Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 19 April 2007

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.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Zeq

Hi. Why did you ignore my objection? Thanks. El_C 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Please review my comment here. At any case, this all may be moot, see User_talk:Zeq#Discrimination charges. Thanks. El_C 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If Zeq had complained about the ban it likely would have been properly endorsed. In some other quantum reality Zeq is sitting out the full block. If that means that Zeq takes temporary advantage of Zero's mistake courtesy of me, then I'm willing to live with it. Regarding the discrimination allegation, I don't really know what to do with that. I'm not a fan of civility blocks but if you or someone else thinks a block is justified, that would be a separate matter and one I'll probably stay out of. I think Zeq's block is the first admin action I have ever undone without consent of the admin who did it and I do not intend to make a habit of it. Just in this particular case, with this particular article ban and block, it needed to be redone correctly. Thatcher131 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I a fan of civility/pa blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere, I don't feel that accusations of "discrimination" constitute mere incivility; I consider it to be far more serious than telling somone to fuck off or whatnot. El_C 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you, then. Thatcher131 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq

Hello Thatcher131. I just want to say that, although I disagree with you on some aspects of this, I sincerely appreciate your effort to find a proper resolution. Cheers. --Zero 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Thatcher131 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, I was reading Zeq's Talk re: the whole recent block/ban issue. You mentioned that what tipped the scale for you was the this is contradicted by the Shaw report part. You should realise that Zeq's position was not "out there", as while he did a disservice to himself by not bothering to find some sourcing, there is quite a bit out there. I don't expect you to change your actions, but if you do run in to him again, keep in mind that the "scales" may have been more balanced than not. Cheers, Tewfik 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of an editor with a long history of disruptive behavior acting disruptively. There are several more appropriate ways that this could have been addressed, including discussing it on the talk page, finding more sources, compromising on how to discuss differing accounts, etc. For now, it's only a month ban and he is still free to discuss things on the talk page. Thatcher131 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only unsure if in this case he was more in the wrong than anyone else, and wanted to ensure that his history, while unflattering, wasn't putting him at an unfair disadvantage. I defer to your judgement in any event. Cheers, Tewfik 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do my best. It wasn't a content decision, but the way he framed the content ("I say such and so, which is contradicted by source A", rather than "source A describes the events as ... while source B describes the events as ...). Thatcher131 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN and Just H

Looking back that discussion was probably beneficial in the long run. I apologise for calling it a waste of time. – Steel 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinsella

What's up with Kinsella re-writing his Misplaced Pages entry? Catworthy 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is generally considered gauche for people to edit their own Misplaced Pages entries, and there have been a small number of cases of public figures being embarassed when it is discovered that they have been favorably editing their own entries, but it is not prohibited. Thatcher131 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a rebuttal on all the pages which Catworthy has left a comment. Permit me to add this in support of my position:

The recent material added is all sourced and presents a balanced NPOV.I see that Catworthy would prefer that I add material on the Ontario Lottery matter, subject which is taken up with much vigor by Mark Bourrie on his blog ,I may add something in a calmer atmosphere.

Interesting,that this recent unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added by Catworthy and the allegations are so similar to those of Telephonan Arthur Ellis sock.

Thank you for your time. TropicNord

Thatcher, I'm sure you'll catch this, but the Kinsella article was just reverted by User:Catworthy, and it's probably worth looking over that editor's actions. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but for various reasons I no longer watchlist the articles within the Kinsella sphere of dispute. Thatcher131 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably an excellent choice. Sorry to be a bother, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Thatch, as much as the rules that the ArbCom decided on must be stringently enforced, it's equally as important to pay attention to Atabek who has been keen on exploiting the loopholes of the ArbCom's decision by making a mockery of it. It's simple for him to make some controversial edit that will guarantee a reaction from the Armenian side to revert the change and then maintain that position to have someone, like Fedayee today, to be banned for it.

