User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Your RfA

After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA to match when the RfA is posted to WP:RFA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 18:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: earlier discussion: If you want to post it to RfA tonight after you've completed everything, feel free. You need not wait until Friday. Up to you. --Durin 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll see it's up now. Thanks for a terrific nom, and I hope I never disappoint you. Thatcher131 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt you will. You've gained quite a reputation for yourself here as a fantastic contributor to this project. Your RfA is off to a swimming start at ~~12-0~~ 16-0. I think you can relax now, and not worry about your RfA being a meat grinder. :) --Durin 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thatcher131 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like this is going to more stressful than it should be. For what its worth, I think your comment that Rory cited was spot on. SPUI is a divisive editor with a loooong history of blocks to his name. That he was blocked three times under the related ArbCom ruling should shed all the light necessary for someone to understand the context under which that comment was made. You were spot on. I've made similar comments to people before, doing so as a last resort to calm a situation down. 99 times out of 100 I'll use water, but sometimes fire is needed. Your application of fire in this case was spot on.
Neverthless, I am concerned this could torpedo the nomination because behavior at RfA is typically to pile on oppose votes if someone finds a single diff that is disturbing. We were at 21-0 before Rory's comment. Since then, we've had 6 supports and 7 (now) 6 opposes. I've contacted four oppose voters to reconsider their comments (example). One has changed from oppose to neutral. I only contacted those whose basis was just Rory's comment, as this is precisely the sort of pile-on vote that will happen. --Durin 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to being somewhat bemused at the comments of pschemp and freak that I am too much a stickler for process, given the recent feelings on the noticeboards that too many admins are ignoring process. One thing is for certain, though. I am who I am (which means, in part, having an advanced degree and a child older than a member of Arbcom), and if I don't have the temprement to be a Wikipedia admin today, I never will. I appreciate you (and JoshuaZ) defending me so vigorously and so well, and let's see where process takes us tomorrow. Thatcher131 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would appear our defense has given something for people to chew on. Since my comments above where the voting had gone 6-6, it's now gone 10-1. I think it's quite clear how the comments were misconstrued by Rory. --Durin 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that your RFA is not going as smoothly as anticipated. I had some very negative comments on my RFA but was promoted with 93% when it was all said and done. Respond politely using good logic and you will persuade some users to support you that might have not otherwise. --FloNight 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've said about all I can say on the current issue without appearing combatitive. If anything else comes up I will definitely respond with care and thought. Thatcher131 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You're one of less than 5% of all admins who have had at least 100 people in support of their RfAs. :) Looks like things are going pretty well now on the RfA. It's certainly not over, but I think you can relax. Opposition comments have been slow in coming over the last two days. --Durin 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the WP:100 isn't what is used to be :) . Three more days. Thatcher131 05:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the time period for the RfA to close has officially ended. It's currenly at 117-25. Though, five of those oppose votes came just today, much to my surprise. The RfA should clearly be in the "pass" realm. I'm sorry this became such a meat grinder for you. I tried my best to find everything I could that might create problems for you in the RfA and I feel as though I let you down in not finding the cite that Rory noted, and addressing it before the RfA was made and handed off to you. My apologies. Hoping that its not premature, congratulations on becoming an admin! I am quite positive you will be a fantastic admin. I expect I'll see you with checkuser rights sometime within the next year too. --Durin 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for nominating, supporting and defending me. It certainly has been a stressful 7 days but I don't blame you for that. Everyone sees things through their own eyes, so I'm not surprised someone found something negative to focus on. I am curious, to say the least, about the 5 opposes that all came in in the last few hours, within a few minutes of each other. But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Thanks again, and I'll see you around the neighborhood. Thatcher131 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo's subpage

FYI, here's an archived version of Terryeo's page that has been deleted as an attack page. [1]

Versions of that page were up for a long while: he initially listed "suppressive person" editors, then changed it to "critical person" editors when somebody threatend to delete the page. I haven't followed it closely enough to know whether there were significant changes between the archived version and the one just deleted--at least, this gives you the flavor of the thing. --BTfromLA 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline to look at that for now, as I'm pretty tired and preoccupied with another matter. In general, a listing of "unhelpful" editors with diffs would be ok with me, but labeling them SPs is definitely a personal attack, since SP has a specific and highly loaded meaning within the CoS. I'm pretty sure "black hats" is in the same category, but it's been so long since I dealt with CoS issues that I don't remember the details. (I was active on a.r.s. during the Dennis Ehrlich/SCAMIZDAT era.) In general, statements about an editor's editing record should be ok no matter who is making them, but personal characterizations and assigning motive ("you oppose me because you are a ______") ought not to be tolerated. Thatcher131 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Squeakbox and Hagiographer

