User talk:Thatcher/Alpha - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:Thatcher

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 23 January 2007 (→Sweeping under the rug). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:22, 23 January 2007 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→Sweeping under the rug)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I have a significant crisis/opportunity coming up at work in the next month. I will probably log in once a day or so to check messages and perform a few clerical tasks here and there. However, I regret that I am unable to answer complicated questions or intervene in new disputes, as I simply don't have the time to study and understand new situations. I hope to be back to normal by the end of February.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

User talk:Thatcher131/SSB

Waldorf Education etc arbitration

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The primary editors involved have not let up the edit warring, and especially Pete K is edit warring at an even faster pace than he was before the arbitration. In under two weeks since the arbitration was closed he has racked up about 50 reverts, not all identified in the summary as such but it's still easy to see how many there are. . Even reverting to preserve plagiarized text. . This is the atmosphere there now. Pete K edits under his own fiat, he reverts under his own fiat, and orders everyone else to "take it to the talk page first" where he will, if he feels like it, grant someone else permission to make a particular edit too. While others have helped by finding sources by outside publishers, as we were supposed to do, he reverts those references if he feels like it, (just one here reverted with a false excuse, he later admits he hadn't even read the source). And he even continues to add new references to Steiner published materials, this one also just one easy for me to find quickly He even edit wars over changes to talk pages . As maybe the ultimate symbol of what a mockery he's made of the arbitration process, instead of abiding by the terms and intentions of its decision, Pete K does his part by warring to put two "article probation" tags on the page instead of one, , saying two signs instead of one will "grab attention better". He's even received another 24 ban for 3rr edit warring, his 3rd one in 6 months.

The arbitration failed completely. Even though nobody deserves it as much as Pete K, after all the time wasted by everybody to gather and check evidence the first time around, it might be a better use of time to just ban everybody for a long cooling off period, even me. I don't think I've done anything to deserve it, but if that's what it takes to avoid another marathon of diffs to get the picture, take out everybody involved from editing those articles. Venado 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with I blocked Pete K and Hgilbert for 24 hours each for edit warring, and left a detailed message on the talk pages. Unfortunately, there are no more specific remedies in the arbitration case other than what generally applies to all editors. It may be necessary to reopen the case to apply more specific penalties, but no one should look forward to that and think he/she will be the one left standing. Thatcher131 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I have read the arbitration ruling closely and have come to a somewhat different conclusion than you with regard to what are to be considered acceptible sources as citations for what types of info in the Waldorf related articles, based on the description of the Verifiability point, in the Final decision:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

I interpret that to say that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered reliable. Do you find this interpretation to be wrong?

The unclear point is what is to be considered controversial in the articles, and that in the case of the Waldorf article refers to what in general is practiced at about 900 schools world wide, applying similar principles and curricula.

Pete K has stated that he's about to put 200 fact tags in the article on Waldorf education. That would put a demand for verification on the article in a separate category from probably all other articles at Misplaced Pages. It would constitute extremely bad faith hostile editing.

This comes to expression also for example, just to mention a fex examples, one of them mentioned above by Venado, his repeated insistence first that the Waldorf article has an Article probation info box not only at the Talks page, like all other articles on probation, but also at the top of the Article page itself calling the removal "aggressive editing", and then, when giving up on this, insisting , that at least two Article probation info boxes be placed, one directly on top of the other at the Talks page of the article, not only the one you put there, but also another more general one directly below it. Another - to me - strange repeated insistence by him is that the word anti-racism (and probably also not "anti racism" or "antiracism" either) cannot be used in a section title, arguing that it is not a word.

I think one must have sympathy for the difficulty for the ArbCom in penetrating the complex issue of how to come to a reasonable decision regarding the editing of the articles in question with on the one hand a tendency to bloat the Waldorf article with not immediately cited language, and on the other hand the extremely hostile editing practiced by Pete K.

As far as I understand, nothing in the Arbitration decision indicates that that part of the WP:NOR policy should not be applied in this case, that says:

"... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

How to attain that reasonable goal?

