Jump to content

User talk:Thatcher/Archive20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Inquory

61.23.15.246 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to be Azukimonaka/ KoreanShoriSenyou/ Orchis28 per his same writing style and interest and edit summary although ISP is different (well, there is a possibility for the user to switch his ISP) Can you look at him with Checkuser tool? Or should I report RFCU? Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. That is unfortunate that he is coming back to evade his block saction. I've seen several users with the Home.ne.jp these days, and those seem not to be dynamic IP. Can I put {{sockpuppet}} template to express a concern Azukimonaka's sock? Once sock ip users complaints about my tagging it to Azukimonaka's even confirmed sock IP. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never really got into the benefits and drawbacks and etiquette of tagging. Most IPs are changeable, so it may someday sooner or later be assigned to someone else. Banned users who edit from IPs can simply be blocked, I don't see much of a benefit to tagging. But you wish to ask someone else who goes in for that sort of thing more than I do. Thatcher 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that you blocked the IP. Thank you for the advice. However it seems not only Azukimonaka is getting back but also the Japanese 2channel people resume to edit again (of course in aggressive way with no source). 61.209.163.133 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) looks like Azukimonaka as well.

Can you also take a look at 118.20.101.120 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who uses Plala ISP?[1] It looks too obvious in my eyes it's User:Opp2 who're banned from editing under anonymous IP.[2]User_talk:Opp2#Banned from making edits while logged out Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Oliver

I cannot understand why Pigman is so stuburn insisting on delete this actor article. I think it is a good article ( there are many of less quality and still are in wikipedia). He is searching for any excuse to find the reason the remove it, why?, ( is pigman an actor too?)... In my opinion the article should to stay ( and in the same way it was when you restored it).. it is not right to eat pieces of a good editor job. Thatcher, please take a look again of the article. you removed the deletion tag and pigman placed it again!. Sorry, but as my name states, I am "justice all the way"...justice all the way (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]

Follow the link to the deletion discussion and discuss it there. Thatcher 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi, Thatcher! I was wondering if you might know why this request is not getting any attention? Is there a problem of some sorts, or is anything missing? I'd appreciate if you could look into this or forward to someone who might help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you missed this thread in traffic. Would you have any comments, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Dmcdevit took care of it last week and blocked some ranges. Thatcher 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look into this! Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

Does resignation of an ArbCom member voids his vote on decisions that they made while they were active? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so unless they decide to do that. When Mackensen quit over IRC he specifically had to request that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has posted that his votes on pending cases should be stricken, per precedent (Essjay, Mackensen). Giano (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano is right. Closed cases are closed. On currently pending cases, facts or opinions might change, or new proposals might be offered, and an arbitrator who retires in the middle will have cast some votes but not others, and can not participate in any subsequent discussions, so precedent is to strike from pending cases. Thatcher 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giano for the reason that Thatcher gave. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, but note that it also probably changes the number of active arbitrators on each case - impacting quorum and the number of votes needed to pass a proposal. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless somebody is recused, the quorum is still 8. Risker (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of KrimpBot

I know you expressed concerns a little while back on the accuracy of the algorithm KrimpBot uses to determine active Tor nodes - just wanted to let you know that I found the problem and have fixed it (instead of using my own hackish C program to parse the directory, which it turns out got confused by a certain exit policy ordering used by a few nodes, I now use this script by one of the Tor maintainers). KrimpBot's tagging should now be much more accurate. :) krimpet✽ 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sure that will help. Thatcher 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you review Fan613 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) given this suspicion? Looks an obvious sock to me, but should I put it through SSP anyway? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I've blocked him, but did I do it right? DGG (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but the block and the note on his talk page look fine to me. Thatcher 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, your comment at User talk:NYBrad - was that sarcasm...? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't know how significant it was in his sleuthing, but the first piece of ID Brandt had on Brad was a photo from a meet-up. (Bad photo too. So at the next meet-up Brad wore a tie.) I don't really know if the photo helped in tracking him down or not. Thatcher 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was. Brandt probably used the photograph and information about all law firms that are located within three miles of the WTC site to piece it together (Brad recused as a clerk from an earlier 9/11 conspiracy request, which failed, and recused as an arbitrator during the latest round of 9/11 conspiracy theories, stating proximity to the WTC as his reason). hbdragon88 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I now understand what Shankbone was going on about. It does seem seriously obsessive, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)

Thanks (sheesh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would a full SSP report need to be filed for User:MyVeryEducatedMother who is a suspected sock of User:ColScott? The "new" user doesn't have many edits, but the few they have are the same pattern as ColScott. Thanks! Pinkadelica 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk NYB

There still are likely many users who wish to simply say a thanks or goodbye. Would some kind of subpage, with a strict "no discussion" rule, be ok? -- Ned Scott 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see User talk:Newyorkbrad/Tribute. Thatcher 11:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Mentorship

Hi,

I was wondering if you could mentor me for becoming a clerk on the Arbitration Committee. Would really like to be mentored by you as you seem to be very experienced. Please get back to me even if you do turn me down could you just show that you have looked at it.

