is the correct institutional route, but TDC reverted today my edits on Depleted Uranium on the grounds of me being a "James sockpuppet", without first discussing them on the relevant talk page, (and even after being invited to do so). Besides being extremely rude (I obviously am no sockpuppet), I believe he violated his revert parole sentence in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium which I found trying to understand why the talk page on Depleted Uranium looked so paranoid. Thanks in advance for your attention! Massimamanno 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I found the administrator noticeboard right now, I will edit there. Massimamanno 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Evidence}}

Heh, thanks for fixing that! (I'm not quite sure why the spaced links don't work, as they do on {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}. There must be something different about having them included through a meta-template, but I have no idea what that might be.) Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I rolled over the template and the spaced links were there but they were very small. I figured as long as the talk page links were going to be there, might as well let people see them. Thatcher131 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the information on WP:RCU. KP Botany 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deiphon

FWIW I am not related to the other "Bourrie" suspects. Just wanted to make a helpful comment with some anonymity. Cause of all the problems this issue has caused people just like the petepeters stuff I was pointing out. I just wanted everyone to think of the problems caused for Bourrie so maybe wiki could do a little cleaning like you did and Ellis could think about the problems he is causing for Bourrie too. I am very sorry for that. --Deiphon 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to apologize for; you anonymously jumped into a very contentious situation involving anonymous users, so some suspicion is to be expected. It was helpful to point out those edits. I didn't think you were Ellis, since one of his IPs came along and deleted your messages quoting the rather vile statements (which was fine with me, too, under the circumstances). I just wish he'd find a new hobby. Thatcher131 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how someone who claims to be semi-literate, such as public-service-minded Deiphon, would have come up with a mongrelization of the Latin for "Voice of God". Mighty nice, Warren! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.79.35 (talk • contribs)

I've got a PhD, too and I didn't pick up on that until you mentioned it. Thatcher131 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

I picked the name and I didn't see that either. Nope just a trilobite genus I like. I'm not that creative. --Deiphon 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Thatcher131 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Golly. I must say, that is funny. Well played, old sport. Got to get me one of those... I'm an Arctinurus man, myself...209.217.79.35 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Husnock arbitration

Please tell me how I would go about filing a complaint against Mr. Durin. I do not appreciate being called someone's happy sock and all I did was answer a question that some else posted about how I knew about this website. He is now writing crap about me being someone else because I happened to use the same computer lab and saw a bookmarked page. Total bullshit. Thanks -Pahuskahey 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I would drop the subject and go do whatever it is you want to do here. Sockpuppet (see also the wikipedia sockpuppet policy) is a legitimate term denoting a user account operated by another person. It's really inevtiable that someone from Dubai who has an interest in that particular arbitration case would be suspected of being Husnock. (Arbitration really is an esoteric area of wikipedia; article editors can go for months without ever being aware of the meta side of the project. And Durin was subject to a lot of unfounded attacks from Husnock when he edited in his own name, so he is understandably sensitive. Whether you are or aren't has no bearing on your ability to edit other articles, so long as you are not disruptive and follow the normal rules of conduct expected by any editor. I would simply go about your business and avoid making yourself a further party to the arbitration case, and just let this rather minor incident fade away. Thatcher131 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There is substantial additional evidence other than just that Pahuskahey and Husnock posted from Dubai. I fully recognize that Dubai is home to a very large number of people, and it is hardly reasonable to presume the only person who could be from Dubai is Husnock. There's plenty of other evidence. I do not make accusations lightly. If Pahuskahey wishes to file a complaint against me, I will gladly step him through the process of doing so. --Durin 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever he is, he can either go edit quietly somewhere, or he can continue to make an issue of this, which I would not recommend, for several reasons. Thatcher131 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the image of the man smoking has an embedded string of Copyright 1998 by Hewlett Packard. If you're curious, I can provide you with the evidence that shows Husnock and Pahuskahey to be one and the same. So long as he does not abuse sockpuppets, I don't have any issue with him being whoever he wants to be. He *has* abused sockpuppets before on a number of occasions and at a minimum that behavior must stop. If he wants to edit quietly, within the bounds of policy here, as whoever he wants to be, fine. I have no issue with that. I'll be *quite* happy to leave him alone. --Durin 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the string as well, but I think its meaning is ambiguous. Some of the photos that I have edited with photoshop have Adobe copyright strings even though they are my own photos, and it seems that iPhoto adds a copyright string to any photo it generates. It is possible that the pipe-smoking man was scanned using an HP scanner or edited using HP branded software. That being said, the idea that that an American professor in Dubai would just happen to begin editing editing articles about minor Star Trek topics just at the time Husnock left defies Occam's razor, independent of any other "tells" you might be aware of. I understand your feelings about participating in a "charade" I think you called it, but I don't mind charades, at least provisionally, as long as the situation cools off and Pahuskahey behaves with reasonable decorum (as opposed to being naive, which I may have given the impression of). One thing I am putting a stop to is pot-stirring by "systems admins" in the "computer lab" at AMU. Since there is no danger that all of Dubai will be blocked as a result of the case, there is no need to entertain those threads. Thatcher131 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. I wish I had never answered that question about how I knew about that page. To clear up about my picture, my daughter took that picture and e-mailed it to me. If I have broken rules about posting it, let me know and I will post another. There seems little effort in speaking to some people about who I am, they will apparently not be satisfied unless they come to Dubai and see me, my office, and our computer labs. I do enjoy Star Trek, its how I was drawn to this site because they say it had good Star Trek articles. -Pahuskahey 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the pictures are yours, there's no problem. If they were found somewhere and used here to create a false identity, it might be a copyright problem, depending on where the originals came from. Just have fun editing, whoever you are. Thatcher131 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some of the information that connects Pahuskahey to Husnock. I am holding back some more due to wanting to ensure that Husnock does not learn how to keep his socks hidden if he abuses sockpuppets in the future. Husnock, in the form of Pahuskahey, is expecting us to to believe that despite:

• On the very day that Husnock decided to "leave" Misplaced Pages (, see edit summary), User:Pahuskahey was created .
• Pahuskahey sharing a remarkably similar interest in topics regarding Star Trek and military ranks (see editing history of Pahuskahey and Husnock to verify yourself if you like)
• Pahuskahey posts from Dubai, where Husnock is currently located
• Pahuskahey happens to create image montages (see Image:SonsMedals.jpg) just like Husnock does (see Image:AllPharHouses.jpg). Note terrible alignment problems in both images and black background in both images.

...this is supposedly all a massive coincidence? On this information alone, much less the other pieces of data I have, there would be well more than enough proof to have Pahuskahey blocked if Husnock had been banned from the site. Husnock seems to think we are all stupid and incapable of seeing a duck when it quacks, flies, swims, eats, looks and smells like a duck. I find it particularly and utterly despicable that Husnock claims to have a son that died in Afghanistan and was awarded the Silver Star, the fifth highest award a U.S. service member can receive (see medal upper left in Image:SonsMedals.jpg). Real people are dying there, earning real Silver Stars. He despoils their memories and tarnishes the reputations those people have rightfully earned by this outrageous claim. --Durin 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that if a military officer were to make up a son, falsely claim him to be KIA, and falsely allocate to him a silver star, he would reap more scorn and disapproval from his fellows than would ever result from an editing spat over Star Trek articles. My only philosophy is that if someone is driving over a cliff and there is nothing I can do to stop it, at least I won't push. I wish them all well—Husnock, Col. Dan, the computer lab administrator, and the professor—and I hope the case closes soon so we can put this behind us. Thatcher131 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty disgusting how he's using his wikipedia userpage - like most liars (and there is no other word for it), he doesn't know when to stop. Whoever that solider is in the picture on his page it's unconnected to the story he's weaving.

How is this suppose to "close" when Husnock seems to playing a game - one where his actions seem to be designed to drawn attention to himself? he's just taking the piss at this stage. --Charlesknight 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• (responding in general) There's more options than choosing to either watch someone drive off a cliff or helping to push someone off a cliff. We can choose to try to stop them from driving over the cliff. I've been attempting to get him to stop. Yet, the lies continue to mount. Now, he's claiming a PhD in English from the University of Virginia...yet he makes multiple routine errors in spelling. The equivalent would be if he were an ASE certified mechanic, he wouldn't know how to change oil on a car. I don't intend to do anything more about it, in so far as his rampant lies have no effect on Misplaced Pages. It's unfortunate he's chosen the path that he has, but my efforts to stop his behavior have failed. However, I don't intend on letting this project be harmed by his actions if they tread in ways that have a negative effect on the project.
• One way in which he is doing so now is falsifying the source of images he is uploading. I can not absolutely prove that the supposed image of himself and his supposed granddaughter are source falsified. However, the supposed image of his son with the image being sent to him while his son was in Afghanistan is provably false. Myself and others have investigated all coalition deaths in Afghanistan matching them against the "facts" stated by him and can find no matching candidate casualties. His son dying in Afghanistan is a blatant lie, and thus the source being his son in Afghanistan is also a lie. We do not, therefore, know the source of the image since he has provably lied about it. I intend on placing the image for IfD. --Durin 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I have a question: Pete K repeatedly insists on removing research links I gave in a posting one month ago in one discussion, in answer to a question by someone. Removal 1, 2, 3. He tells he will continue to remove them as I reinsert them again. Please see here. I have not added the links in any Misplaced Pages article (except by mistake the research overview four months ago), just as a contribution in discussions of research issues at Talks pages. Does the removal of the research links from my posting constitute vandalism, that I can revert as such without 3RR problem? Or can't I? I'd be grateful for an answer. As far as I understand the arbitration decision 30 Dec. on the issue, links to for example Waldorf Answers, where many basic issues regarding WE are described and discussed are OK in discussions, if not in articles. Have I understood this correctly?