If Pete K is banned for one or other reason, I'm confident that more level headed, reasoned and reasonable critics will take his place and contribute to a more normal situation for the editing of the articles. I'm sorry for my part in having contributed to the present situation four months ago.

Thanks, Thebee 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this part of WP:NOR also applies. There is some tension between "source-based research" and "drawing novel conclusions from primary sources." When in doubt, use reliable secondary sources. So for example, claims regarding racism being controversial, you can't use Waldorf sources to show that Waldorf is/was racist/anti-racist. Pete K seems to have some disagreement over a supposed policy against wearing black. He can not use school handbooks (self-published and not necessarily representative of the movement) or parent blogs as sources. Pete claims that the high school cirriculum section leaves out key points. If you can't agree on how to describe the cirriculum, then out it goes unless you can quote a third party source. And so on.

This is not an ideal example, but I have previously dealt with a group of editors on the topic of goth metal music. They all know what goth metal is, and which bands are and which aren't, but since they each "know" something different, they edit war. If one of them could quote a third party authority, it would have to stop. Similarly on the active arb case involving Brahma Kumaris. Two editors, one a current insider and one a former insider, now disenchanted, both have access to movement documents, teaching aids and scriptures that are not available to the general public. One insists that BK is planning the end of the world and is a dangerous cult, the other denies. Again, all based on personal knowledge, and personal interpretation and conclusion from primary sources.

You may have a case that Pete K is the most disruptive and that merely banning him will solve the problem for everyone else. Perhaps the committee will see it that way. Roll the dice if you must. Thatcher131 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! On a first reading, I completely agree with your stance. What is stated as Waldorf theory says nothing about in what sense and to what extent the theory also is practiced. For that, systematical empirical sources are necessary. A difference in relation to Brahma Kumaris is that much of the original sources regarding anthroposophy in terms of what Steiner himself wrote or said is published on the net, and thus available for everyone to check against statements or articles about it, for example by such an author as a Mr. Staudenmaier. As for a possible ban on Pete K, as I see it, it would solve most of the issues regarding the articles involved, in terms of making the issues possible to discuss and agree on in a reasonable manner. My only real problem is with him, and he's the only one I'm polemical against (except the last days also "Wikivag"). I have experience of bullying, and I see no reason to accept it from him just to keep the peace in discussions. It's deeply degrading and insulting, both in personal terms and to reasonable thinking and arguing, and noone should have to be faced with it. But one issue is not clear. I have the definite impression that the "new" editor using the name "Wikiwag", though claiming to be a 62 year old man who likes to be adressed "Captain" or Sir(?), is a sock puppet for Diana W, set up after few days after Diana understood herself to have been blocked from editing an article on RS or anthroposophy. I have described the reasons for this impression at the Talks page of Durova, and asked her to look into it. So relieving to read someone sensible in all these discussions, as also I think Venado is. Again, thanks for your answer. Thebee 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the only regular editor of the articles with NO actual or implied conflict of interest, I think it would be a very poor decision to ban me. I am faced with the difficult task (pretty much by myself) of bringing these articles from a very biased POV to a NPOV. Nobody on the Waldorf Ed side of the fence seems interested in changing the well-biased articles in any timely manner. I have, today, at the risk of being banned I suppose, removed the Anthroposophical references and requested citations - for the entire Waldorf Education article (including ones I have produced to support my views). I've done this all at once because when we have tried to do this one by one, edit wars erupt over each and every issue - "this isn't controversial", "that is polemical", "my site is better than your site". Frankly, I don't see why an administrator couldn't have just dropped by and done this to save all this back and forth, but I've done it now. Each citation tag replaced must come from a non-Anthroposophical source. I have suggested this should take a week before claims that are unsupported may be removed. Later, if such claims find support, they should be reinserted into the article. This is, I believe, exactly what the Arbitration Committee has asked for. I'm taking this action, not as an insult to anyone, not as a shot over the bow of anybody's boat, but in complete compliance with what has been requested of us. I don't intend to edit-war with anyone over this and I would appreciate the support of anyone who wants to move forward with what we have been asked to do. Pete K 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you have a conflict of interest. Someone who has invested his time as an anti-X activist may have just as significant a conflict of interest as someone who's employment is based on public acceptance of X. I have not looked at your edits in great detail, but it appears that at least some of your edits are designed to bring the organization into disrepute by referencing the stated beliefs of the founder, many years ago. Note that reading primary sources to arrive at a novel conclusion is original research and is not permitted. see Wp:or#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, among other places. Regarding your most recent edits, the idea that Worldnet Daily is a reliable source is almost laughable, as it has a clearly defined agenda, and does not even quote "the other side". It may be acceptable to use it as a source for the fact that a lawsuit was filed in 1999 (by the way, what was the outcome), but you are using it to drive a particular agenda of your own, and I do not think that one teacher training document cited in a one-sided conservative news web site's article about a trial that ocurred 6 years ago can reasonably be used to indict all of the Waldorf education movement. I suggest you find some broader, more reliable, hopefully academic sources. And no one involved in the arbitration case considers you "the only regular editor of the articles with NO actual or implied conflict of interest". If the hammer drops, expect to be under it. Thatcher131 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take my chances with the hammer dropping (after a 40 hour investment in headbutting with the Waldorf teachers here over the past three days I can imagine it would be a relief at some point). A valid interest in the topic does not constitute a conflict of interest. The teacher you refer to is Eugene Schwartz. He was the HEAD of teacher training for Waldorf at the time the article was written, not just some teacher producing some teacher training document. He set policy for all teacher trainers (as much as anyone does). Regarding quoting Steiner, I have never directed the reader to conclusions - I have simply quoted Steiner's own words. No editorializing, just providing the quote. I get that we don't like this here, but unlike the Waldorf teachers here, I'm not introducing my opinions in the articles. I have no reason to - I have no conflict of interest. Pete K 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is getting worse; now an anthroposophic bookstore's review of a book by Steiner is quoted, as well. Nothing in the whole section is admissible by the arbitration verifiability standards except the first sentence; nothing whatsoever in the section relates to education. Hgilbert 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on 14 October 2006 in defense of your repeatedly aggressive postings in discussions about Waldorf related issues for long, when faced with a comment on it, could be understood to indicate the opposite, and seems to have been understood as such in a comment by one admin. Thebee 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not interested. Pete K 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, you asked

