Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 18 January 2007

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

Omura Arb

I have replied to you on my talk page.Richardmalter 08:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Husnock arbitration

Please tell me how I would go about filing a complaint against Mr. Durin. I do not appreciate being called someone's happy sock and all I did was answer a question that some else posted about how I knew about this website. He is now writing crap about me being someone else because I happened to use the same computer lab and saw a bookmarked page. Total bullshit. Thanks -Pahuskahey 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I would drop the subject and go do whatever it is you want to do here. Sockpuppet (see also the wikipedia sockpuppet policy) is a legitimate term denoting a user account operated by another person. It's really inevtiable that someone from Dubai who has an interest in that particular arbitration case would be suspected of being Husnock. (Arbitration really is an esoteric area of wikipedia; article editors can go for months without ever being aware of the meta side of the project. And Durin was subject to a lot of unfounded attacks from Husnock when he edited in his own name, so he is understandably sensitive. Whether you are or aren't has no bearing on your ability to edit other articles, so long as you are not disruptive and follow the normal rules of conduct expected by any editor. I would simply go about your business and avoid making yourself a further party to the arbitration case, and just let this rather minor incident fade away. Thatcher131 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There is substantial additional evidence other than just that Pahuskahey and Husnock posted from Dubai. I fully recognize that Dubai is home to a very large number of people, and it is hardly reasonable to presume the only person who could be from Dubai is Husnock. There's plenty of other evidence. I do not make accusations lightly. If Pahuskahey wishes to file a complaint against me, I will gladly step him through the process of doing so. --Durin 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever he is, he can either go edit quietly somewhere, or he can continue to make an issue of this, which I would not recommend, for several reasons. Thatcher131 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the image of the man smoking has an embedded string of Copyright 1998 by Hewlett Packard. If you're curious, I can provide you with the evidence that shows Husnock and Pahuskahey to be one and the same. So long as he does not abuse sockpuppets, I don't have any issue with him being whoever he wants to be. He *has* abused sockpuppets before on a number of occasions and at a minimum that behavior must stop. If he wants to edit quietly, within the bounds of policy here, as whoever he wants to be, fine. I have no issue with that. I'll be *quite* happy to leave him alone. --Durin 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the string as well, but I think its meaning is ambiguous. Some of the photos that I have edited with photoshop have Adobe copyright strings even though they are my own photos, and it seems that iPhoto adds a copyright string to any photo it generates. It is possible that the pipe-smoking man was scanned using an HP scanner or edited using HP branded software. That being said, the idea that that an American professor in Dubai would just happen to begin editing editing articles about minor Star Trek topics just at the time Husnock left defies Occam's razor, independent of any other "tells" you might be aware of. I understand your feelings about participating in a "charade" I think you called it, but I don't mind charades, at least provisionally, as long as the situation cools off and Pahuskahey behaves with reasonable decorum (as opposed to being naive, which I may have given the impression of). One thing I am putting a stop to is pot-stirring by "systems admins" in the "computer lab" at AMU. Since there is no danger that all of Dubai will be blocked as a result of the case, there is no need to entertain those threads. Thatcher131 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. I wish I had never answered that question about how I knew about that page. To clear up about my picture, my daughter took that picture and e-mailed it to me. If I have broken rules about posting it, let me know and I will post another. There seems little effort in speaking to some people about who I am, they will apparently not be satisfied unless they come to Dubai and see me, my office, and our computer labs. I do enjoy Star Trek, its how I was drawn to this site because they say it had good Star Trek articles. -Pahuskahey 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the pictures are yours, there's no problem. If they were found somewhere and used here to create a false identity, it might be a copyright problem, depending on where the originals came from. Just have fun editing, whoever you are. Thatcher131 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's some of the information that connects Pahuskahey to Husnock. I am holding back some more due to wanting to ensure that Husnock does not learn how to keep his socks hidden if he abuses sockpuppets in the future. Husnock, in the form of Pahuskahey, is expecting us to to believe that despite:

• On the very day that Husnock decided to "leave" Misplaced Pages (, see edit summary), User:Pahuskahey was created .
• Pahuskahey sharing a remarkably similar interest in topics regarding Star Trek and military ranks (see editing history of Pahuskahey and Husnock to verify yourself if you like)
• Pahuskahey posts from Dubai, where Husnock is currently located
• Pahuskahey happens to create image montages (see Image:SonsMedals.jpg) just like Husnock does (see Image:AllPharHouses.jpg). Note terrible alignment problems in both images and black background in both images.