Also, I have some questions regarding a number of the edits by Pete K since the arbitration. Fred Bauder seems busy with a new arbitration and does not seem to adress questions that much at his Talks page at present. Can you suggest to whom in the ArbCom I should adress my questions? Thanks, Thebee 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I too have a list of complaints already and would like to address them to the appropriate persons. Pete K 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators do not follow-up or enforce cases once they are closed, they leave that to ordinary admins. You can post a complaint to arbitration enforcement, although, as it happens, I am one of the few who hangs out there. The ruling in your case assumes a great deal of good faith and does not give individual admins much authority to impose coercive solutions. I'm afraid that each of you thinks that if the case were reopened, "the other guy" would get banned. This is a dangerous assumption. Thatcher131 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Un-block user Ahven is a fish, please

Hi, Thatcher131. Please unblock my user account. Thousands of people can use the IP address(es) I've written from. This is the way the system is operated in this part of the world. They have rotating IP addresses over here, and this ought not to be held against us Misplaced Pages contributors.

Although I've written only from one computer, the IP address can change. In a couple of occasions, the log-in session was dropped, while I surfed in Misplaced Pages. Then an IP address was left to mark the contribution in the history file. This was not denied. I've not pretended to be two different people.

The user accounts listed with mine, are not mine. I must not be honored for the contributions of Masa62, Huckleberry Hugo, etc., and therefore those people are being unfairly treated as well.

I can continue using only the one account, Ahven is a fish. Thank you. Ahven is a fish 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I don't really know enough about the Kven-user case to be able to evaluate the evidence. You should try talking to the admins who blocked you, or the checkuser who performed the check. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Too bad"

Would I be failing to assume good faith if I took that to mean that there were other motivations there?
brenneman 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

probably {trout slap} Thatcher131 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slap duly noted, thank you. - brenneman 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Education etc arbitration

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The primary editors involved have not let up the edit warring, and especially Pete K is edit warring at an even faster pace than he was before the arbitration. In under two weeks since the arbitration was closed he has racked up about 50 reverts, not all identified in the summary as such but it's still easy to see how many there are. . Even reverting to preserve plagiarized text. . This is the atmosphere there now. Pete K edits under his own fiat, he reverts under his own fiat, and orders everyone else to "take it to the talk page first" where he will, if he feels like it, grant someone else permission to make a particular edit too. While others have helped by finding sources by outside publishers, as we were supposed to do, he reverts those references if he feels like it, (just one here reverted with a false excuse, he later admits he hadn't even read the source). And he even continues to add new references to Steiner published materials, this one also just one easy for me to find quickly He even edit wars over changes to talk pages . As maybe the ultimate symbol of what a mockery he's made of the arbitration process, instead of abiding by the terms and intentions of its decision, Pete K does his part by warring to put two "article probation" tags on the page instead of one, , saying two signs instead of one will "grab attention better". He's even received another 24 ban for 3rr edit warring, his 3rd one in 6 months.

The arbitration failed completely. Even though nobody deserves it as much as Pete K, after all the time wasted by everybody to gather and check evidence the first time around, it might be a better use of time to just ban everybody for a long cooling off period, even me. I don't think I've done anything to deserve it, but if that's what it takes to avoid another marathon of diffs to get the picture, take out everybody involved from editing those articles. Venado 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with I blocked Pete K and Hgilbert for 24 hours each for edit warring, and left a detailed message on the talk pages. Unfortunately, there are no more specific remedies in the arbitration case other than what generally applies to all editors. It may be necessary to reopen the case to apply more specific penalties, but no one should look forward to that and think he/she will be the one left standing. Thatcher131 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I have read the arbitration ruling closely and have come to a somewhat different conclusion than you with regard to what are to be considered acceptible sources as citations for what types of info in the Waldorf related articles, based on the description of the Verifiability point, in the Final decision:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

I interpret that to say that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered reliable. Do you find this interpretation to be wrong?