"a lawsuit was filed in 1999 (by the way, what was the outcome),"

The Lawsuit is documented in full here. The transcript of the trial, when it finally took place September 12, 2005 is found here. According to the ruling by the judge (Conclusions of Law, p. 3/5)

"Plaintiff failed to carry its evidentiary burden of establishing that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or the other California constitutional provisions involved in this case, as stated in the Court’s pretrial order dated April 20, 2005. Because the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion is a threshold issue upon which the relevance of all other issues in this case depends, Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy its burden of proof on the threshold issue is dispositive of this action."

The Paintiff has appealed the ruling. The Defendants dispute the validity of the appeal. Thebee 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys get a lot of dishonest milage out of a technicality. The full case was never presented because of a technical issue. Nothing has been resolved. Pete K 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why you need reliable sources, in this case, some kind of article by or quoting a legal analyst who has reviewed the case as an expert. I could read the transcript and try to figure out whether it was really decided on the merits or a technicality, but I'm not a lawyer. Neither are any of you, I expect. Having one small group file suit in one state, in which the outcome is ambiguous or disputed, is very difficult to deal with fairly unless someone can quote a reliable independent third party report of the case. We can't analyze the decision ourselves (interpreting primary sources to arrive at novel conclusions is disallowed original research) and without a third party to tell us what it means, we're left with stating, "a suit was filed and the outcome is disputed", which is about as informative as saying nothing at all. It might be different if critics of Waldorf had filed lawsuits in multiple states, coming to the attention of national media and generating stories that could be quoted. Thatcher131 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this in an official capacity? As it stands in the PLANS article, the court documents are being selectively harvested for quotes in order to paint a particular picture. Are you saying that these documents should, instead, be reviewed by a third party expert (and not the writers of the article)for an evaluation of what they contain (and mean)? Pete K 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate second (duplicate) article probation tag added again