All it takes for Atabek is to make small changes here and there, play games with the system by crying foul and then getting off the hook while the unassuming editor gets punishment because of the exploitation of the rules. Adil did the same thing and he was banned for a year, many users, including Azerbaijani, are upset with the lenient restrictions imposed upon Atabek which only allows him to make the same pernicious edits over and over again. Regards, --MarshallBagramyan 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This certainly is a potential problem. Of course, the correct response to such baiting would be to discuss the changes on the talk page and try to come to some agreement before reverting or rewriting it. If there is agreement for a change then different editors can revert or rewrite the disputed section while Atabek can only pull this trick once per article. You may also wish to keep a record somewhere. If you can show a pattern of baiting across many articles (such as Dmcdevit found for Adil) I would be willing to block and/or approach Arbcom about a more strenuous sanction. However, I can't watch all those articles and even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for. Thatcher131 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Thatcher, I think the fact that Bagramyan fell out of ArbCom's attention was a miscalculation. Because he now is clearly is engaged in edit warring with Fedayee on March Days. I http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?titexplained my edits clearly on the talk page and even appealed for compromise . But if the matter persists, I think we should try dispute resolution on this page. It's been quite helpful earlier with user Srose as a third party. Both MarshallBagramyan and Fedayee seem to be unwilling to compromise on the talk page of March Days. Atabek 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Atabek making any baiting, he makes good faith edits to the article, most of which is written by him anyway. Neither MarshallBagramyan nor Fedayee showed any interest in that article before the arbcom, now they both started reverting it and accuse long time editors of that article of baiting. So it highly questionable who is baiting whom. As for Azerbaijani, it is a topic of a separate discussion. Now that Azerbaijani is on parole he cannot edit war across the multiple pages on a regular basis. Still he is waging a slow revert war. Just on 12 April he reverted 3 pages to their older versions. See: Here he reverted the page: To this version: And this edit is a partial revert, as he deleted the following line under the guise of adding info: However, official reports from international organizations, such as the leading human rights organization in the European Community, the Council of Europe, paint a favorable picture. This sort of editing is quite provocative. No surprise that Azerbaijani is frustrated, but he is not the one who has a room to accuse others of edit warring. Grandmaster 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if you think that in the year to come I will try following your reports of every editors with whom you disagree with to find out my name in it, that is not going to happen. It is not true!!! The only reason why Marshall and I got involved with this article was also why Fadix was involved previously...user:Atabek started baiting Armenians with “genocide” here and “genocide” there. Atabek re-inserted his “genocide” version with his various changes to which I reverted him and then tried re-inserting your changes (to find out later that you reported me while I did not have any major disagreement with you). Atabek brought back what all editors, beside banned user:AdilBaguirov and he disagreed with, you did not even comment on it either nor agreeing with him on this. He knew when he added it that he’ll be reverted and on his summary he claimed that it was deleted by the banned user:Artaxiad as if he was the only who opposed it. Artaxiad wasn’t even one of the main editors opposing him. He made various changes and with it made that change for which he knew his changes will be reverted. It was an attempt to game the system.

