Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 24 February 2007

I have a significant crisis/opportunity coming up at work in the next month. I will probably log in once a day or so to check messages and perform a few clerical tasks here and there. However, I regret that I am unable to answer complicated questions or intervene in new disputes, as I simply don't have the time to study and understand new situations. I hope to be back to normal by the end of February.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

changing title to India-Pakistan

Just to let you know the change of the Arbcom case title to India-Pakistan is fine with me.--Nadirali نادرالی

Starwood Arbitration Again

I'm sorry to bother you about this but recently there has been an increase in the placement of Starwood links by Rosencomet. Should I wait for a decision by Arbcom and just note them for now? I'm hesitant to take any action that might be interpreted as heating up conflict but I am concerned and we need some resolution to this. --Pigman 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration does not force you to limit your editing activities. However, avoiding conflict would not be a bad idea. Perhaps some members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neopaganism who have not yet been involved in the case can give a fair evaluation on whether the links are appropriate. Thatcher131 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on the Arb page. It's helpful to know your general thinking on proposed decisions. While I think it's a good idea to try to get WikiProject Neopaganism members involved in the evaluation of appropriateness of the links, I should note that this has already been discussed a bit there over the months. I believe that's where I first learned of the links. However, the project is, to put it delicately, not very active. There was fairly good participation (signed by 14 editors) in the outside view on the Mattisse RfC which asserted: "Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM." Because Rosencomet has essentially dedicated his entire Misplaced Pages time to placing and defending these links, some people have just stopped editing them because it's just too much trouble to continually argue about them.

Um, perhaps I shouldn't be placing this on your talk page, this seems more like dialog for the Arbitration page. Still, your point is taken. --Pig_{Talk to me} 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the remedies banning him from editing Starwood et al. (but not the talk pages) and from adding links are likely to pass. So you could just wait and deal with it later. If you do deal with it now, be polite and courteous. Thatcher131 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to believe I've been polite and courteous throughout this process. However extensive detailing of evidence and making recommendations of limitations on other editors' actions feels inherently rude and discourteous, no matter how justified or necessary it seems in my opinion. Again, thank you for your input and feedback, to me and to this case. My apologies for essentially duplicating info above which is more properly appropriate for the arb case pages. Your talk page is not the proper forum. My judgment can be a little faulty sometimes but I'm working on it. --Pig_{Talk to me} 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just have to comment on this, although if you have been reading my text on the arbitration you have already heard my side of this. I think it's misrepresentation to say "recently there has been an increase in the placement of Starwood links by Rosencomet". I have not added ANY new links. However, I have replaced links that were just taken down in some cases. For instance, when one was taken down related to a quote in the Timothy Leary article, with the note saying the editor took it down because there was no citation for the quote, I replaced it with the citation. That seems to have satisfied the editor (though probably not Pigman).

Also, it is misrepresentation to say "Rosencomet has essentially dedicated his entire Misplaced Pages time to placing and defending these links". I have created over 40 new articles and contributed to many more; not just links, but text correction (for grammar, spelling, etc), bibliographies, discographies, and much more. One needs only actually look at my contributions instead of just at the names of the articles I've contributed to. Lately, I've been doing a lot of Comic Book editing. I do admit, however, that a lot of my time has been taken up trying to stop what I think are unwarrented edits by Kathryn and Pigman; and they have spent a great deal of time making them. And I wish the others in project Neo-paganism would weigh in, but they're probably scared to; it seems that everyone who supported me has been blocked or pressured into retiring, and I don't have the luxury of a tag-team like Pigman, Kathryn & Weniwediwiki, who somehow never get criticised for protecting their "territories" or overly-aggressive editing no matter how many people complain. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I just read Jefferson Anderson's farewell, and then your assurance here to Pigman, and watched these three edit away work of mine on nine articles and plan the severe editing of more.

I put a lot of time into gathering 3rd-party citations and other material because I was told by them and mediators that this was what was needed to make my work acceptable. I wish I had been told I was wasting my time. Rosencomet 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pahuskahey

I am sorry to burden you with this, but please take a look when you have a moment at User talk:Pahuskahey. I had hoped the entire situation with Husnock et al. had been resolved, but it appears likely that it will wind up heading back down the miserable road of a renewed sockpuppet investigation, arbitration enforcement, etc., and I would welcome any creative input into how this can be addressed without that. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

enough is enough

I've been insulted before because of my efforts to improve our project, however, I find this particular insult to be way out of line and I'm expecting some sort of action. It's not the first time, and there was an ArbCom about Mongo's behavior… enough is enough. Lovelight 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some peculiar technical difficulties, namely, it appears that when I'm logged in, I'm not logged entirely. That is to say, when I try to edit September 11 attacks (article/talk page) I'm suddenly logged out. Really not sure what the cause of this, but it is puzzling… hmm, could you kindly look into this, or if you are unwilling, point to someone else who could check out this anomaly. Thanks. Lovelight 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear on things, I cannot log to the mentioned talk page at all. Lovelight 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh cool. I have the same problem. I found that if I go to the history page, I can select the current version and I don't appear tobe locked out. Not sure why though. If I go directly to the project page, I appear to be logged out and since it is semi-protected, it's uneditable. Tbeatty 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

as an added bonues, you can see my contributions have an edit to it , but it doesn't show up in hte page history or anything. Sounds like a page caching problem on the server side. --Tbeatty 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