Chris19910 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too was wondering if I could become an ArbCom clerk trainee. I'm a fairly amiable guy, so I don't have any preference as to who chooses to take me under the wing. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your work here! Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Math

User:I think 2 + 2 = 22. Fouls the template. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not good form on the part of I think 2 + 2 = 22. I don't have access to clean up the mess he made, and it's not a small one. Gh5046 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all been cleaned up, except for the sleepers (block one Grawp ID and ten more rush in to fill its place). In any case, I predict that I'm gonna need to honeypot my talk page once more... -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sleepers on that IP. Thatcher 03:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU Assistance ASAP

See this, this, and this please. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear which combo of the three usernames and two different ISPs are "likely" at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdomofbuddha

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha, can you check Geoffduggan (talk · contribs) as well? I'm assuming that if he were related, you would have said so, but I just wanted to check. That account was also created at about the same time and resurfaced yesterday after I started the ANI thread. --B (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Brandt

here we go again. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, WP:CANVASSing! -- Kendrick7talk 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, you didn't read what canvassing is. You people need to respect DRV. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted section re-added by J.delanoygabsadds 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template Italian people

Hi, may I request your intervention in the template:Italian people? There it is user:Dionix who is creating an edit war (he has reverted 3 times the edits on 05/07/08) and is even posting offensive words against me. Your serious help would be greatly appreciated. --BurtReed (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll

I've added a clarification which probably means you'll want to change what you said. Apologies for the confusion, GDonato (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please: CU Karmaisking

You confirmed Lagrandebanquesucre: are you confirming that this is the same person as Karmaisking?--Gregalton (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SorsImmanis1 possible block evasion

Sorry for being slow about this Thatcher. I've detailed th possible block evasion in this case. I should have laid it out clearly at the outset. The IP that was blocked for a week on April 25th and the account was created on April 29th--Cailil talk 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU assistance needed

Could you confirm that MarkBA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is indeed 78.99.161.255 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) There was a previous case a short time ago, seems the same sockmaster is returning again so your help would be appreciated. Hobartimus (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion of editing restrictions placed under the Digwuren arbcom case, and continuation of all the previous activities listed in the earlier checkuser case, edit warring, harassment (mass reverting of targeted user) general disruption. Hobartimus (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just spotted this thread. Thatcher, is it okay with you if we copy things over to the original CheckUser page? Part of the problem with these Hungarian/Slovakian disputes, is that the discussions have gotten incredibly fragmented (see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Archived threads). So I'm trying to funnel things into certain central locations. --Elonka 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thatcher 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and done.[3] I'm not sure if I put it in the right place though, so feel free to move or tweak, if needed. --Elonka 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th)

Could you please block all the users listed at this SSP case? You confirmed four of the five at a checkuser case last week, and they need to be blocked. The fifth, PaoloCarlo, is likely the same person based on behavior: you can checkuser him just to be sure. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is best to have other admins block, so they have a chance to independently review the situation and I do not get accused of acting as judge and jury on secret evidence. Rarely, for example, an account will make a plausible argument for roommate/friend editing, or something. The first four accounts were blocked today, you can ask another admin or post to WP:ANI about PaoloCarlo. Thatcher 01:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eleemosynary

In addition to the user:Artisanalle account, you may also want to see the multiple ips and one additional "brand new" account flagged at [[4]]. A WP:RFCU a few weeks back noted it was probable that the new account was also user:Eleemosynary evading a permanent block.79.74.82.104 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU I reference is here: [[5]]79.74.82.104 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are already reported on the RFCU page. Thatcher 01:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Spam5i

Template:Spam5i has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you CheckUser?

