Jump to content

User talk:Thatcher/Alpha: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Marvin Diode (talk | contribs)
Marvin Diode (talk | contribs)
Line 65: Line 65:
:Cberlet has at least read his talk page today since he has objected to an edit I made to his departure statement. I suspect that he will be aware of a case request. You could note for the benefit of the Arbitrators that he has declared a break and let them decide how to deal with the situation. Also, cases generally take longer than a month to resolve so the break may not be that much of a consideration. Regarding Will, you can include him either on the grounds that he has supported edits which are inappropriate, and/or that he has misused his administrative tools in dealing with complaints. Ultimately of course you will need evidence to support whatever claims you make against anyone, and the Arbs will evaluate it. You should specify whether you are including Will as an editor, an admin, or both. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Cberlet has at least read his talk page today since he has objected to an edit I made to his departure statement. I suspect that he will be aware of a case request. You could note for the benefit of the Arbitrators that he has declared a break and let them decide how to deal with the situation. Also, cases generally take longer than a month to resolve so the break may not be that much of a consideration. Regarding Will, you can include him either on the grounds that he has supported edits which are inappropriate, and/or that he has misused his administrative tools in dealing with complaints. Ultimately of course you will need evidence to support whatever claims you make against anyone, and the Arbs will evaluate it. You should specify whether you are including Will as an editor, an admin, or both. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::As always, your advice has been very helpful. --[[User:Marvin Diode|Marvin Diode]] 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::As always, your advice has been very helpful. --[[User:Marvin Diode|Marvin Diode]] 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Postscript: [[User:Hardindr]] is Cberlet. His reference to SLAPP at [[User talk:Hardindr]] is a very obscure one, but you will find the same reference being made by Cberlet some months ago at [[Talk:Lyndon LaRouche]]. --[[User:Marvin Diode|Marvin Diode]] 23:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:30, 12 October 2007

I am currently very busy in real life. I will check here and respond to questions about my own actions and edits, but I will not respond to requests for assistance on other matters. Please see the appropriate noticeboard for assistance. Thank you for your understanding.

    User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

    First let me say that I trust your good faith judgment as an admin in unblocking Tweety21. But I have some concerns. She appears to be removing whois templates from anonymous talk pages, specifically User talk:142.205.212.203. I am assuming it is Tweety21, but there is some uncertainty because she continues to edit anonymously as best I can tell, including from User:142.205.212.203. She also appears to have removed (without admin permission that I know of) content from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21 while editing under User:142.205.212.203. I am trying to figure out whether she has been given permission to do some of these things, or whether she is up to her vandalism tricks again. Thanks. Ward3001 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ward

    Can you please help me Ward continues to display my work address, I believe he is on a rampage as a result of me not keeping blocked, this display of my address puts my safety at risk...I dont understand why he is harassing me, will email admin as well as this violates wiki privacy policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tweety21, whois information is not a violation of privacy. You are continuing to edit while not signed in. If you want to stop being associated with an IP address, stop editing while not signed in and stop blanking the publicly available whois information from talk pages. You have been told this over and over and over again. --Yamla 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from User:Ward3001

    This is what I and admin Yamla put on her talk page:
    "You have no right to be displaying work place id
    You have no right to remove a whois template that is not on your talk page, if it is you who is doing it. As you have been told over and over again, don't edit anonymously -- sign in as Tweety21. The whois template is perfectly appropriate for the page of an anonymous IP, unless removed by an admin.
    "I belive you are just doing this as you are ticked I got unlblocked"
    That's your opinion. Your saying it doesn't make it true. I'm following Wikipedia policies. This is not a personal issue toward you, as you are often inclined to conclude without justification.
    "will be putting in a wiki-alert"
    That's your choice. I have not violated any Wikipedia policies. Just be very careful you don't make any false allegations (something else you have a history of doing) because I will not tolerate it, and I will go straight to the admin who unblocked you with the evidence.
    "pick on someone else"
    I'm not picking on anyone. I challenge anyone when they violate Wikipedia policy. You're not getting any special attention. Ward3001 17:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Tweety21, please note that you have previously been warned about this. This is considered vandalism. If you continue, I will block you again. Stop removing the whois information from IP talk pages. This is your final warning. The whois information is freely available and is under no circumstances a privacy violation. Additionally, if you continue editing while not signed in, you are continuing to disclose your place of business and/or your location. --Yamla 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tired of hearing about her yet?

    If you find yourself with some spare time, I compiled an annotated list of Tweety21's edits (including her various IPs and socks). I've included proof of !vote-stacking, vandalism, and so on. I have had it with her baseless accusations and lies, so rather than rant on and on, I'll let her actions be the proof. Precious Roy 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/MONGO

    I have nominated WP:RFAR/MONGO (edit | [[Talk:WP:RFAR/MONGO|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request appeal

    I would like to submit an appeal. User name at the time Tommysun Thank you.

    Tommy Mandel 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you haven't been banned from editing in general, just from some articles, so you are free to post your own appeal; list it as a new case at the top of WP:RFAR titled "Appeal by Tommysun" or some such and make a case for the Arbitrators to consider. Thatcher131 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done

    Well done. WAS 4.250 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking your advice again

    I am contemplating a request for arbitration on the matter of Dking and Cberlet. I have a question about timing -- Cberlet has just announced that he is taking a one month break, at which point Dking, who has been absent, commences a new frenzy of POV pushing. They seem to take turns. Is it necessary or proper to wait to file with the ArbCom until both of them are active at the same time? Also, would it be appropriate to include Will Beback in the case, since he is always involved in some way to defend their activities? Thanks in advance. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cberlet has at least read his talk page today since he has objected to an edit I made to his departure statement. I suspect that he will be aware of a case request. You could note for the benefit of the Arbitrators that he has declared a break and let them decide how to deal with the situation. Also, cases generally take longer than a month to resolve so the break may not be that much of a consideration. Regarding Will, you can include him either on the grounds that he has supported edits which are inappropriate, and/or that he has misused his administrative tools in dealing with complaints. Ultimately of course you will need evidence to support whatever claims you make against anyone, and the Arbs will evaluate it. You should specify whether you are including Will as an editor, an admin, or both. Thatcher131 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, your advice has been very helpful. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript: User:Hardindr is Cberlet. His reference to SLAPP at User talk:Hardindr is a very obscure one, but you will find the same reference being made by Cberlet some months ago at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. --Marvin Diode 23:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]