...this is supposedly all a massive coincidence? On this information alone, much less the other pieces of data I have, there would be well more than enough proof to have Pahuskahey blocked if Husnock had been banned from the site. Husnock seems to think we are all stupid and incapable of seeing a duck when it quacks, flies, swims, eats, looks and smells like a duck. I find it particularly and utterly despicable that Husnock claims to have a son that died in Afghanistan and was awarded the Silver Star, the fifth highest award a U.S. service member can receive (see medal upper left in Image:SonsMedals.jpg). Real people are dying there, earning real Silver Stars. He despoils their memories and tarnishes the reputations those people have rightfully earned by this outrageous claim. --Durin 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that if a military officer were to make up a son, falsely claim him to be KIA, and falsely allocate to him a silver star, he would reap more scorn and disapproval from his fellows than would ever result from an editing spat over Star Trek articles. My only philosophy is that if someone is driving over a cliff and there is nothing I can do to stop it, at least I won't push. I wish them all well—Husnock, Col. Dan, the computer lab administrator, and the professor—and I hope the case closes soon so we can put this behind us. Thatcher131 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty disgusting how he's using his wikipedia userpage - like most liars (and there is no other word for it), he doesn't know when to stop. Whoever that solider is in the picture on his page it's unconnected to the story he's weaving.

How is this suppose to "close" when Husnock seems to playing a game - one where his actions seem to be designed to drawn attention to himself? he's just taking the piss at this stage. --Charlesknight 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• (responding in general) There's more options than choosing to either watch someone drive off a cliff or helping to push someone off a cliff. We can choose to try to stop them from driving over the cliff. I've been attempting to get him to stop. Yet, the lies continue to mount. Now, he's claiming a PhD in English from the University of Virginia...yet he makes multiple routine errors in spelling. The equivalent would be if he were an ASE certified mechanic, he wouldn't know how to change oil on a car. I don't intend to do anything more about it, in so far as his rampant lies have no effect on Misplaced Pages. It's unfortunate he's chosen the path that he has, but my efforts to stop his behavior have failed. However, I don't intend on letting this project be harmed by his actions if they tread in ways that have a negative effect on the project.
• One way in which he is doing so now is falsifying the source of images he is uploading. I can not absolutely prove that the supposed image of himself and his supposed granddaughter are source falsified. However, the supposed image of his son with the image being sent to him while his son was in Afghanistan is provably false. Myself and others have investigated all coalition deaths in Afghanistan matching them against the "facts" stated by him and can find no matching candidate casualties. His son dying in Afghanistan is a blatant lie, and thus the source being his son in Afghanistan is also a lie. We do not, therefore, know the source of the image since he has provably lied about it. I intend on placing the image for IfD. --Durin 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I have a question: Pete K repeatedly insists on removing research links I gave in a posting one month ago in one discussion, in answer to a question by someone. Removal 1, 2, 3. He tells he will continue to remove them as I reinsert them again. Please see here. I have not added the links in any Misplaced Pages article (except by mistake the research overview four months ago), just as a contribution in discussions of research issues at Talks pages. Does the removal of the research links from my posting constitute vandalism, that I can revert as such without 3RR problem? Or can't I? I'd be grateful for an answer. As far as I understand the arbitration decision 30 Dec. on the issue, links to for example Waldorf Answers, where many basic issues regarding WE are described and discussed are OK in discussions, if not in articles. Have I understood this correctly?

Also, I have some questions regarding a number of the edits by Pete K since the arbitration. Fred Bauder seems busy with a new arbitration and does not seem to adress questions that much at his Talks page at present. Can you suggest to whom in the ArbCom I should adress my questions? Thanks, Thebee 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I too have a list of complaints already and would like to address them to the appropriate persons. Pete K 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators do not follow-up or enforce cases once they are closed, they leave that to ordinary admins. You can post a complaint to arbitration enforcement, although, as it happens, I am one of the few who hangs out there. The ruling in your case assumes a great deal of good faith and does not give individual admins much authority to impose coercive solutions. I'm afraid that each of you thinks that if the case were reopened, "the other guy" would get banned. This is a dangerous assumption. Thatcher131 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Un-block user Ahven is a fish, please

Hi, Thatcher131. Please unblock my user account. Thousands of people can use the IP address(es) I've written from. This is the way the system is operated in this part of the world. They have rotating IP addresses over here, and this ought not to be held against us Misplaced Pages contributors.

Although I've written only from one computer, the IP address can change. In a couple of occasions, the log-in session was dropped, while I surfed in Misplaced Pages. Then an IP address was left to mark the contribution in the history file. This was not denied. I've not pretended to be two different people.

The user accounts listed with mine, are not mine. I must not be honored for the contributions of Masa62, Huckleberry Hugo, etc., and therefore those people are being unfairly treated as well.

I can continue using only the one account, Ahven is a fish. Thank you. Ahven is a fish 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I don't really know enough about the Kven-user case to be able to evaluate the evidence. You should try talking to the admins who blocked you, or the checkuser who performed the check. Thatcher131 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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... – Chacor 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. – Chacor 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry if I seem impatient (heh), I guess you got re-distracted? :P – Chacor 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. – Chacor 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

That was a mistake there...it won't happen again, I promise :)--SomeStranger 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy to hit the wrong button. No problem. Thatcher131 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Izzy Dot