I am not involved on the Khachkar article, but I am strongly tempted to do it now, since Atabek is continuing to bait Armenians and has not changed his behaviour at all - Fedayee 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a whole new army of socks reverting pages in favor of Armenian POV. Check the contribs of Sparala (talk · contribs), Tricethin (talk · contribs), BWaves (talk · contribs), Torontz (talk · contribs), Restaren (talk · contribs), Henbacl (talk · contribs), Friesare22 (talk · contribs), there could be more. ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) also appears to be a sock, check his recent contribs. Urgent admin intervention is necessary. I will post this to ANI as well. Grandmaster 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have another question. Does reverting of the edits of socks of a banned user count as violation of revert parole? Grandmaster 08:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What about urgent admin intervention over Atabek? He has baited Armenian editors into not only engaging in edit wars but also engaging in heated debates on the Armenian Genocide which Atabek denies ever existed. It also has become apparent to me that the ArbCom completely looked over the fact that Atabek had a sockpuppet User:Tengri and that he constantly worked in support of User:AdilBaguirov whose actions have led him to be blocked for a year per the ArbCom's decision. I also fail to see how Atabek's condemnation of "the separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh as state terrorism" as espoused on his user page is helpful towards the future Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. -- Aivazovsky 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, while I don't understand the purpose of your campaign against me here, I would like to remind you that Misplaced Pages is not an Armenian state news agency. As a contributor to Misplaced Pages I am entitled to hold my own opinion about such matters as Armenian "Genocide" and separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan (recognized as such by U.N., U.S. State Department, PACE, Council of Europe, EU, Russia and even Armenia itself). It's my right to present my views on my own user page, while those do not violate Misplaced Pages rules. We are supposed to discuss the topics and come to compromises on articles, and I doubt accusations and blackmailing of myself about my position on talk pages or on my user page will be useful for anyone after ArbCom clearly made its decisions. And with the same token, your separating of NK separatism from those in Georgian provinces, and somehow trying to present one as right (NK) and others as wrong (Abkhazia, Ossetia) on your user page, does not at all contribute to peace between Azeri and Armenian peoples. Territorial integrity is a principle and right of every recognized nation to defend and practice within its recognized borders, be it Georgia or Azerbaijan. Atabek 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Skult of Caro

"In additiont to the improbability of an unrelated user caring whether or not a troll was misidentified..." Should I be expressing gratitude that I was not blocked as well, since I also pointed out that it was an imposter on the same page at about the same time? Everyking 07:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This chap was definitely Nathanrdotcom. No doubt involved. Please see my comment at User talk:Ryulong. Moreschi 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

THanks. Midgley 21:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Skult of Caro redux

Dear Thatcher131,

I have received an email from Skult of Caro claiming that they are not in fact nathanrdotcom, and that they believe the evidence against them was "circumstantial at best." Skult of Caro stated that they intend to pursue this matter in an arbitration case or a request for comment. As the administrator and clerk primarily involved in this matter, I think this should be brought to your attention. Thank you for your time. — MichaelLinnear 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, nathan used the same email address to email me some very scary letters. They are definitely the same person. — MichaelLinnear 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Subpage

I changed the link back; I feel that the active discussion needs to be separated from old ones (once they go stale then we can move them to the case page). I'm not entirely convinced of what I did, though, so feel free to convince me. :) - Penwhale | 06:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As is, it's sitting at 100k+ for the case talk page.. another reason why I dislike using the talk page to discuss. ;x - Penwhale | 06:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche/Will be back/Zero

First thank you for your cool head.

I don't always agree with your concusion but respect your judgment and acting in cool head under intense situation.

I don't think there will be a need to go into the Larouche issues raised by willbeback. Zero has been violating so many Misplaced Pages policies (both as admin and as editor) and also have been specifically instructed by Fred bauder not to apply probation ban as the first measure of dispute resolution against a user under probation:

:He(Zeq) is certainly a zionist, but as to redeeming features I would disagree. My dialog with him dates from his arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, and I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing. The link to the article was not good today, so I can't comment on that. I think you assume too much. You say, "Of course he knows it is nonsense". I think that, in fact, he does not know it is nonsense. But I do think he might listen to and understand a patient explanation presented in a courteous way. Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Remedies, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." If that is necessary, please ask for it. Fred Bauder 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Key word here is "ask": "If that is necessary, please ask for it".

Zeq 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I found your comment on the LaRouche/Zeq/Zero issue to be very insightful, and I pretty much agree with your sentiment there. I have posted a response to it on the main RFAr page. Basically, when one well-respected administrator could interpret "any admin" the way he did, I think the term needs some clarification. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk

He is trying to bait me into arguing with him. Look at all the cheap shots he throws at me here, diverting a whole section into an attack on me:

Basically, he is calling me immoral, uncivilized, uneducated, etc... he also tries to tell me which Misplaced Pages articles I can and cannot edit, etc... you can just read his comments.

