Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:42, 23 November 2007

I am currently busy in real life. I will check here and respond to questions about my own actions and edits, but I may or may not respond to requests for assistance on other matters. Please see the appropriate noticeboard for assistance. Thank you for your understanding.

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

RfC/U

A page to which you have significant contributions, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

i just saw your comment on Dalmatia 2 and wanted to say thanks for your involvement. These two need to be separated, wouldn't you agree? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is more problematic editing than from just the two editors named in that case. Thatcher131 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for starting of RFCU.
Now that You've cleared mine status, it'd be nice if You request CU's (checkuser's) services regarding user Giovanni Giove and its possible sockpuppets/meatpuppets.
Personally, I thought that user DIREKTOR was Giove's strawpuppet (I've told that to user DIREKTOR on his talkpage, see User_talk:DIREKTOR/Archive_2).
Now, let's return to Giovanni Giove. I was postponing my request for CU regarding Giove's case, because I was busy on other articles (different topics), in which I came to situations that I required CU's services. Too much requesting for those might seem annoying (especially if my suspicions prove wrong; that way I'll risk CU's ignorance towards my requests, and I don't want that), unless you give good "coverage" for your suspicions.
One cannot go to checkuser and say "I think it's him, check it".
But, I believe that admin can do that. I think that we may have a puppet theater... Compare the edits from user:Giovanni Giove, user:Cherso, user:RomanoDD, user:London321 (similar interest, "intervention" with same edits when 3RR was about to occur, registration solely for the purpose of support...).
Possibly the latter three are accounts of some previously banned users (user:GiorgioOrsini, user:NovaNova).
Also, there's a possibility that it might be the person with whome Giove and/or Orsini are in contact. Though, in that case, we cannot do anything, because we're dealing with the 3rd person.
Also, it's possible that Giove, Orsini or their lookalikes act from an other computer, from other location (public library, faculty, internet club...). The IP check might not be helpful anymore, but the edit pattern and vocabulary etc. is easy to recognise.
Regarding user:Argyriou (that appeared out of nowhere on almost closed RFARB and on WP:AN/Incidents, after being months away... to defend Giove???).
Read his conversations and attitude toward the opponents (e.g. "You are not welcome to post on my talk page any more" from 23 Feb 2007). That's our "discussion boy". His too easy use of words like "fanatical nationalist" might be understood as personal attack.
If You want to see more of his discussion approach, see the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik/Archive 1. Just type "Αργυριου" or "Argiriou". There You'll see my discussion with him.
Also, please, read Argyriou's message on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia: "User:Kubura was utterly unwilling to actually discuss anything - he merely restated that he was right, and that anyone else was wrong, and reverted any edit which did not agree with his extreme-nationalist POV.".
"Extreme nationalism" is very heavy word. That's etiquetting. Does he know the meaning of that expression at all?
"Kubura...unwilling to discuss anything" ? That's blatant lie. Just type Ctrl+F and "Kubura" and read my messages on the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik/Archive 1. Those with external links to academic institutions.
"... User:Giovanni Giove...was amenable to reasonable discussion"??? Argyriou wrote that on 13 Oct 2007, after I wrote all my evidence on the RFARB. Has he ever read what I wrote there? Has Argyriou ever read any content of the talkpages of disputed articles?
Personally, I was mostly present on Talk:Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik, and I'm mostly familiar with the all discussions on those pages (I've visited some other article and article talkpages, but I'm not that familiar with all discussions there).
When one is pointing a finger to someone in order to blame him/her, also have in mind who pointed the finger.
Sorry for being too long, but I needed to provide You more info regarding those accusers.
I hope this'd be helpful. If You need any comments or explanations, please, contact me. Kubura (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding user:Argyriou, here's more . Recent block, 18 Oct 2007. Kubura (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At this time, broad remedies are not in place with respect to Dalmatia-related articles, so Arbitration sanctions apply only to Giove and DIREKTOR. If you believe Giove is using sockpuppets, you can file your own RFCU. Regarding other editors, the dispute resolution process starts with a Request for comment on disputed article content, to get additional opinions, or mediation, and if an editor is a continual problem, an RFC on the editor. Thatcher131 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can start it, but it'd be fair if you start it (since you've already started an RFCU regarding me , ).
To be correct, your starting of an RFCU hurted me. What did I do in the Dalmatia case, that it woke your suspicion towards me... and, on the other hand, you haven't done a bit to investigate Giove's behaviour (just read the RFARB/Dalmatia/Evidence and the talkpages of that case), nor filed an RFCU against his possible sockpuppets/meatpuppets? What does make Giove more "cooperating" than me?
Also, the RFCU that you've started isn't correctly fullfilled. You gave a request to investigate relations between me, "user:Anto", user:DIREKTOR and user:Raguseo.
"User:Anto" doesn't exist at all, it's only in his signature. You should have point with the mouse over his signature, and you'd see then his username.
Please, be thorough, Thatcher. If you did so in the "studying" of this case, then it worries me.
You mention the expanding of the sanctions (???), "if the editors he was warring against have been acting in concert". Not to mention the "elevating" the case to higher wiki-instances.
Look better. Giove's opponents weren't acting in concert, the opponents were mostly trying to discuss with him, see the talkpage (few of them did violated 3RR: DIREKTOR and No.13).
In fact, if you've noticed, on the RFARB/Dalmatia/Evidence, I wasn't reporting Giove's 3RR violations: I've pointed towards completely different problems in Giove's behaviour, that I find more serious. Ordinary violation of 3RR rule doesn't need an RFARB to be sanctioned.
Did you know that I've tried to communicate with Giove directly (besides all article talkpages)? You cannot see that in his talkpage, because Giove hasn't archived his talkpage, but simply deleted it. So here's my message that I've posted to him on 26 June 2007 . Then follow the discussion (other Croatian users 've tried to talk with him also, you'll see that). Then you'll see that you're dealing with a troll (I must use that word, I allow that to myself after over 14 months of arguing with him).
Now, I'll return to my message from yesterday. I was following the discussion on the talk:Republic of Dubrovnik, but since DIREKTOR began flooding the talk with his posts, I've ...abstained a bit, and to tell the truth, I wasn't reading the tirade and arguing that followed; only few times I've posted.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Advise on Church and School of Wicca Please

