User talk:Thatcher131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Balance is the key to all things. For the foreseeable future I will be cutting back on my participation, although not taking a true Wikibreak. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.

My admin actions
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions
Admin links
Noticeboard • Incidents • CN • AIV • 3RR
Backlog • Images • Prod • AfD • Autoblocks
Arbitration
Arbitration • Noticeboard • Enforcement
Checkuser
Checkuser • Clerks page • Prefix index
Abusive Hosts • VCN proxycheck • ippages
Multi-RBL lookup • DNSstuff
Template links
Piggybank • Tor list • Links • Awards
Clutter
Temp • Sandbox1 • Sandbox2 • Sandbox3
• Protection notes •

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12

Contents 1 Regarding proposed decision 2 HyeProfile 3 Excessive Baiting 4 Question 5 Osli73 and Srebrenica massacre 6 Parole violation 7 Arb 8 request urgent 9 HyeProfile 10 BDORT 11 Nagorno-Karabakh 12 Thanks 13 FYI - Darwinek/Mt7

[edit] Regarding proposed decision

I am posting this here, since you were a contact in ArbCom case. In the proposed decision on sockpuppetry charge with regards to myself, I would like to attract the attention to the decision of User:Khoikhoi [1]. It clearly states that I was a newbie. Indeed, the account Tengri, who was more likely to be my meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet, was established 7 days after I first came to Wikipedia. Obviously, I wasn't well aware of the rules back then, neither was the banned. And the record after that shows that I haven't attempted to create any socks or evade blocks since that case. If it's necessary, I can also ask for user Tengri to contact the ArbCom committee directly, to confirm that he is not me. After being banned, Tengri is no longer active in Wikipediting, but he can definitely confirm that by email. And in general, I don't think that having violated far less rules than some other users (only two cases of revert warring and sock ban due to inexperience), I deserve to be given the same ban as those who have a lengthy record of experience and more serious violations. Thanks. Atabek 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HyeProfile

Hi. I believe User:HyeProfile is in violation of his parole here: [2] Note that he was added to the list by the admin User:Golbez, but HyeProfile keeps on reverting the page despite being notified of the parole. Grandmaster 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Baiting

Hello, it may be just me but I feel that much of Adil's complaints are wholly provocative. While the ArbCom deliberations have been taking place the past few days, Adil seems to be jumping from one Armenian-related topic to another, making edits so controversial and odious that they would almost surely require intervention specifically by an Armenian user. Up until two days ago, the articles Sumgait Pogrom. Battle of Kelbajar (a current GA article), and Capture of Shusha were all stable, either from POV or accuracy. I had been committing my past efforts these few weeks on articles unrelated to the disputes (Ivan Bagramyan, Ronald Reagan and its FAC, etc.) And then, when Adil made those changes, I duly reverted them back because his rationale for removing sources lied solely on the identity of the source.

This natural reaction provoked me, and he exploited this by complaining to me on the Arbitration enforcement board [3]. You waived his complaint yet he went ahead and made similar controversial edits on the Ramil Safarov page just today and, provoking two Armenian users (Eupator and Fedayee), complained about them for violating the ArbCom rulings [4].

Why is he allowed to engage in such conspicuous hit-and-run edits at a time he is being considered for a 1 year ban [5] due to his contributions over the past year? I have had absolutely little to no qualms with Azeri users until Adil's appearance because his edits are so pernicious, so intent on vilifying Armenians that I myself am baited into intervening in his edits. I hope you would take these notes into consideration but he is wearing the patience of both me and those Armenian users who have exercised a great deal of restraint during the ArbCom proceedings and are followed its 1RR ruling to the point. --MarshallBagramyan 02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All those complaints from a few editors trying to paint themselves as saints and angels, while one Adil, over whom they enjoy numerical superiority, as the devil, is just plain funny. Users Eupator, Fedayee, and you should not be using POV sources in the abovementioned pages -- as we discussed in Khojaly massacre page, and had an agreement from Francis Tyers, for one, all the pages you mention, Sumgait Pogrom, Battle of Kelbajar, etc., had POV Armenian links, which are unacceptable. The Armenian side stops at nothing to remove any Azerbaijani and Turkish (!) links from any pages, whilst when the other side does the same to Armenian links, it raises complains. Ironic. Stop violating both the spirit and rule of Wiki. --adil 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see my point? his incessant stalking of wherever I post borders on harassment.--MarshallBagramyan 06:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Am I allowed to revert myself, or will that break 1rr?Azerbaijani 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can revert yourself. Thatcher131 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osli73 and Srebrenica massacre