The unclear point is what is to be considered controversial in the articles, and that in the case of the Waldorf article refers to what in general is practiced at about 900 schools world wide, applying similar principles and curricula.

Pete K has stated that he's about to put 200 fact tags in the article on Waldorf education. That would put a demand for verification on the article in a separate category from probably all other articles at Misplaced Pages. It would constitute extremely bad faith hostile editing.

This comes to expression also for example, just to mention a fex examples, one of them mentioned above by Venado, his repeated insistence first that the Waldorf article has an Article probation info box not only at the Talks page, like all other articles on probation, but also at the top of the Article page itself calling the removal "aggressive editing", and then, when giving up on this, insisting , that at least two Article probation info boxes be placed, one directly on top of the other at the Talks page of the article, not only the one you put there, but also another more general one directly below it. Another - to me - strange repeated insistence by him is that the word anti-racism (and probably also not "anti racism" or "antiracism" either) cannot be used in a section title, arguing that it is not a word.

I think one must have sympathy for the difficulty for the ArbCom in penetrating the complex issue of how to come to a reasonable decision regarding the editing of the articles in question with on the one hand a tendency to bloat the Waldorf article with not immediately cited language, and on the other hand the extremely hostile editing practiced by Pete K.

As far as I understand, nothing in the Arbitration decision indicates that that part of the WP:NOR policy should not be applied in this case, that says:

"... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

How to attain that reasonable goal?

If Pete K is banned for one or other reason, I'm confident that more level headed, reasoned and reasonable critics will take his place and contribute to a more normal situation for the editing of the articles. I'm sorry for my part in having contributed to the present situation four months ago.

Thanks, Thebee 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this part of WP:NOR also applies. There is some tension between "source-based research" and "drawing novel conclusions from primary sources." When in doubt, use reliable secondary sources. So for example, claims regarding racism being controversial, you can't use Waldorf sources to show that Waldorf is/was racist/anti-racist. Pete K seems to have some disagreement over a supposed policy against wearing black. He can not use school handbooks (self-published and not necessarily representative of the movement) or parent blogs as sources. Pete claims that the high school cirriculum section leaves out key points. If you can't agree on how to describe the cirriculum, then out it goes unless you can quote a third party source. And so on.

This is not an ideal example, but I have previously dealt with a group of editors on the topic of goth metal music. They all know what goth metal is, and which bands are and which aren't, but since they each "know" something different, they edit war. If one of them could quote a third party authority, it would have to stop. Similarly on the active arb case involving Brahma Kumaris. Two editors, one a current insider and one a former insider, now disenchanted, both have access to movement documents, teaching aids and scriptures that are not available to the general public. One insists that BK is planning the end of the world and is a dangerous cult, the other denies. Again, all based on personal knowledge, and personal interpretation and conclusion from primary sources.

You may have a case that Pete K is the most disruptive and that merely banning him will solve the problem for everyone else. Perhaps the committee will see it that way. Roll the dice if you must. Thatcher131 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! On a first reading, I completely agree with your stance. What is stated as Waldorf theory says nothing about in what sense and to what extent the theory also is practiced. For that, systematical empirical sources are necessary. A difference in relation to Brahma Kumaris is that much of the original sources regarding anthroposophy in terms of what Steiner himself wrote or said is published on the net, and thus available for everyone to check against statements or articles about it, for example by such an author as a Mr. Staudenmaier. As for a possible ban on Pete K, as I see it, it would solve most of the issues regarding the articles involved, in terms of making the issues possible to discuss and agree on in a reasonable manner. My only real problem is with him, and he's the only one I'm polemical against (except the last days also "Wikivag"). I have experience of bullying, and I see no reason to accept it from him just to keep the peace in discussions. It's deeply degrading and insulting, both in personal terms and to reasonable thinking and arguing, and noone should have to be faced with it. But one issue is not clear. I have the definite impression that the "new" editor using the name "Wikiwag", though claiming to be a 62 year old man who likes to be adressed "Captain" or Sir(?), is a sock puppet for Diana W, set up after few days after Diana understood herself to have been blocked from editing an article on RS or anthroposophy. I have described the reasons for this impression at the Talks page of Durova, and asked her to look into it. So relieving to read someone sensible in all these discussions, as also I think Venado is. Again, thanks for your answer. Thebee 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking...