Hi, sorry it took so long apparently there hasn't been enough attention on WP:PAIN. But what you reported seems like a very debatable issue, maybe this is why it was allowed to stay unattended for so long. Has the issue been resolved by now? If not I recommend moving the report to WP:AN/I where it can be properly discussed, the WP:PAIN is really for more obvious personal attacks not needing discussions as far as I see it. Cheers.--Konstable 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Thatcher131 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographer and MJGR are the same editor, so all remedies should apply to both. The evidence that MJGR was behind the Zapatero/Zapatancas attacks is no better or worse than it was for Hagiographer - that is, a geographic correspondence, but nothing more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just extend, but you could always bring it to the noticeboard as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom appeal

Thanks for getting in touch. If I was sure that Dmcdevit was going to recuse (as he most definitely should), then I would remove that section. But as he attacked my first appeal without declaring his involvement, I felt I had to spell it out. David | Talk 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden Notice

Just a heads up that the arbcom notice you are using links to Requests for adminship instead of Requests for Arbitration. Geedubber 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. Thatcher131 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add specific comments to cleanup tag

Hi Thatcher131 (talk),

I believe your specific comments for the cleanup of the article Commitment ordering have been met by 8 September 2006 (UTC).

The tag that you have put in the article is now too vague to provide guidance, and requests the addition of more specific comments, if needed. Please advise. Thank you.

CC: Article discussion

Comps 12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Help Please

Would it be at all possible for you to assist with the format for this entry from approx a couple weeks back which you removed for incorrect format:

Vendar

- User:Vendar aka User:71.56.142.123 - :Appears to be trying to remove all references to (former?) partners Blue Blood from multiple Wiki entries. Already been reverted in some places by User:Stormie More contributions from this user have now been reverted by User:Iamcuriousblue

Tried my best to get it correct, but never had to do this before. Help from someone more experienced would be wonderful. 24.127.62.7 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I created the RFC page for you; the full page name is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vendar. You need to fill in the sections on Statement of the dispute including a basic description, evidence (diff links from the contribution history showing disputed behavior), and indicate which policies you think have been violated. Then sign the statement, after which you can list it on the RFC page. You should notify people on their talk pages, both Vendar and people who you think might support your view.
It seems this is not yet a serious enough problem for an RFC. The two accounts only have a couple dozen edits, and Vendar's talk page is blank, so it looks like there has been no effort to discuss the issue prior to filing the RFC. Without some effort at conversation, it may not get much support or the second certification it needs. If you have tried to discuss the issues with Vendar on the article talk pages, rather than just reverting, you should mention this in the section "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute." Good luck. Thatcher131 11:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I checked the history of the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser page and hadn't seen any contributions from UninvitedCompany in the past 500 edits on the page and thought it was a case of vandalism. I didn't realize he was a checkuser who was going to fill in. Thanks for the revert. Neil916 (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. These days most of the checkuser edits are on the /Case subpages; the main page is mostly edited by requesters and clerks. Easy mistake. Thatcher131 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. Normally I inform new Admins of the useful forums, but in your case I believe the list is unnecessary, being that you are already acquainted with the Admin-related forums.
Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge. Redux 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try not to embarass myself ;) Thatcher131 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket RFA thanks

Thanks for commenting on my successful RFA. If you supported me, I can never sufficiently express my appreciation. If you opposed me, I have taken your comments into consideration and I will do my best to earn your trust and respect in the future. Thatcher131 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Guinnog 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Thatch! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Congrats! Naconkantari 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, now run over and help us with the CSD which has a backlog. :) JoshuaZ 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for becoming admins. Daniel's page ☎ 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now go and block those checkuser identified sockpuppets. --Kevin_b_er 03:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, 2 hours and I have a Honey-do list here, too! Thatcher131 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, Kevin, I went over to CSD to try out the new tools and found an article tagged as nonsense that needed to be worked on instead, so there! Thatcher131 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the success of your re-adminship application. Like all reapplications, you ran into all that opposition you built up during your previous admin tenure as well as the general presumption that admins are corrupt. But hey, you made it :).
What, it wasn't a readminship? Well, it sure felt like one ;). NoSeptember 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a little wierd. Thanks for supporting me. Thatcher131 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Sockpuppets beware, Thatcher is about! ;) --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats indeed on your well-deserved RfA. Happy editing. Jonathunder 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congratulations and all the best! If you ever need anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Syrthiss 12:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]