User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

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.

Re: Nomination for Deletion: Jeff Rosenbaum

Dear Thatcher,

Please notice the entry here [1], (and the short line on the project page this talk page is about, which just directs people to the talk page). As it indicates, the account User:Jeff Rosenbaum was a one-time creation to post this agreement by the subject of an article with the deletion nomination. I only mention it here, because in retrospect I worry that this may be perceived either by an editor or a bot as a sock-puppet, so I ask you to take note and prevent this from resulting in a block. It is not meant to serve any sock-puppet purpose, just to clearly indicate that the subject of the article is voicing agreement with the deletion nomination, which was intentionally done on the talk page rather than weigh in on the project page itself. No other use for this account is planned. Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But Jeff, you've now edited the AfD under both accounts. This is not ok. By posting with two accounts on an AfD, and talking about yourself in the third person with the Rosencomet account, those unfamiliar with your history on WP will be given the mistaken impression that they're dealing with two different people. That's pretty much the definition of sockpuppeting. This is really not ok. And anyway, you've already admitted to being Jeff Rosenbaum multiple times, so what is this supposed to accomplish? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The explanation for those entries is quite clearly stated here, as you can plainly read. There are no votes entered from either account on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Your statements here, especially concerning sockpuppetry, are just another example of your desire to put me in the worst possible light at all times, even in a case like this when your nomination for deletion is being supported, not fought, and an express plea is made to an arbitrator to help steer me clear from any technical breech. Please accept an act of cooperation as such, instead of turning it into another reason to flag me as disruptive. In the last ten days, in spite of all the deletions and, in some cases, incorrect information added to the articles that all these complaints are about, I have not edited articles themselves at ALL except comments on talk pages except to respond to two requests for citations, fix a typo (to fix a link), and delete the mention of ACE as the producer of a CD they did not produce. In fact, I did very little editing of actual articles for several days before that, and mostly, again, responses to citation requests or link or typo fixing. I have been subjected to a flood of criticism even for commenting on talk pages, exactly what the arbitration said I should do. And I apologize to you, Thatcher, for the need to respond to a post directed at someone other than you on your talk page. Rosencomet (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the rules concerning editors posting on another editor's user page. Am I allowed to delete the flag Kathryn posted on my user page? Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email. Happy new year, by the way. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Marsden

Yes, two years is a long time. Thanks. M. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, did you ever see what Kitty's Little Helper did on Wikipedia? That was the "sock" that got Arthur Ellis banned. A few articles about trilobites, plus some copy edits. Hardly "vandalism". 209.217.75.171 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After a bunch of sock puppets, a lot of nasty comments by IP, and your overall attitude, I'm not surprised that you wore out your welcome. As I recall you were banned for a month, and couldn't keep quiet, so that every time you got caught, the timer was reset, until people were just fed up. The argument that you were right on the underlying issue, therefore the manner in which you conducted yourself should be excused, only ever worked for a few very productive editors, and even that exemption seems to be drying up. Thatcher 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty snotty. My "attitude" and my opinions have been borne out over time. The things I have complained about have finally been fixed, albeit belatedly and grudgingly and rarely by you. I have complained the Canadian entries are dominated and owned by a small group of editors who use Wikipedia's rules to enforce ideological conformity, and I'm right. I also get blamed for a hell of a lot of vandalism and sockpuppetry that is not mine and is quite likely the work of the very people I have complained about. I was up against a guy who calls himself a modern-day Machiavelli (see www.warrenkinsella.com) and a group of Vancouver-area "editors" who had so much hatred for Marsden that I was/am left wondering what connection they had to the Simon Fraser harassment case -- a question no one asks. I won at arbcomm and yet was the only person who was sanctioned. Fair, huh? So, rather than be someone inside the tent, I end up as someone outside. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

You've probably not gotten the complete picture, based on what you wrote on my talk page. I've responded there, but have posted this message because it's urgent you understand that I'm actually not ignoring the community or you. (You said yourself at the arbcom noticeboard that specific discussion about article issues should occur elsewhere.) Anynobody 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to appear confrontational about this, but if you really assume good faith and look at the sequence of events you'll see that I wasn't actually doing anything wrong.