Wikiwag has returned and again added a second Article probation tag at the top of the article page on Waldorf education, in addition to the ArbCom tag at the Talks page of the article. Did you not argue on 12 Jan, Thatcher131, when you removed the duplicate tag from the Talks page of the article, after Pete K had added it as duplicate tag to the Talks page instead after it had been removed from the article page, that "there is no provision for issuing article or talk page bans, so the second template is inaccurate and should not be used"? Thebee 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this comment to Wikiwag , tags placed improperly on the article page, or tags with invalid language placed on the talk page, may be reverted. For the sake of peace, don't go over 3RR, but notify me or another admin. Thatcher131 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I sincerely thought it was equally appropriate as the advertisement tag, as the usage states that it can be used "on the article page itself". - Wikiwag 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not know that it said that. Let's say then that I would strongly prefer it be put on the talk page only. Templates like neutrality offer guidance to both editors and readers who happen to find the article. The probatation template really only offers guidance to editors. In any case, the default template is incorrect for this article. Thanks for your reply. Thatcher131 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf sources

I would like some clarity about the use of Waldorf sources. The arbitration seemed to say that they are acceptable for noncontroversial aspects. I am thinking of the section describing the curriculum (foreign languages, music, etc.) and the pedagogical ideas: for example, if the article says that Waldorf education emphasizes the arts in the elementary school - and no one disputes this to my knowledge - is an anthroposophical source not acceptable? Hgilbert 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute it. "The arts" is not what Waldorf emphasizes - in fact nothing of the traditional arts is emphasized, only special Waldorf /spiritual stuff like wet-on-wet painting and form drawing, eurythmy and such. It's absolutely a controversial statement. Pete K 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs here saying that because wet-on-wet painting isn't mainstream, then it's not "the arts". It's an artistic activity. And I can't see that it's misleading to call it so. If it's a statement of fact that children do artistic activity in Waldorf school, then Waldorf sources should be acceptable.

Thatcher131...please please please clarify the ruling on sources...we're spending a huge amount of time disputing what is controversial and what is an acceptable source. Pete K states he thinks this article should have no Waldorf/anthroposophical sources whatsoever. I think for pure statements of fact they should be acceptable. We've had great momentum on cleaning this article up and we're getting bogged down again. Thanks. Henitsirk 03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not art at all, it's spiritual activity disguised as art. Wet on wet painting is a spiritual activity - no question about it. Eurythmy, same thing. This is definitely not splitting hairs, it's seeing through the language to the truth. Waldorf teachers always disguise what eurythmy is. They hide the spiritual significance of the advent spiral, Michaelmas, wet-on-wet painting or drawing without outlines. Parents have a right to know about these things and not to have Waldorf teachers give them the same double-talk on Misplaced Pages that they produce in parent meetings. If cleaning up the article, for some, consists of replacing the Waldorf sources, then why did any of this transpire? Please, please, let's have legitimate sources to support this material. Everything that has a citation tag on it is controversial and requires a non-Waldorf source. Doing this with Waldorf sources is not accomplishing anything. Pete K 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I agree that all artistic activity has a spiritual component. But just because teachers may not explain that component to parents doesn't mean that you can't call painting art!! The truth is, children paint in Waldorf school and that is art. Thanks. Henitsirk 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That children paint is not the part that's controversial. But to make that statement without addressing what lies behind the painting - to pretend that when they paint they are not spiritually engaged in something else (according to Waldorf) is a lie... and that makes it controversial. Pete K 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article mentions the spiritual basis of Waldorf. Why is it necessary to say that each separate item is spiritual? Maybe it would help me if you could give an example of how you think art should be presented in the article. And maybe we can discuss this on the article's talk page and not here? Thanks. Henitsirk 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to if you want to open a discussion there. In the mean time, I think it should be made clear in the article that EVERYTHING in Waldorf is done for spiritual reasons. This point does not come across in the first sentence. Gardening is spiritual, eurythmy is spiritual, science is spiritual, math is spiritual, geography is spiritual, recess, snack, lunch - all spiritual, morning verse, spiritual/religious. Ringing bells to get the children's attention - spiritual, lighting candles when reading a story, spiritual. Everything from making eye contact with the child each morning to the tone of voice used during the day by the teacher, to lighting a candle in parent conferences and faculty meetings long after the children have gone to bed is intended to be spiritual. If we include a paragraph like the one above instead of a "mention" of spiritual, then we wouldn't have to keep saying this. The whole point of the article is to give a legitimate, truthful representation of Waldorf. "Mentioning" that they are spiritual is nothing close to giving a complete picture of the extent of the spiritual nature of these schools. So, for now, all we have is the citation request as a tool for getting to a true picture of Waldorf - and as long as we have sentences that disguise the spiritual aspects of everything, I will be asking for citations to support this. It is, of course, frustrating to me how many people can write articles about something they have such a superficial understanding of. This naiveté on the part of reporters works greatly to Waldorf's advantage - reporters can be fooled by the brochures and the wooden toys just like anyone else. Very few are willing to investigate deeply into what is being claimed and what is actually happening in Waldorf. Pete K 17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee keeps making personal attacks