Dear Thatcher,

I was hoping you could advise me on what I think may become a problem. I recently went through a long but quite civil discussion with another editor (Fuzzypeg) about the "controversy" section of the Church and School of Wicca article, concerning the defamation of the founder of the organization and the presence of a section that contained a good deal of non-factual evidence, was based on a single mis-quoted article, and which was contradicted and/or clarified by other articles by the same author. The discussion went well, and we came to an agreement. However, a new editor who has never contributed to Misplaced Pages has ignored all that and returned the entire text, and has accused me of being "associated" with the founder (which I am not, except that years ago he spoke at an event I help organize, as have over a hundred speakers).

Just to give you what I think is an important piece of background, there is an individual who has been pursuing a campaign against this Church and the founders named A.J. Drew. He has been the organizer of an event called The Real Witches' Ball for many years, and this year he lost all his major speakers because he announced, and then hosted, a ritual there in which effigies of the founders were molested in front of the attendees. I suspect that this new editor may be a sympathizer with Drew's cause, or might actually be him. His behaviour has ostracized him with the majority of the Neo-Pagan community, and by his own admission may result in the end of his event and a lawsuit as well. But he continues to pursue this course.

I do NOT wish to be part of a flame war, but I feel that the edits I made were well justified and documented. I hope you will take the time to review them on the talk page of the article, and perhaps advise me as to how I can stop the article from being a vehicle for character assasination rather than a description of the subject. Thanks in advance.Rosencomet (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At a first glance, the controversial information in Church and School of Wicca violates the rules on biographies of living people regarding addition of unverified negative information. Such information can be be removed without regard to the 3 revert rule, and you can also report this situation (if it resumes) to the BLP noticeboard to request assistance. At to this edit, he has a point that Frost's qualifications (PhD and DD) should be sourced to something more reliable than someone's personal web site, or a web site with a built-in conflict. (In other words, a wiccan web site probably does not meet the reliable source guidelines in this case, as the personal web site of a Christian evangelist would probably not be considered reliable regarding the evangelists own biography.) You may want to work on this. Thatcher131 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the information. I'm not sure where else to go for the degrees an author claims in his bio, especially if you are saying that a religious person or clergyman can't use a website associated with his religion as a source. His degrees are listed in his bio in some of his books, but I don't have a link to that. Here, though, is one other source I've found that might work: .Rosencomet (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

moved User:Thatcher131/Clerks archivebox to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard/Clerks archivebox

I moved this template, for I thought it didn't make any sense to have it in the user space :). Let's free the userfied templates, brothers! -- lucasbfr 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik

Beh-nam, you should probably read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik, especially Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. Eight Arbitrators endorsed the finding of fact that Tajik had engaged in sockpuppetry to continue editing while claiming to be "too busy" to engage in mediation (which he had agreed to do to avoid arbitration). Even if some of the alleged sockpuppets are not him (which I am not in a position to evaluate) the broad finding remains, and has been endorsed by Arbitrators who do have access to the checkuser information. As I have explained to Tajik many times (and the idea that the anonymous person posting repeatedly to my talk page, as well as emailing me, and posting other places, is not Tajik himself is just silly) he may appeal to the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How can he appeal to the Arbitration commitee if he is banned? And I don't blame him for not taking part in the initial arbitration because it was very SILLY to suggest that he was Tajik-Professer and he must have been frustrated with it. Has anyone even looked at Tajik-Professors contributions? They are not anything like Tajik's... for example: Tajik-Professor asked me for help... why would Tajik (a veteran editor) ask me for help!? Take a look here. He asks me to add a map for him. Why would Tajik ask me that? He knows how to do that. Clearly Tajik-Professor was a brand new user and I am the one that actually invited him to join Misplaced Pages (though I regret it now). So why have the Admins not looked at the contributions? They clearly show they are not the same person. Yes, they have a similar IP, because they both live in Germany... but they live in DIFFERENT parts of Germany and their IPs have a significant difference. The Admins were just rushing and were influenced by the manipulations user: Atabek who spreads around his Pan-Turkist POVs and wanted a way to ban Tajik. I would be really frustrated if I was Tajik and I wouldn't bother asking for an appeal because it's so ridiculous! He is banned now so he cannot appeal, can you please start an appeal for him? -- Behnam (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)