• I've always said her FOIA history, and related pro se litigation, is what makes her notable. (That's what the available sources cover as I said on User talk:Tilman).
• Her article was deleted and the review determined it should stay deleted. (Correct me if I'm wrong but it simply meant that there wasn't enough from reliable sources to justify a whole article.)
• I expanded the FOIA USA article.
• Later I came across Neutral reportage, which I happened to notice mentions her suit vs the Salt Lake Tribune.
  • I'd never even seen the article let alone edited it.
  • Once I was done, it occured to me that anyone typing "Barbara Schwarz" into the search field could be looking for info on either her FOIA or pro se defamation suit info. Therefore I turned her page into a disambiguation.
• It occurred to me that it would only be a matter of time until someone adds her to a Scientology controversy page. By looking to see what sources there were regarding her and the CoS I planned to either add mention myself or if no sources exist, remove mention if I came across it.

(Aside from the logical error of extending a possible Scientology topic ban to an article which doesn't mention Scientology.) Anynobody 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt about this, I am so free to disagree with your (Anynobody's) justification. It was you that suddenly turned the FOIA and the Neutral Reportage article entries about Barbara Schwarz prominently stand out. This was directly following the decision to keep the article on Barbara Schwarz deleted. It was found that Barbara Schwarz was no particular public person, nonetheless you do not appear to respect that decision judging your later editing and utterances. I made several comments on Anynobody (Everynobody)'s talkpage see here. I have strongly the impression that this user has been stalking Barbara Schwarz for quite a while. --Olberon (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was you that suddenly turned the FOIA and the Neutral Reportage article entries about Barbara Schwarz prominently stand out. Uh yeah, that's my point, she was mentioned in both, there are sources which discuss both in detail. If you combine the two subjects, they would not be enough to support an entire article about her (like the one deleted) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned either. Essentially it sounds like you (Olberon) are angry that I asked if there were any sources about her in German media, because you keep bringing it up despite the fact that neither one was found nor did I add unsourced information anyway.

Thatcher, if I had gone ahead to add information talking about how her religion is locking her into madness in an actual article then a Schwarz/Scientology ban would make sense. You may not think expansion of her case mention in neutral reportage is appropriate but please don't let that dictate your actions. (Again, since the articles each focus on subjects, only her life in those contexts is fit for mention in them. The neutral reportage article didn't even mention Scientology (nor should it). Only her very public assertion that she had been defamed by a local newspaper is what was there and all I had intended to allow. Anynobody 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

There are certainly versions of this article in the history that do not cause BLP issues (as they do not mention anything contentious) therefore your deletion is unvalid. Catchpole (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In looking at the history of the article, I find it has been deleted or stubbed about 7 times to deal with these problems. That tells me that no one watches the article after stubbing except whoever it is who manages to sneak back unsuitable material time and time again. Which is an indicator of notability (or lack thereof). Plus, even for people who are notable enough for wikipedia but still minor, I believe the BLP policy contemplates deletion in cases where insufficient information exists to write a neutral article. Some of the problems may be coming from the POV of the editors; for example, her dismissal from Fox was covered extensively but not her hiring--why was she hired, what did they see in her that made them give her a slot in the first place, etc. On the other hand these questions may not be answerable except with reference to her personal blog, which use as a source is problematic. I am not committed to deletion, I will listen to and think about additional arguments, or you can go to deletion review. Thatcher 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Per request for confirmation

Yes I am, and I will also confirm that, although I am aware that the first long post related to SandyGeorgia was altered without my knowledge that alteration did not distort my meaning in any substantial way. Copying to your talk page --Zeraeph (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Returned