Thatcher131: I've had enough of Thebee's personal attacks against me (ADDITION) and other editors: here (one attack), here (two attacks), here (three attacks) and now here (numerous and at length where he accuses me of being a "meat puppet" or "sock puppet") that up until now, I've largely let go without comment or retaliation.

The record shows that I started out being completely civil, even when I disagreed with him; I've even supported his position at times and called for restraint in the edit wars. Yet he persists in insisting that I'm someone he's encountered before. I warned him here that next time he engaged in this behavior, I would take it to the arbitrator...so here I am.

For my own part, I took a few days to focus on other more pressing matters in my life and was absent - but that's no excuse for speculation or his ongoing attempts at character assassination, fallacious speculation about my identity and his dismissive tone. I am out of patience with him and his disruptions.

Thank you in advance for reminding him that this is not acceptable and telling him to stop.

- Wikiwag 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a small side note, above you write:

"I've had enough of Thebee's personal attacks against me: here (one attack), ... " (corrected URL after archiving)

There's no "Wikiwag" mentioned or participating in the section you link to, where you write that I attack you, just Pete K and Diana W. If you're right in what you write, that I attack you in the section you link to, that would require that you're one of them. Diana W has fiercely protested against the possible suspicion that she might be "Wikiwag". This - again assuming you're correct that I attack you in the section (or shouldn't I?) - it seems to imply that you identify with what I write to Pete K in the section, and take that as a personal attack on you. Regards, Thebee 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee, would you please just stop it? This editor did NOTHING to deserve what you are doing to him. Please leave him alone. Pete K 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee: if it's missing now, you must've deleted it yourself. I don't have the time or the inclination to comb through your CYA edits. So let's suppose I am mistaken on that point, it doesn't come close to overshadowing the rest of your conduct, which IS spot on and impossible for you to explain away. - Wikiwag 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the compliment on my quick-study skills. I delights me to no end that you regard me as an editing "expert."

Sources

I have added a number of sources from a book published by an independent publishing house. The author has been both a public school teacher and a Waldorf teacher. These citations are now contested.

