Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 7 March 2007 (→195.82.106.244: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Your message to user:sundaram7

I just saw your message in my talk page ]. I dont have any clue about this issue. I am working in a huge organisation with thousands of people working and sharing same proxies and routers. May be others are on wikipedia from same organisaton. Sundaram7 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, however I feel it is unlikely as these accounts all joined Misplaced Pages about the same time as you and edit the same article and no others. Thatcher131 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be a co-incidence that other people are also editing the pages. The message that you have put in the user talk page of user:ganeshco and user:ashokachakra are not correct. Please dont blame for the sockpuppetry. I am not them. For me it looks like a personal attack. You say perhaps and you are not sure. But you have declared that these users are socketpuppet of mine. I would strongly suggest to review this pages and review your blocking strategy. You might have seen agument clashes between useres user:ganeshco, user:ashokachakra and user:bakasuprman. But please dont drag me to this. I am trying to contribute to Wiki from my knowledge. Sundaram7 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an update on my requset to remove and double check the page? Here you have mentioned that it is just a wanring but you have put a confirmation in the sock-puppetry page. But there is no evidances. Could you please verify and get an update. --- Sundaram7 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

You should probably make a request for reconsideration at the administrators' noticeboard, to have another Admin review the situation. While I do not feel that a serious policy violation has occurred, I think it is unlikely that several people from the same large company would all decide to join wikipedia at the same time and all start editing the same article. Whether there was a decision by several friends to all begin editing the same article or whether it was one person, either way it makes no real difference. I do not fell there is sufficient reason to unblock the other accounts. I hope you enjoy editing in the future, but you will need to stick to one account. Cheers. Thatcher131 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection Request

Hey there, could you possibly take a look at Virginia Tech Hokies Basketball and see if semi-protection is warranted? Lots of vandalism of a relatively new article by anons and the like. Thanks in advance. Arkon 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response. Looks pretty low level now, one or two a day is manageable without protection. Thatcher131 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the Rare and Coveted Rouge Admin award for your actions in this incident. If there was a Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Misplaced Pages, they would no doubt be proud of you!

Seriously, this is a token of tongue-in-cheek appreciation for all the hard work you do. And there is no cabal. FNORD. :D Justin Eiler 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratbags.com??

It seems the conspiracy of finding out who I am still continues to go round and round (although it should be by-the-by, I am staying out of the sh!tfight although everybody is trying to pull me in). Please feel free to email me and I can discuss with you to hopefully sort out the mess. Shot info 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant. You have some edits to Australian topics, and Ronz pointed to the song lyrics as if you were already familiar with them. But it doesn't really matter. My point is that there are a lot of editors committed to one side or the other of the alternative medicine fights, and I'm concerned that the articles will still be targeted even after Ilena and Fyslee are banned from them. If the article probation is not passed then all of us bystanders will just have to cross oour fingers and hope that Ilena and Fyslee were the only source of the problem. Thatcher131

I must admit, I find it difficult to work out which Australian topics you refer to (not saying that I haven't just cannot recall and cannot readily see them in my edit list). I presume you mean Inco (a Canadian company) and Rheebu Nuu (a New Caledonian activist group)? I really cannot comment on Ronz's comments on the particular songs other than in the context that it was a spoof site (or so it appeared). However if it isn't important, why did you bring it up? However I agree with you sentiments even though I disagree with your linking of me with a POV site. Although it is nice to see that you infer that I am not Stephen Barrett's son something that I didn't need to respond to and something that I note my main accuser has not been taken to task over yet (but this is by-the-by). Shot info 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found this via google ] in it you will note Ilena locking onto your not particularly relevent comment: "Peter Bowditch's Disguise Gets Uncovered ... Will be filling in the lies he posted for Barrett's failed NCAHF ... ". Of course this is the same person who was absolutely convinced that I was Daniel J. Barrett. Can we please stop the conjecture, which I notice is still going around the ArbCom, once and for all? Thanks Shot info 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue it. I do think there is a persistent problem with single purpose editors on alt health topics (both pro and con). the arbitration comittee seems disinclined to pursue it further at this time. Thatcher131 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not make any content edits while the arbitration is in process. Thatcher131 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ObPendant