My wiki-break is now over and as I seem, through necessity, to be editing, albeit in a very limited field and on a very reduced scale would you mind undeleting/unprotecting my talk and user pages. I have had some valuable, and much needed, time to think things through and am now quite happy for my pages to be once again open for business. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Apology

No need, Thatcher, really. The only reason I had to post that chronology is to provide context for my impertinent remarks. Yes, I was very confused and felt snubbed, but, done, over, no problem :-) I should have handled it better; I should have posted to your talk page, asking you if you had received my e-mails, but I was afraid that posting anything publicly would further the problems. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I a party?

Am I a "party" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia? I am not sure if I am posting in the right place. Thanks, Mattisse 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, considering the things she has said about you. Thatcher 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please live up to your word

After you posted your warning, this was placed on the talk page: [2] in direct contravention of your warning. Please show that you are not kidding. I will not defend myself to remain within the guidelines you laid out. But I expect you to act if I cannot.--Filll (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned him and asked him to remove it. Thatcher 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You warned him. And he did NOT do as you asked, willfully disregarding your request. Brave man. And quite full of himself; assured he is right and able to sling insults with impunity. I will not respond, but I trust you will act as you promised to show you are not a paper tiger. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He struck out part of the comment and acknowledged his error [3] and has not made any more edits since then. Seems like a reasonable response. Thatcher 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he did not remove it as you asked. And the part that is unstruck I find quite uncivil. Far worse than anything I posted that you flagged as inappropriate, in my opinion. But you do not have to agree of course.--Filll (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would it be possible for me to remove my remarks from the Arbitration (Zeraeph) and drop out? This is the first arbitration I have ever entered evidence in. I do not understand what I am doing. I have heard of only a few people mentioned in the arbitration arguments. I do not know what is going one and do not understand the issues. I do not know how to say the right things. This is way over my head. Further, health wise, I cannot hang on any longer. I cannot continue in it.

Even if I cannot remove my remarks, I will not enter more, nor will I follow the case on my watch list any more. I do not have the strength or fortitude to continue. I will leave your page on my watch list for an answer to this question. Thanks, Mattisse 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You certainly do not have to continue to participate. The Arbitrators will consider all the evidence, comments, etc and make their decisions. If you do not feel up to making further comments, then stop or edit something else if it eases your mind. Some of the proposals I have made related to past incidents as I am trying to establish the history. You came into this very late so naturally you are not familiar with the earlier history. As long as your concerns are addressed (Zeraeph's comments toward you personally) then don't worry about the rest. Thatcher 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I could've swore

That injunction requires majority, not 4 net. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to act

You have warned several times. This lady is well aware of the restrictions and warnings and has indicated as much. She has acknowledged this several times on the case talk pages. I find the following edit highly inappropriate and highly offensive: [4]. Cursing is ok after having been warned? I think not. I have had it with the bullying and abuse that continues unabated and the bias and the rush to judgement that I see expressed on these pages. I implore you to do as you promised, or else I will be required to seek other remedies if you are unable or unwilling to act. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense was intended in the first place, "Jesus" was being used as an expression of dismay at Dave sousa's comment. However since Filll clearly finds offensive I removed it. I stand by my overall statement though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. Time to act.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm soooooo tempted to say "I disagree thanks", but that would be lame. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. It is time to act. And thanks for calling me lame.--Filll (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, Filll has a point here. Please don't wind him up. Filll, wait for Thatcher to respond. You are both digging yourselves in deeper here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill I apologise for teasing you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The best apology would be for you to recuse yourself. You clearly cannot remain civil, even when repeatedly warned. You clearly are biased and have been involved in an unseemly rush to judgement and unseemly personal attacks aplenty. And taking the Lord's name in vain when criticizing someone you disagree with is just the final straw. Calling me lame for having retreated almost to the point of remaining mute just adds insult to injury. I know it might seem fun to you to bully others who might disagree with you into silence, but this must stop. Recuse yourself now, or let Thatcher force you to recuse, or else I will find someone who will.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of stopping posting to the workshop page, but I'd be happy to stop talking to you if you like. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Care for a shovel?--Filll (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what's happening here? Anything I can help with? El_C 19:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, El_C; Filll, wbfergus and Theresa Knott were testing the limits of civil discourse on Talk Jim62sch/Evidence and I warned them to play nice (see the evidence talk page). Now it appears that Filll is pretending outrage at Theresa while he himself makes similar comments (on the workshop talk page). However, I have since edited the workshop heavily making proposals and suggestions so I feel a bit constrained in taking further action (that whole "involved in a dispute" thing even though I'm not really). If you wanted to check Theresa and Filll's contribs and ban one or both of them from making further comments on the Jim62sch case pages (for say 48 hours) that might be an appropriate use of admin discretion. Thatcher 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. After being warned, how have I continued to be uncivil? Please show me. Have I cursed at anyone? Used profanity? Ever? Show me please.--Filll (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the explanation. Sure, I'll look into it. El_C 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have listed Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you speedily deleted, at deletion review. John254 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes?