Hey Thatcher, just checking... did you happen to get the email I sent you a couple of days ago (regarding wiki-clerking)? I was just wondering, I *think* I sent it to you through the wiki system, so maybe it got lost somewhere... – Chacor 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Got distracted. Will e-mail you back. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kay, awaiting a (hopefully positive! lol) reply. – Chacor 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

That was a mistake there...it won't happen again, I promise :)--SomeStranger 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy to hit the wrong button. No problem. Thatcher131 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Izzy Dot

In the Naming Conventions case, someone just made the valid point that User:Izzy Dot is proposed to be banned for two weeks, although he is not a party to the case and has apparently not been notified of it. As it happens, Izzy Dot hasn't edited since a 24-hour civility block in mid-November anyway. Under the circumstances, do you think he should be given formal notice of the case, or just let it ride, or ask the arbitrators what to do (I believe it was Uninvited Company who proposed the ban)? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Izzy Dot (talk · contribs) was a pretty obvious "throwaway" account. The first edit was on October 22, 2006, and there were fewer than 100 edits in the entire account history. Many of those edits were antagonistic, and the user exhibited a clear knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedure. All of which are clear characteristics per WP:SOCK. As for who the main accountholder might be, I could make some guesses, but have no solid proof. --Elonka 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they want to send a signal. Reading between the lines again, I might guess that the arbitrators think that the disruption caused by the other parties was based in a good faith attempt to determine and implement consensus, while Izzy's disruption was to be disruptive. Assuming he ever does return, there would be a procedural argument to reopen the case to consider any evidence he wished to present. (I forget who, but I seem to recall a case this year where an editor was added at the 11th hour and sanctioned, and he successfully appealed for reconsideration.) But probably 99% he's gone, as Elonka says. Thatcher131 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably right, which is why I consulted here rather than just drop a note on his page. It was User:AaronS, in the anarchism-related case, who related that he'd just returned from a Wikibreak and was quite surprised to find himself on probation. I believe the lead Clerk at the time got the case reopened, though the discussion then moved off-Wiki for some reason and I don't know the final result of the reopening. In this instance, with the user not active for 2 months and not necessarily a serious account, it's not as critical, but wanted you to have the choice what to do. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, with all due respect, I don't believe the arbitrators have ever said that the parties trying to implement consensus have caused any disruption. If there's something I missed, please point it out (and if any of them do believe disruption was caused, they should put it in the decision). But I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in the mouths of the arb committee. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the proposed decision on personal attacks (which has not passed, but shows the thinking of at least some of the arbitrators). See also Fred's comment "Dirty pool. Has someone been doing this?" in relation to move fraud by both sides. I suspect that the committee decided that rather than wade into the separate evidence for personal attacks and incivility from both sides, they would issue a ruling that "consensus was achieved, move on" with the assumption that the editors would not have anything more to fight about. Thatcher131 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Dear Thatcher131, I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise this, but it follows on from an Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case I think you presided on. (Perhaps you can advise me where to raise the matter if this is not the right place?) User ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science...this applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility", has recently weighed in on the article Immanuel Velikovsky, a biographical article on this controversial pseudoscientist and the notable controversy engendered by his work in the latter half of the 20th century. This article was initially of poor quality but much work has been done on it and it had been stable for most of the past year. ScienceApologist has made some useful suggestions for improving it further (largely to do with gathering & tightening up references) but rather than give editors time to implement these, he has begun deleting and reverting things in a cavelier fashion, and using pejorative language to describe his edits. He has tagged the article as requiring attention from an expert - I do have a lot of in depth knowledge on the history of the velikovsky constrovesy, and would be happy to work further to improve the article, but already I find I go to bed in the evening and when I wake up, ScienceApologist has deleted chunks of the article which yesterday he requested references for, despite my already having made a preliminary enumeration of refs I'd collected on the articles talk page. Not wishing to begin the weekend with an edit war, I would appreciate it if Science Apologist could be advised to calm down and refrain from disruptive editing, allowing the article to be improved. (It may be thought that I am being too quick to complain about him, but given that my own written style can be a little acerbic :) intuition tells me that he and I are unlikely to be able to reach a constructive position between ourselves without outside help...--feline1 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)