In the Naming Conventions case, someone just made the valid point that User:Izzy Dot is proposed to be banned for two weeks, although he is not a party to the case and has apparently not been notified of it. As it happens, Izzy Dot hasn't edited since a 24-hour civility block in mid-November anyway. Under the circumstances, do you think he should be given formal notice of the case, or just let it ride, or ask the arbitrators what to do (I believe it was Uninvited Company who proposed the ban)? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Izzy Dot (talk · contribs) was a pretty obvious "throwaway" account. The first edit was on October 22, 2006, and there were fewer than 100 edits in the entire account history. Many of those edits were antagonistic, and the user exhibited a clear knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedure. All of which are clear characteristics per WP:SOCK. As for who the main accountholder might be, I could make some guesses, but have no solid proof. --Elonka 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they want to send a signal. Reading between the lines again, I might guess that the arbitrators think that the disruption caused by the other parties was based in a good faith attempt to determine and implement consensus, while Izzy's disruption was to be disruptive. Assuming he ever does return, there would be a procedural argument to reopen the case to consider any evidence he wished to present. (I forget who, but I seem to recall a case this year where an editor was added at the 11th hour and sanctioned, and he successfully appealed for reconsideration.) But probably 99% he's gone, as Elonka says. Thatcher131 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably right, which is why I consulted here rather than just drop a note on his page. It was User:AaronS, in the anarchism-related case, who related that he'd just returned from a Wikibreak and was quite surprised to find himself on probation. I believe the lead Clerk at the time got the case reopened, though the discussion then moved off-Wiki for some reason and I don't know the final result of the reopening. In this instance, with the user not active for 2 months and not necessarily a serious account, it's not as critical, but wanted you to have the choice what to do. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, with all due respect, I don't believe the arbitrators have ever said that the parties trying to implement consensus have caused any disruption. If there's something I missed, please point it out (and if any of them do believe disruption was caused, they should put it in the decision). But I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in the mouths of the arb committee. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the proposed decision on personal attacks (which has not passed, but shows the thinking of at least some of the arbitrators). See also Fred's comment "Dirty pool. Has someone been doing this?" in relation to move fraud by both sides. I suspect that the committee decided that rather than wade into the separate evidence for personal attacks and incivility from both sides, they would issue a ruling that "consensus was achieved, move on" with the assumption that the editors would not have anything more to fight about. Thatcher131 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it questionable to draw conclusions about how the committee feels based on proposals that have not passed, or haven't made it from the workshop page to the proposed decision. I also get the impression that based on the huge amount of incivility evidence, some may be assuming that both sides were uncivil and basically see that part as a wash, which I think is a mistake considering that most of Elonka's accusations are false and unsupported by her diffs. I'd like to think that there's nothing more to fight about, but after seeing Elonka continuing to fight even on the arbcom case talk pages, and particularly making statements completely contrary to what the arbcom decision seems to be heading toward (and still insisting that the consensus actions were and are disruptive and controversial), it seems inevitable that she isn't going to move on. If the case closes with no additions, hopefully the current wording is strong and specific enough that if she continues her disruptive behaviour, there will be grounds to take action to get her to stop. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Dear Thatcher131, I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise this, but it follows on from an Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case I think you presided on. (Perhaps you can advise me where to raise the matter if this is not the right place?) User ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science...this applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility", has recently weighed in on the article Immanuel Velikovsky, a biographical article on this controversial pseudoscientist and the notable controversy engendered by his work in the latter half of the 20th century. This article was initially of poor quality but much work has been done on it and it had been stable for most of the past year. ScienceApologist has made some useful suggestions for improving it further (largely to do with gathering & tightening up references) but rather than give editors time to implement these, he has begun deleting and reverting things in a cavelier fashion, and using pejorative language to describe his edits. He has tagged the article as requiring attention from an expert - I do have a lot of in depth knowledge on the history of the velikovsky constrovesy, and would be happy to work further to improve the article, but already I find I go to bed in the evening and when I wake up, ScienceApologist has deleted chunks of the article which yesterday he requested references for, despite my already having made a preliminary enumeration of refs I'd collected on the articles talk page. Not wishing to begin the weekend with an edit war, I would appreciate it if Science Apologist could be advised to calm down and refrain from disruptive editing, allowing the article to be improved. (It may be thought that I am being too quick to complain about him, but given that my own written style can be a little acerbic :) intuition tells me that he and I are unlikely to be able to reach a constructive position between ourselves without outside help...--feline1 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if this was the right place to raise this or not!? But I just wanted to add, being wary of 3RR, and with ScienceApologist persistently reverting back to his preferred material at Immanuel Velikovsky and deleting references I'd spent hours finding, which he himself requested with {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tags, I've no desire to fill me weekend with a silly edit war. It's not really nice to read personal attacks about myself on his talk page either http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ScienceApologist#If_you... I do not feel he bahaves in line with the PseduoScience ArbCom's caution to him.--feline1 11:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only a clerk in the case, there is no "presiding" official. The decision was voted on by the arbitrators as indicated on the proposed decision page. I past I have responded to complaints involving past arbitration cases, but this is in my capacity as an admin, not a clerk. Enforcement of arbitration rulings is up to admins in general. I have not reviewed either of Science Apologist's cases or his behavior since, and I'm sorry that I can't do so now. You can inquire at the admin noticeboard, ]]WP:AE|arbitration enforcement]], or try to file an request for comment to have his recent behavior evaluated by other editors. Sorry. Thatcher131 04:55, 16 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)