India-Pakistan

I need advice. How can I prevent the India-Pakistan workshop page descending into a mire of insults, wars along party lines, etc? David Mestel 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Start by reminding them that everything they say there will be read by the arbitrators, and ask them to look at the Hkelkar cases's workshop page. It's generally a bad idea to get involved in a fist fight in front of the jury while you're on trial for assault. If necessary, you can remove disruptive comments. As a last resort, we can ban participants from editing the page, enforceable by blocking, but don't do that on your own. Thatcher131 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. David Mestel 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to move some of the longer and more pointless arguments to the talk page, leaving notes saying where to find them? David Mestel 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly off-topic - more of a re-hashing of the issues of the case, in a rather uncivil manner. David Mestel 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Philwelch

That's because I'm not done with it yet. :-) I had to ask a question on the list, and I'll finish it up later. Thanks for pointing it out, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request that you separate your charges against Ben and me in to 2 distinct sections in each case, and not comingle them. In some sections you charge 'FAAFA was....' in other it's 'FAAFA and BenBurch were' Very confusing, and as you do not ask for relief against us as a 'duo' for you to list article where you contend we acted as a 'duo', is an improper laying out your charges. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. - FAAFA 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AND Why do you keep putting my FR ( FREE REPUBLIC ) findings of fact in the Peter Roskam Section????!!! Please leave MY edits alone. - FAAFA 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to build a train of thought. For some reason I thought you were replying to the Roskam section. I've moved your proposals to a Free Republic section, we may need to deal specifically with that issue some more. Thatcher131 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

• At this point, enough time has gone by, and more reputable citations given on the talk page, that it might make sense to unprotect the Robert Priddy article, or at least open it up to established users and leave it semi-protected... Yours, Smee 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Why not? Thatcher131 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see how this develops... Smee 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

MONGO harassed again

MONGO is being harassed regarding the ED speculation regarding his employer is again. The offending edit is here. The request that the edit be retracted is here. The hostage-holding (deny where you work or I will not remove my speculation about where you work) is here. The offending user is under arbcom sanction, as I suspect you already know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi T,

I reverted your deletion on the FR RFAr talk page. I hope you can understand that I feel there might have been a political aspect to that deletion (no insult) - when much of this disagreement IS over 'left - right' battles on Wiki. If Brad wants to delete some or all of it, I'm A-OK with that. Cheers - FAAFA 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the material Thatcher131 deleted and agree with him that it is unnecessary, inflammatory, and has no chance of doing anything other than exasperating the arbitrators, so I've reverted to his version. I will add that Thatcher131 is the head clerk for ArbCom and has deleted similarly irrelevant or inappropriate material from other cases several times in the past, so there is no basis for suggesting that his doing so here was political or for any other inappropriate reason. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is at least the second time that Newyorkbrad has referred to Thatcher131 as head clerk, but this is not reflected here. Also it seems no new clerks have been promoted recently. The page has not been edited in more than a month - is it up to date? NoSeptember 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Head clerk" was my coinage and may not be an official title that's been conferred (as it was on Daniel.Bryant over at RfCU), but Thatcher has definitely been coordinating clerkly efforts at RfAr for several months now. I myself, I'm proud to add, was just promoted from "unofficial hanger-on" to "clerk trainee." :) Newyorkbrad (adjusting his beanie), 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be that other clerks frequently defer to me, but there is no head clerk as such. (The original idea was that the head clerk would be an ex-arb and would make policy and appoint clerks.) I've rewritten WP:AC/C to reflect that fact. There are a number of people "in training" (Cowman109, Eagle 101, David.M and Newyorkbrad) but the committee makes official appointments. I've asked to have Cowman and Brad promoted on the AC mailing list but I expect it's a lower priority than the umpteen cases they have going right now. Thatcher131 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a list of the "trainees", if there is a true distinction being made between them and the ArbCom groupies ;). Also, are the active/inactive designations accurate? - normally you'd expect people to go back and forth between those categories from time to time. NoSeptember 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid excessive hierarchies. Besides the ocassional picture frame-straighteners, a couple of people have opened cases or closed simple cases through coordination at the clerks' noticeboard, and there are "official" trainees in line for the next formal appointments. Some of the logic for this is at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. The participants in the cases that David and Brad are watching seem to have accepted them without any official badges from me. Should they be questioned, I'll provide any back-up needed. With Srikeit on wikibreak and Drini now a steward, if I really updated the list there would only be one active official clerk. I'd rather wait for my appointment requests to be approved and then do it all together. Thatcher131 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User rights

Is there a log I don't know about aside from

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=username

or

http://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=username@enwiki

(replace username with old name of person in question?) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's there. Thatcher131 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller

Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit. Already it's been vandalized. I also think someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. I posted to AN/I but I thought you might have a more direct link. I'm surprised this isn't front office protected. --Tbeatty 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation seems to be well in hand. The article is protected and several edits have been deleted (though not oversighted yet). Danny seems to be aware of ths situation as he has edited the article in the past; I wonder if a checkuser was run at some point, otherwise how would Zoeller know whom to sue? Thatcher131 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed it must have been IP edits from the law firm's computers, since I don't think the Foundation would give out a user's (even a bad user's) IP information without a subpoena. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I posted to ANI and they were pretty quick about it. I think this is a John Doe lawsuit against anonymous IP address which belongs to the lawfirm. --Tbeatty 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions at least one username. I wonder if they really would hold out for a subpoena. #6 here looks like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Thatcher131 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My read of the article is that they sued the law firm based on the IP and added additional "John Does" whom they hope to identify through a subpoena. I guess we'll be reading a lot more about this. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) In fact, a link to the Complaint is here. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

Complaint:

Ekantik has pushed his POV too far by trying to act like admin. He is threatening to block me for disagreeing to his edits.

He is keen on adding “Sexual abuse allegation” subcategory to the Criticism section. So far kkrystian and myself are against adding this subsection heading. Andries has taken a neutral stand and suggested about changing the section “Criticism” to “Criticism and replies”. I agreed and changed the section heading. Ekantik is the only editor insisting on adding this subsection category to the article, although there is not a single case of Sexual abuse allegation in the contents. SSS108 has disengaged from wikipedia and may not comment on this. Freelanceresearcher has been on and off wikipedia I don't know when she will respond to this comment.

Now Ekantik has threatened to block me in my userpage. He is acting like admin and pushing his POV too far. How can a user block another user for differing in views? Could you please look into this issue? Please let me know your response. Wikisunn 23nd February 2007

A spurious and hysterical complaint that completely misrepresents the whole issue. First of all, I am not an admin therefore I cannot block anyone. Due to Wikisunn's repeated introduction of stylistic errors into the Sathya Sai Baba article, I have placed three template warnings on his talk-page here as per procedure. As those who are familiar with this issue know (and the ArbCom case is still open), Wikisunn has a history of disruptive editing on the page, often blanking content (arguable vandalism) because he disagreed with it. Despite this, I and other editors have tried to patiently coach and explain to him why his edits are non-viable and against WP policies, but he continues to introduce them and justify his actions with explanations that defy WP policy conventions, often edit-warring. For a short history of the issue, please see: Wikisunn's edits, Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title.

After I took the step of placing the necessary warning templates on his talk-page (after patiently trying to explain to him why he is wrong), he has now come out as openly threatening and hostile in his behaviour, accusing me of incivility and personal attacks when I have been nothing but civil to him. I'm afraid that Wikisunn has now pushed everyone's patience too far and I am frazzled, I don't see any point in working with editors who have a serious problem with non-comprehension of Misplaced Pages policies, what to speak of repeatedly using the article talk-page to engage in continued hostility and personal attacks instead of addressing the matter on editor's talk=pages (and being told to do so repeatedly). It should also be noted that Wikisunn's recent behaviour largely consists of personal attacks that partially replicate SSS108's arguments, for which SSS108 has been blocked indefinitely.It won't be too long until the ArbCom is over and we will see what happens then. i shall of course be updating my evidence on this matter. Ekantik 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, this whole issue started with your insistence on adding the Subcategorytitle "Sexual abuse allegation" to the article and there are enough proofs to show what happened. Don't misrepresent the facts. These were your edits: , , although none of the editors agreed with you. When I edited your wrong WP:MOS and also added a discussion on talkpage you added the 1st warning in my talk page . Then after Andries suggestion I renamed the Section "Criticism" to "Criticism and replies" you added the second warning in my talk page saying I disrupted the article and threatened to block me giving second warning . That's when I decided to complain to Thatcher. You cannot warn other editors because they differ from your views, by the way none of the editor agree with your views so are you going to warn everybody about blocking. This is pushing your POV and misusing wikipedia policies for pushing your POV. I also see you added links about discussions we had in talk page such as "Request for Comment: Exceptional Controversial Claim, In the news again, and Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title". These are discussions which every editor participated and gave their views, these are discussions for consensus and has nothing to do with my edit warring as you complained. Don't keep bringing up sss108 he is not even involved in this discussion and his userpage says he has disengaged from wikipedia.

So far I have never had any problems with any other editor but you have had problems with every editor kkrystian, sss108, freelanceresearcher and now me. You find fault with every editor who don't agree with your views, if anybody disagrees with you then you accuse and criticise them and now you have started adding warning for disagreeing with your edits. I request you to be more civil in your behaviour with other editors and not to wrongly use wikipedia policies for pushing POV.

Wikisunn 23nd February 2007

Daniel Brandt wheel war evidence page

An SPA (presumably an existing editor wanted to be anonymous) called Marcus has posted some odd evidence on the Daniel Brandt case's evidence page. It's been suggested on ANI that a clerk remove that evidence and/or semi the page. What do you think? Newyorkbrad 13:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)