I understand the arbitration to have required third-party review, and asked that anthroposophic publishers be avoided. I do not understand that anyone who has ever been a Waldorf teacher is excluded from being cited. Can you clarify this? Hgilbert 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy (Jack Petrash) is a Waldorf SPOKESPERSON. If he is citable, then this whole arbitration has been nonsense. Pete K 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - some help here could be required. Of course the problem is that this falls into a grey area - the publisher is fine but the author at least used to be (may still be) a Waldorf teacher, and I believe is generally pro-Anthroposophy. I suppose ultimately the question is how pro-Anthroposophy they have to be before their views can not be relied to provide facts. Cheers Lethaniol 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't the whole idea on the issue of "self-publication" and "original research" undercut by the fact that this is clearly not self published as defined by the ArbCom ruling? I don't think it's possible to have an NPOV article with "No" POV. I'm interested to see what Thatcher131 says. - Wikiwag 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is - should the work of a Waldorf teacher with a minimum of 24 years of experience (I'm fairly certain Petrash has more years than this) be used as the sole source to support controversial claims about Waldorf? Obviously, the ArbCom had the opportunity to rule that Waldorf teachers are experts and therefore should be the ones to write the article. The ArbCom did NOT rule this way, however, they ruled that Waldorf teachers have a bias and therefore cannot be used as a source to support controversial material. Pete K 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that PeteK continues to insert the Worldnetdaily source, along with additional Waldorf-published and anthroposophic sources, in the Waldorf education#Lucifer_and_Ahriman section. This seems a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of the verifiability clauses of the arbitration. 68.193.184.127 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... like an anonymous editor is going to drop by and wipe out an entire heavily contested section of a heavily contested article without a complaint. The source is not only acceptable the section is under discussion by the regular editors. These types of drive-by deletions are simply going to be reverted while discussion is underway. Pete K 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PLANS trial: court decision erased from article

As you ask about the decision in the PLANS court case, PeteK has removed all references to the judge's having made a ruling in the PLANS article. It is as if the trial never took place, except that an appeal is mentioned. Hgilbert 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking...

Hey Thatcher, just checking... did you happen to get the email I sent you a couple of days ago (regarding wiki-clerking)? I was just wondering, I *think* I sent it to you through the wiki system, so maybe it got lost somewhere... – Ch acor 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Got distracted. Will e-mail you back. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kay, awaiting a (hopefully positive! lol) reply. – Ch acor 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry if I seem impatient (heh), I guess you got re-distracted? :P – Ch acor 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my real life is definitely a distraction at this point. REgarding checkuser clerks, I'm pretty inactive there right now. Daniel Bryant is in charge, and I believe there is a subpage of WP:RFCU/Clerks where you can list yourself as a standby for when there are openings. Regarding arbitration clerk, we don't have any plans right now to bring up any more clerks appointments. However, many of the tasks can be done by any editor, and there is a note about this at WP:AC/C. (Actually, I've just put this in a few days ago, and the talk page will also be of interest. This may be in flux.) There are several people ahead of you who have expressed interest, and I don't know yet whether we would select new clerks in chronological order or some other method. Certainly it wouldn't hurt to be seen hanging around and performing tasks that seem appropriate. It's better for us to find clerks who are interested in a committment of some sort rather than opening a case and then wandering off somewhere else.

At the moment, Cowman109 and Eagle101 are "in training" more or less, and Daniel Bryant and Newyorkbrad seem to hang around quite a bit. As I said on the talk page, the official clerks are "official" but there is little guidance about what that means, and we agree that it does not mean that arbitration case pages are hands off to everyone else (this is a wiki after all). I tried to make a list of things that could get participants in an uproar if they weren't done by someone official, but there are often other things that can be done, like fixing the format of requests and answering questions on the talk pages of the cases (if you know the answers, of course :) We coordinate through the clerks noticeboard if you want to ask any questions there. Thatcher131 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the note! I should be the one apologising, I normally watch all user talk pages I post to for replies but I must've missed it. – Ch acor 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart arbitration

Thanks for your intervention here. I totally agree with everything you say, but I thought I was going mad because no one else with any standing was seeing it that way. The underlying problem, IMO, is that there is an element who want to make it an attack article ... or who honestly cannot understand the distinction between notability and notoriety, in the sense I tried to explain on the workshop page. I'm not sure why all the focus is on banning Supreme Commander. He may well be a pain-in-the-arse edit warrior, for all I know, and may deserve all those blocks, but I think he has a point and that it would help if the role of some of those on the other side were looked at. Metamagician3000 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Fred is starting to do that. I am surprised at some of the comments on the talk pages. (Like mugging someone in a court room.) You may certainly wish to add additional specific proposals to the workshop page if you believe others have engaged in disruptive editing or are ignoring the imperatives of WP:BLP. Thatcher131 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I wasn't intending to be grandstanding. I had said what I thought needed to be said concerning the facts relevant to the RfA, and any further discussion was either repetitious or was veering away (far, far away) from the meat of the issue, neither of which was constructive, so I thought it would be best to rest on what I had said to that point. However, I did not want my sudden silence misinterpreted as either abandoning the issue or mis-used by the fractious elements as further "proof" of their "side", whatever that "side" might be. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I am sorry that it looked to you like grandstanding. I suppose it might have been better just to say my piece and let it go at that. -- BBlackmoor • 2007-01-16 07:15Z