You wrote a notice at the top of Talk:Srebrenica massacre, stating that User:Osli73 was banned by the ArbCom from editing the article for three months. However, as far as I can see, this was not a decision taken by the ArbCom but by you personally, based in some way on the Kosovo decision. Could you please clarify whether you were instructed by the ArbCom in this matter or decided on your own authority? By the way, I'm not disputing the ban. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli is placed on probation here, allowing him to be banned from any article he disrupts by any admin. I agree the template is somewhat misleading. I'll see what I can do to clarify that. Thatcher131 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parole violation

Hi. User:Artaxiad is in violation of his 1RR parole here: [6] [7]

He made 2 reverts in less than 24 hrs. Regards, Grandmaster 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think User:Aivazovsky needs to provide an explanation of his reverts here and here. On Khojaly massacre he undid all edits by Adil and Francis Tyers without any explanation on talk. Note that those edits had consensus, reached after discussions on talk. According to injunction, the person who made an rv needs to provide a rationale on talk. Grandmaster 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We have different time zones your all the way across the earth from me. Artaxiad 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By UTC time, the first revert was 00:17; the second was 23:09 the same day, two hours too early. The report on User:Aivazovsky is also accurate. Both are blocked. I usually find that adhering to the strict letter of policy to be overly bureaucratic, but in the case of this dispute, letting minor violations slide will only invite further violations and/or be attacked as evidence of bias. Sigh. Thatcher131 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got one more question. Does Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans need to be updated with recent blocks and who can do that? Thanks. Grandmaster 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot. Generally anyone could add a note with a diff to the block, but I took care of it myself. Thanks. Thatcher131 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

What happen to freedom of speech? Artaxiad 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the talk page. The proposed decision page my only be edited by the arbitration committee or the clerks. Thatcher131 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, are Arbitrators even looking at the talk page? It seems like i've been posting stuff for absolutely nothing. - Fedayee 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration can take a while. Weeks, months... Prodego ^talk 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request urgent

hi, recently, when i opened main page of wikipedi and wanted to sign in , i got an alert that i have new message, and before i signed in i had to check and found this bizarre think:[8] I do not know, why something happened in september 2006 got now alerted and also, very bizarre I bought this computer[it is not used, but new one] on september 13 2006 and got internet access only after a month in the beginning or midst of october, so clearly this ip address couldn't do any edit in september 2006 because then i hadn't access to internet through this comp, and why this message or alert by a bot was left only now, that is on this day? clearly that was not there yesterday. thanks, and help me find the answer. Elsanaturk 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

and also i made a comment for practical and technical purposes on my talk page without signing in, on my talk page, there my ip address appeared differently [9] I do not know to whom apply, and sorry if i bothered you Elsanaturk 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses are provided by your internet connection. Depending on how you connect to the internet, your IP address can change with every new connection (every time you dial in, for example, or whenever you reset your dsl modem). That warning message was meant for whoever made some anonymous vandal edits in September. You apparently live in the same general area so when you connected to the internet that day, you were randomly assigned that IP address and saw the old warning. On other days you are assigned other address from the same pool. It doesn't have anything to do with you and you can ignore it.Thatcher131 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Elsanaturk 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HyeProfile

