Balance is the key to all things. For the foreseeable future I will be cutting back on my participation, although not taking a true Wikibreak. If you need assistance you really should try the appropriate noticeboard as I am likely to be slow to respond and choosy about how I invest my time. Thank you for your understanding.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Here we go again. A Kinsella sock has shown up this time to sanitize the entry and add unsourced crap. Does it ever end? Telephon 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I decline to involve myself further in this situation. Sorry. Thatcher131 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you guys should revisit your decision on Atabek. He doesn't add anything positive to the Armenian-Azeri dispute resolution. Worst of all is his denial of the Armenian Genocide. [1] -- Aivazovsky 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make any decisions, I am just keeping track of the case as a clerk. You should post a comment to the proposed decision talk page or contact the individual arbitrators whose votes you hope to change. Thatcher131 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check recent contributions of Artaxiad (talk · contribs)? He vandalises user pages and posts insulting comments. Administrator's intervention is necessary. Thanks. Grandmaster 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked. Thatcher131 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you please see the recent contributions of Grandmaster (talk · contribs)? he is introducing fake neologism. Artaxiad 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? I'm not going to browse his recent edits and try to guess at what you consider to be problem edits. Thatcher131 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to the evidence page confuses me. What's up? Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. I think you caught me in mid-thought. Thatcher131 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has re-appeared, this time using the account User:Tom Mandel. He appears to have ignored your warning at User:Fixaller. I have filed the relevant CheckUser and ArbCom notices, but I have a question: did the ArbCom ban on his editing science- and pseudoscience-related articles extend to their talk pages? He has started to flame on Talk:Systems theory, and I have no wish for a repeat of Talk:Crop circle. Thanks. Michaelbusch 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without specific instructions banning him from talk pages I would say that he is allowed to edit them. However, disruptive editing on any page would fall under his probation, and he could be banned from talk pages that he edits disruptively. Thatcher131 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think one year is too long??? 63.118.235.195 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my place to say. Generally that's about the length of bans issued by the arbitration committee for editors whom they feel will not reform their behavior. Thatcher131 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks anyway, I don't feel like trolling. One year is too long. 63.118.235.195 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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