And for the record I wasn't intending to make it personal, however his accusations and attacks against me just frustrate me a lot. ⇒ SWATJester 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire is stalking me again

Hi User:Morton devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited, and is now harrasing me. I ask him to stop, but he hasn't. I know you intervened with myself and User:Zer0faults before, can you ask him to please stop? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't get into anything new for a while (see the top of this page). In the past I have found admins Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs) and Durova (talk · contribs) to be extremely helpful and fair-minded, and the same could be said for Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) as soon as his RFA officially closes. Good luck. Thatcher131 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see: User_talk:Tom_harrison#User:Morton_devonshire_is_stalking_me_again. Travb (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think Morton was unnecessarily stirring the pot, and have removed a part of his comments that do not relate to the present case. Thatcher131 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

File:SockPuppet Star.gif

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks, with a little sockpuppet barnstar, for all the good work you've done at RFCU. Essjay (Talk) 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks arbcom request

If this isn't an arbcom case, can you provide a reason why not? If it isn't, then where should it go? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On your talk page already. Arbitration deals with disruptive behavior be other editors. There's hardly even any discussion on the talk page about the protection, much less a credible suggestion that the protection was placed as part of some kind of scheme to block certain editors. Use WP:RFPP to request lifting protection if the protecting admin is not available. Thatcher131 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but since I already notified the parties in question and you took the request off, you go ahead and notify the involved parties that it has been taken off. I'm a bit busy and need to do work here at school. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it's already ON WP:RFPP, it was one or two of the involvees there and on the article talk page itself that suggested that I take this silliness to ArbCom. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:September_11.2C_2001_attacks_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the unprotection. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small question

Hello Thatcher, I do not know much about "ArbCom etiquette". If a party in an ArbCom case violates WP policies (such as WP:NPA etc) during the ArbCom case, is it correct procedure to place the necessary warning templates on their talk-pages as if it were normal circumstances? Thank you. Ekantik 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would never use a template on a long term user. A short note conveying the same information would be appropriate, just as it would at any other time. Of course, if the remark was made on the arbitration pages itself, be assured that the arbitrators read all of the case pages before they vote. Thatcher131 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock, horror, outrage!

How could you?!?!?!? I can't believe you prefer him over me!! :p Essjay (Talk) 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My Name Is Earl moves

I understand, and I apologize. It won't happen again. However, a few pages weren't consistent with WP:NC, so I fixed those. Evan Reyes 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't

Please undo this change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=102205008