Hi. Please be aware that User:HyeProfile is in violation of his parole a number of times already. He has been edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh article for quite some time now. Please see this evidence presented by the admin User:Golbez to arbcom: [10], and this are diffs provided by Golbez on violation of 1RR by this user on March 27: [11] (specific diffs: [12], [13], [14], [15]; the first two are reverting to a version being edit warred on previous days, the second two are reverting to those versions again). I hope Golbez would not object that I copied part of his evidence here, but urgent measures are really necessary. Regards, Grandmaster 04:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pursuing this at this time. HyeProfile did not start editing the article until the case was well under way, and so far has not been listed on the proposed decision page. Since the injunction will be lifted once the case is closed, and replaced with whatever final remedies pass voting, I don't see any benefit to placing him on parole for a week or two. I think is is unlikely that he will be santioned in this case as he does not have a long history of disruptive editing. Of course, such a case might be brought later if the editors on these articles can't follow wikipedia policies and the proper dispute resolution channels. If you think he is a sock puppet you can file a report at WP:SSP for investigation. Thatcher131 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A block is very necessary, [16] Artaxiad 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BDORT

Hi Thatcher, Richard Malter has let me know that I'm "not welcome" on his Talk page, and has deleted my last messages to him there. So I cannot respond to his comments on his Talk page, and he is banned by ArbCom from posting on Talk:BDORT. In addition, I believe we have addressed, and have responded in detail to, all his concerns in the past. All he seems to be doing is re-hashing the same points over and over, in the hope that we'll eventually give up and let him have his favored WP:COI version. We have already spent countless words debating these issues ad nauseam, and his repeated attempts to rehash the same old issues are becoming very disruptive and WP:POINT. Crum375 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then just politely ignore him and his talk page. If any third party editors come to the article via the RFC, deal with them politely as well and point them to the talk page archives. I'm not ready at this point to ban RM from his own talk page but my patience is not infinite. Thatcher131 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice, will do as you suggest. Crum375 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nagorno-Karabakh

I will, but I want to make it clear that the main person edit-warring it not presently listed as a party on the arbitration and has no remedy yet proscribed for him. I do hope that the Arbcom notices my evidence and statement. --Golbez 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He can still be blocked for edit warring, 3RR is not an entitlement to revert 3 times. You should probably contact Kiril and Paul August directly, they seem to be doing the most work in analyzing each editor's contribution to the problem. Thatcher131 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Grandmaster already mentioned this above. Perhaps a remedy saying that partisans (those who obviously have a bias to one side or another, as all the participants in the arbitration do) are locked to a 1RR limit on related articles? For good, or the next year, or what not? I have little confidence that by dealing with this small group of users, the edit wars will be stopped. Slowed perhaps for a while, but hardly stopped. If I could enforce a 1RR on all partisans on Nagorno-Karabakh, the article would be a much happier place to work. (edit conflict) --Golbez 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested article probation to Kiril but he thought it would be so broad and encompass so many articles as to be unworkable. I would also make sure to inform HyeProfile of this arbitration and that he is behaving exactly as those editors who are currently proposed for revert parole or banning. Even if he escapes this case because he has only recently become active again, he won't escape a second case, which there almost certainly will be if people don't shape up. Again, Kiril and Paul August seem to be the leads here. Thatcher131 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez here, edit wars unlikely to stop after this arbcom. HyeProfile has been revert warring on Nagorno-Karabakh while this arbcom has been underway, and he shows no desire to stop. If most of the parties will be placed on parole, and such aggressive editors will not, then they will have an advantage and freedom to revert the articles as much as they want. I actually think that something should be done to prevent edit warring on such troubled articles as Nagorno-Karabakh, as practice shows that edit wars are unlikely to cease after this arbcom, and they will be continued by new users. Such troubled articles as Nagorno-Karabakh have a very delicate balance of words, achieved after many months of debates between the involved parties. I think that such articles as Nagorno-Karabakh or Nakhichevan should have an rv limit of 1 per person per day or even less than that, and only admins should be allowed to exceed it. There are few articles like that, 5 or 6, which a frequent POV battlefield, and something should be done with regard to them. Grandmaster 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You should suggest this to the arbitrators, particularly Paul August and Kiril Lokshin, who have done the most work drafting the proposed decision. Thatcher131 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way Atabek keeps on removing relevant information claiming they are irrelevant even though this balances weight on POV issues he still removes it, [17] Artaxiad 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for [18]. See also [19], I'm getting tired ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - Darwinek/Mt7

You might be interested in this 3RR report. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)