"an indefinite block (that is, a ban from editing Misplaced Pages altogether)"

Just to be a pedant, an indefinite block is not the same thing as a ban. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but as far as I could tell the discussion on Gordon at AN/I was really about an indefinite ban, even though the word block was used. What is the practical difference? It doen't look like those who were advocating for an indefinite block meant for some undetermined time until he behaves; it looked to me like they never wanted him back, which is a ban. Did I misread the discussion? Thatcher131 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion was about a ban, which is the word you should used instead of indefinite block. The main difference between the two is to do with how vigorously it's enforced, and what needs to be done to reverse one. As I said, pendantry on my part. But most importantly, thanks for trying. Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Thatcher-wiki on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Thatcher131. Thanks. --Thatcher131 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war case

Hi there! Can you perhaps fix principle 1 (deletion of pages) to note PROD as an alternative? Just for completion's sake. Thanks. >Radiant< 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Thatcher - I know you're a friend of essjays, and wondered what you thought about archiving or moving all the talk on his page off it - i know it's explicitly disallowed by essjay's own instructions, but i think this is a unique case, and now that jimbo's asked essjay to resign (which i have no doubt he will) i think that's the only news that matters.... I think this is what should happen, so wondered if you agreed? Best, Purples 07:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have not worked with Adil to do anything. If you havent noticed already, me and Adil do not exactly agree on almost any subject. Infact, we have never agreed on any article on Wiki as of yet. The reason my edits were only several hours apart in some instances is because I do not try to game the system by calculating my time. I have a routine, I edit at night, go to sleep, and then go about my day, come back on wiki, and edit. I dont really calculate anything you know? Its not my intention to game the system or make more than 1 rv per day. I'm sorry if I have, but that is not my intention, its just the timing that I'm used to editing wikipedia, you know?Azerbaijani 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

195.82.106.244

Rather than invest energy and attempt to build up an identity trail, why not just ask directly and we will see if we can help you?

Of course, it would be easier for us if you just unblocked our main IP address which we still maintain. I would like to put a simple case why we do not accept the decision of the arbcom. It would be a lot less waste of time, energy and mental distraction for every one if we just engaged in some straighforward discussion.

I, personally, cannot accept the decision of the arbcom due to what I consider a gross systemic failure. A failure that they really ought to consider resolving for any further cases.

The committee or a clerk, not yourself, closed the case without any warning disallowing us to make any presentation or respond to the allegations that had been made. I consider this fairly serious. Its on a par with having a court case and then closing it without any notice before one party had time to put in their evidence or counter evidence. Given that the case happened over the Holiday period, I personally, had more pressing things to do with my time.

As the individual that looked to resolve matters by the RfC, the mediation and finally two attempts at Arbitration, I feel somewhat aggrieved to have first gone through the degree of personal attack to bring about the attempts, the efforts of placing them when no one else would become involved, and then finally to have had the case shut before I responded. I pressumed that there would be some discussion to the matters as I stated at the time.

• My suggest for improving the system is that arbcom cases run to set agendas/timeframes, e.g. 28 days, or at least that 14 or 7 warnings are given before cases are closed. At present the committee appears entirely arbitrary rather than arbitrational in its actions.

On a level of basic psychology, the decision was not in principle a good decision. Whereas you had one user that had clearly been shown to make personal attempts via a variety of usernames or IP in a dishonest or deceitful manner to control the topic, a member of the BKWSU IT Team avyakt7, the arbcom chose to punish the other other user that had not made any personal attacks but merely shown and discussed why personal attacks should not be engaged in - in the hope of stopping them. Read what I said. On one hand, a clear "crime" was commit and went unpunished, the IT team thereby rewarded and empowered; on the other, the discussion of the reason and theory behind personal attacks in an attempt to stop the former was punished.