Not only does it screw up many links and diffs related to this case, it is not correct. This is created instead of a previous and unsuccessful RfM regarding the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. That article is not at issue at present, while user conduct is the subject of this RfA. While the conduct of myself and Ilena are the primary issue, the conduct of Peter (WizardDragon) is also an issue, as his improper, biased, and very unsuccessful mentoring of Ilena has only escalated the conflicts and encouraged her behavior, leading to two more blocks. This is all very sad. Please change the title back to the one chosen because of the history of this whole affair. Believe me, the involved parties find the old title to be correct. -- Fyslee 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the name of the case is just a shorthand and does not in any way restrict the ArbCom's ability to take whatever action it deems appropriate (although the arbitrators' comments in voting to accept it may do so). It has frequently happened that a case was named after User:A or Article:X, but the final decision sanctions only Users:B, C, and D and includes their conduct on Article:Y and Talk:Z. Historically, words like "et al." have not been included in casenames, and there has been a concern that naming just one or two users in the name could imply a prejudgment or focus attention too much on the named users, so other forms of name are generally preferred. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original "et al." was unfortunate, but the title was chosen because the issues are definitely not the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, but user behavior (primarily mine and Ilena's). The changing of headings and titles is frowned upon because it causes havoc with existing links, and this title is also off-base because the RfA replaces an unsuccessful and misguided RfM that was rejected by several involved parties because it was on the wrong topic. The issue is user behavior that peripherally touches lots of articles, but regards mostly user talk pages where long attacks and violations of NPA have occurred. By focusing the title on the proper topic, it avoids derouting into other issues that are no longer current. -- Fyslee 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, there is a consensus that cases should be named for the underlying issue whenever possible, rather than individual editors, as this implies that the process is adversarial, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_17#Case_names. (Fyslee-Ilena is not far off from Fyslee vs. Ilena which is specifically discouraged.) The personal name might also tend to obscure Peter's role, should you want to include that in your opening statement. Changing the name won't affect any diffs and could only affect bookmarks to this page which have been made in the last 12 hours and will be invalid anyway once the case is opened. I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not inclined to go back to a personal name at this point. Thatcher131 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'll have to redo some of the last many hours of preparation. At least I tried, and will bow to your judgment and experience in these matters. As long as arbitrators and participants understand that the basic issues underlying all the edit conflicts and discussion page conflicts are basically related to user attitudes and conduct, there can come something good out of this. If a collaborative spirit existed, then all POV conflicts can be overcome, but that's not happening. I do hope that Ilena will be stopped immediately if she starts recycling her charges against me over and over again as she has done. She has refused to provide documentation, and now is the time for it to be required of her before she proceeds any further. I am more than willing to face the music, but I need to know what evidence she is using. Vague charges based on something slightly related to some real life fact are impossible to deal with, especially when it is thrown at me all at once, and alleged in front of the whole world through search engines as if it was fact. -- Fyslee 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all ArbCom cases are about user conduct, they don't usually rule on article content except in the context of user conduct problems or major policy violations, so I think you can take that as understood. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy

Thatcher, can you kindly comment on the new material that is being added to the Robert Priddy article. The Sanathana Sarathi material is being taken from Priddy's Anti-Sai website. More material is being cited from Indymedia. All of this is original research. Thanks. SSS108 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote in response to my first opposer. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfAR:Hkelkar

Hello. As you were the clerk on the above mentioned ArbCom case, can you have a look at this. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Thatcher, please protect this article from editing by unregistered users. It is continually being vandalised. Kkrystian 17:31 (UTC+1) 22 January 2007

One or two a day is not enough to justify protection at this time. Thatcher131 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at Robert Priddy, and has just broken 3RR. I gather that you suspended application of a block on him; my feeling is that it now needs to be applied. I've been involved in the article, so can't do it myself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and do something tonight (to both queries). Thatcher131 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any other reasonable solution than to leave it protected until the case is decided. There is a fundamental disagreement about how to apply the remedy in the previous case. Thatcher131 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, when you have time, please see my comment at: Talk:Robert_Priddy#I_despair. Thanks. SSS108 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a minute

Hi Thatcher, sorry to dump this in your lap, since you say you're busy, but if you get a minute can you take a quick glimpse at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block-evading_sockpuppet.3F, esp. my diffs at the bottom of the section. It's pretty clear sock puppetry in my opinion, but wanted to consult with another sock-hunter before blocking. Bucketsofg 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that took 20 minutes :) Answered at AN/I. I concur, but... Thatcher131 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re: image deletions

Sorry about that. I don't delete many images that are still linked to pages. I'll remember for next time. Thunderbrand 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old

See here. You were involved in this before and I have no intention of going down this path again. --Tbeatty 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Zer0 tolerance on a repeat ocurrence. Thatcher131 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tbeatty 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Morton Devonshire 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping under the rug

Regarding this, premature archiving of the active disscussions by force has been tried and rejected as inappropriate many times at various boards. ArbCom specifically made it clear in so called "Giano case" that the proper disscussions should be allowed to go their course without being forcibly shut down. Please do not do it again. --Irpen 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)