By his comments, it is very apparent that he is leaving or wants to leave Misplaced Pages and wants to take me down with him. I will not respond to him anymore, but be reminded that this is the same tactic that users Atabek and Adilbaguirov used against me several times in their attempt at character assassination. They have several times tried to make me angry or make me say something for which they can get me banned from Misplaced Pages. These users have all been warned at one point or another about civility and not commenting on users by other admins.

I fail to understand why these users (Atabek and Elsanaturk) were not banned.Azerbaijani 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just keep cool. There is always the possibility of reopening the case to take further actions if some or all of the involved editors (or new ones) continue to be disruptive. Keep your cool so you don't get dragged along if there is a second case. Thatcher131 00:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats it, I'm sick of this user personal attacks, please ban him, he is just asking to be banned with these comments! Here are his newest personal attacks: Azerbaijani 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you not done anything?Azerbaijani 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Character assassination

Thatcher, I am concerned about targetting of myself by group of Armenian contributors and by Azerbaijani. First of all, I didn't even have time to contribute to pages edited by Azerbaijani since ArbCom, so I don't see what he wants from me. I see this only as attempt of character assassination and harassment. About Aivazovsky and Bagramyan, both showed their inability to come to compromise on Qazakh and March Days talk pages. And Bagramyan here is removing sourced information without any discussion. So in their inability to try consensus, both are just concentrated on complaining about me. Please, pay attention especially to Talk:March Days, despite my attempts to contribute and edit the article, Fedayee and MarshallBagramyan are joined in edit warring and targeting me. In tandem with these, socks of user Artaxiad vandalized my user page 5 times. I think this is a harassment campaign rather than objective attempt to disengage from warrior attitude.Atabek 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user MarshallBagramyan

I would like to draw your attention to user:MarshallBagramyan. He is engaged in massive rv's on Azerbaijan-Armenia related page. On page Armenian Revolutionary Federation he removed text with 5 refrences without any discussion and moreover threatened to report me to Arbcom . I was already once insulted on that page by other users which was a part of Arbcom consideration.--Dacy69 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break Dacy, you're fooling no one. What is the purpose of wording an article (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) like this "Armenian pro-Bolshevik scholar Papazian noted in this regard that many Armenians get tired of the ARF who terrorized their own people, extorting money from wealthy Armenians or this Dashkov noted that ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpatrating the massacres. Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages. Exterminate villages? as in genocide? as in cleansing people from their homes all organized by one fringe political party? Talk about falsification of history....

These are purely POV edits supported by obscure sources and complaining to the admins is only hurting your case.

Thatch, this is precisely what I was telling you about: Dacy deliberately words the article in this manner and naturally, an Armenian user must come revert him. I threatened to report him because its edits like this that continually hinder any attempts for reconciliation. He always has something negative he has to add. --MarshallBagramyan 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost word by word quoted sources - so it is not my POV. Moreover, it is not obscure sources - it is primary sources. Besides you have removed others and failed to make explanation on talkpage. I gave an offer for content dispute, and wait for responses on talkpage. But you again use inappropriate language.--Dacy69 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Marshal is not part of the case, and I really don't know enough about the situation to judge content (and that is not a proper admin role anyway). You will have to try the dispute resolution process, perhaps a request for comment or third opinion] to start. I see a lot of talking on the talk page but not much evidence that either side is listening. If he behavior persists and you can get some support for your attempted edits you can try and bring a new case. Thatcher131 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I filed RfC per your advise. Unfortunately, --MarshallBagramyan continue to make personal attack on contrubutor - you can read the end of this message , rather on concentrating on dispute content. I will continue developing arguments for RfC but I don't expect that opponents will be willing to work towards solution, taking into account continued attacks.--Dacy69 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

this is a new one - how I am supposed to work when I am constantly under attacks.--Dacy69 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hasn't Dacy69 violated 1RR by reverting twice within 7 days in Khachkar destruction? Not only did he revert twice within a week he didn't even write anything in the talk page. His second edit summary said reverting vandalism even though it's clearly a content dispute of which he has a been part of all along.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)