On top of the reconcilliatory efforts I, personally put in above, this is equivalents to an individual being mugged, calling the police 4 times, then finally being arrested and incarcerated by them whilst the mugger and their team walk free. A strange kind of justice that in itself could only breeds disrepect for that authority.

OK, the muggers were willing to, or had more reason to put in the extra effort to make up a case, it still does not discount that the case was closed without any notice and with us being able to defend ourselves.

So, let me help you resolve this matter. What is it you want to know?

FYI the BKWSU in London, Simon's zone headquarters with whom he has good relationships, distributed freely books of the Avyakt Murlis to the public during at least the 80s thereby putting it into the public domain. We have an example here, entitled "Avyakt BapDada - 1983-84". On the second page of the book says "Translated and adapted for print by students of London Center". There is also a note to say that the material (channelled messages from the entities they believe to be God and the deceased Kirpalani via a medium in India) "can be freely copied and distributed".

I want to offer you this as a test to Simon's, and indeed the BKWSU's, honesty and intergrity. He is saying that the Murlis were never made public. They were. He may be legalising on whether payment by donation constituted "sold" but I feel a need to dispell the obfuscation with accuracy and citations that they were publicly distributed freely and allow him the opportunity to accurately clarify the BKWSU position on this matter. 86.137.200.131 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (added IP user address. Its just public access internet. I will come back here and respond to you. There is no point in banning it as you are only hurting the Wiki, and others, that have nothing to do with this).

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved. The case was open for a bit more than a month. You should have been watching the evidence and workshop pages for developments. The proposed decision banning you was on the voting page for about a week, giving you more time to comment. The fact remains that your conduct was not appropriate and you have been banned. Other users will have to work on the article, and if there is a period of time when it is not sufficiently balanced, well that is a result of the wiki process. Thatcher131 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131. Thank you for renewing the semi-protection on the BKWSU page. BTW I'd be happy if you took 244 up on his/her challenge to quiz me ;-)

Thanks and regards Bksimonb 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Thank you for your protection of User talk:Essjay. However, given the current reference to that page by the New York Times it is probably preferable that we leave some sort of pointer showing people where the archived content has gone to so that we are not accused of covering up the situation. Would you be willing to insert the following link at the bottom of the page along with a note explaining that it is the page content prior to Essjay's message? Everything after that has pretty much been either fluff or vitriol, but there was some good discussion prior to the resignation notice. --tjstrf talk 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we owe a duty to anyone but ourselves. If the NYT posted a link to a defamatory biography, are we obligated to keep the article in that state? However I will check out what the Times article actually says and links to and think about it. Are there any ongoing discussions about these events in projectspace? Thatcher131 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not for the NYT so much as because people are already shouting cover up right now and it will only get worse. As for projectspace discussions, there's Misplaced Pages:Administrators accountability, but that's more of one editor's rant about banning children from administration and making everyone divulge their real names. Might be something on the community noticeboard as well. Most real discussion now is at User talk:Jimbo Wales and the User:Essjay/RFC page, but that one's in wheel war flux. --tjstrf talk 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Misplaced Pages contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your needed intervention in the long-time disputes at the SSB articles. Perhaps now there can be an impetus for cleanup and other works necessary to improve the article to a long-overdue satisfactory presentation. Ekantik 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk

Thanks for supplementing my response to the inquiry on my talkpage. I had tried to keep to the basics, but I've now added a few more thoughts as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing PW...

...is for you, preferably. It's your case, and if you're around, I'd much prefer a clerk do it than I, especially if that clerk was the clerk of the case. See my comments on ACCN. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

Hi. I would like attract your attention to the actions of User:Artaxiad again. What he does is clearly an attempt to stir up a conflict. He deletes info and reverts the articles under the guise of minor edits. This edit: which he marked as minor removed referenced info from a featured article and deleted a number of pictures. Here he did the same, but was reverted by the admin: Can you please tell him to stop it? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)