I do not accept your explanation. None of my evidence related to content disputes, it was ALL related to user conduct. Did you even bother to read it? Maybe you should take another look. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My evidence started under the heading "Holodomor denial". Please go and take another look. I quite agree a lot of the "evidence" other users added was concerning content disputes but mine was not. Gatoclass (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks and failure to assume good faith should be easy to document with a few diffs per editor. I have no interest in reading 10,000 words on the dispute just to find those diffs. Thatcher 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you are probably right. I can probably condense my evidence down to no more than a few lines. It's just that when I make a statement I like to make it comprehensive so I don't have to go explaining a whole lot of stuff on the run later. Also because I was facing sanctions I wanted to be sure I presented enough evidence to defend myself.

Anyhow, it will have to wait until tomorrow now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations on talk pages

Hi -- I'd like to call to your attention the fact that Dking and Cberlet have resumed the same kind of BLP misconduct for which you blocked Cberlet some months ago. I refer to these edits:[5][6] Cberlet refers to published accounts -- there are none, save for a self-published essay on the Dennis King website. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Digwuren restriction notice

While I strongly maintain that I did not "disparage" anyone for their national origins - a notion that I quite frankly find deeply offensive - I am not going to contest your judgement on that because I accept that you made it in good faith and, quite frankly, I am heartily sick of this whole business and just want it all to go away.

I will ask you, however, to reconsider the notice in my case based on your comment that Obviously you all are aware [ie of the Digwuren restriction] having commented extensively here or at the AN/I discussion of the matter. In my case, this simply isn't accurate. I had absolutely NO idea about the "Digwuren general restriction" until Termer brought me before the arbcom enforcement under the terms of that clause. The proof is in my posts to Termer, here, when he first took it to arbcom enforcement, and in my comment to User:Ioeth on his talk page, in response to Vecrumba's comment to Ioeth that "Gatoclass is in need of a friendly warning under the Digwuren arbitration decision. I have no desire to have Gatoclass banned..." This got my attention and I then went, for the first time, to check out the Digwuren case to see what this threat was all about, after which I responded to PetersV's threat thus: [7]

So I think that demonstrates that I was not in fact aware of the "Digwuren general restriction" when I made the comment about users' backgrounds. If I had known about it, I doubt very much I would have been sucked in to making a comment about users' motivations by Turgidson's question.

In which case, I would ask you to reduce my notice this time around to a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The notice is intended to make you aware of the "Digwuren general restriction", it is in essence a warning to people not familiar of the Digwuren case to be on their best behaviour while editing EE articles. Why we have to jump through hoops as we did on the enforcement noticeboard to get people like yourself who are not familiar with the case noticed in is beyond me. Martintg (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)