Could you give some background on how you came to this conclusion? - Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkuser shows the account has edited from two IPs concurrently used by other accounts blocked as Jon Awbrey socks. Thatcher 11:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually pretty sure that this account is actually User:MyWikiBiz, are you sure the other accounts in question were identified correctly? --Random832 (contribs) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's possible. Working backwards, Quackers was created by the same person as Llama roper (talk · contribs) on a particular IP in P_________. Llama Roper was also used extensively from a hotel connection on which also appeared Second City Denmark (talk · contribs) and Boq (talk · contribs), among others. Arise Sir Loin of Beef, who probably is MyWikiBiz, was created on an IP that might be near Quackers' P_________ address, allowing for vagueries in geolocation. However, Sir Loin of Beef's most recent edits are from a different IP in F_________, which has also been used by Quackers the Duck and Second City Denmark, as well as some accounts blocked as MyWikiBiz socks such as Four Thirty-Nine (talk · contribs). (I would certainly say today that Loin of Beef and Quackers are the same person, and they are probably MyWikiBiz, but when I checked, Sir Loin had not yet used the F_________ address.) If the original identification of Llama roper and Second City Denmark is wrong, then the subsequent findings are wrong, too. Of course, other than giving MyWikiBiz an opportunity to poke fun at me, there is no particular importance to the discrepancy. Whether the sockpuppeteer is JA, GK, or an unrelated third party, there is definitely sockpuppetry going on. It would be nice if we had a comprehensive database of all checkuser findings, but there would be serious privacy concerns with that; far greater than the concerns voiced (by SlimVirgin, for example) over the inferences one can make from the CU log. I could try and corral all the relevant checkusers together on skype or IRC to compare old findings and dissect the current situation, but it hardly seems worth the effort. Thatcher 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, so that you could stalk and harrass him? I doubt he would submit to that sort of retaliation that we all know you have in mind, Thatcher. This is all very careful investigative work that you've gone through. Has anyone thought to put even half the time into figuring out why Quackers the duck was blocked in the first place? From what I can see, that user was attempting to correct a statement in Wikipedia that said a former WMF employee was in jail, when in fact, she is not in jail, and has not been in jail since December 2007. Wikipedia's administrators have been made to appear foolish -- that their reaction was to revert an edit that told a forgiving truth about a living person, then to block that editor to boot. But, if you prefer to spend the valuable investigative time on figuring out hotel IP addresses, by all means, continue. - Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke, GK. As for the rest, with 1500+ admins I am sure there are numerous borderline blocks made every day, and sadly I have neither the time nor the temperament to investigate them all. (Although you might care to note that I have probably been responsible for more desysoppings than any other editor not on Arbcom.) I find it hard to get too worked up over a block that turned out to be correct in the long run even if the reasoning in the short run was not 100% solid. Thatcher 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it was a joke. But, who is this "GK"? I'm in Lake County, Florida, and from what I understand, GK is in Pennsylvania. Thanks for clarifying:
  1. Banned users are not entitled to correct falsehoods about living persons.
  2. Attributing accounts as sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey is okay, as long as the account is indeed a sockpuppet.
  3. Nobody really cares about the status of the system that produces the above two rules.
By Jove, I think I've got it! - Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as the "youngest" of the 23 checkusers on enwiki, you have me at a disadvantage. I could ask on the mailing list, "who is the sockpuppeteer from Lake County, Florida," and I might get an answer, if the right person read the message and if they remembered their old checks. Or we could create a database where all checkuser reports would be deposited for future reference, except that it would be a huge security risk (considering that Arbcom-L is insecure, the Arbcom wiki was insecure when it was started, and checkuser-L may also be insecure for all I know) not to mention make the Foundation a perpetual target for subpoenas of information that would normally go stale after a certain period of time. Or we could limit enwiki to one checkuser with a photographic memory. Failing these alternatives, mistakes will occasionally be made. Assuming I ever figure out which banned user hangs out in Lake County, Florida, I could retag the accounts. (I have seen your IP range come up before, but alas, I do not have a photographic memory.) Or better yet, stop tagging accounts at all. The only time it benefits me as a checkuser to have Category:Sockpuppets of John Smith is if they are fresh enough to still be in the CU database. Having 400 tagged sockpuppets of JA may impress some trophy hunters but it doesn't help me in the slightest. And of course, Arise and Quackers were not actually created in Lake County, but elsewhere, so either you travel or you have helpers, which makes positive ID-tagging of sockpuppets even more difficult and less relevant, and if you're not GK you are certainly well-informed about each other. Thatcher 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Banned users are not entitled to correct falsehoods about living persons.

Doesn't follow - if not for the misidentified "personal info", your edit likely would not have been reverted. what they're not entitled to is to be unblocked after being blocked for a different, possibly faulty, reason. --Random832 (contribs) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask your advice?

We haven't spoken - as far as I know - but I've seen your work on Arbcom and also saw that you handled some sockpuppet problems sensitively.

On 11 April I started the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. The (well-advertized) discussion turned out to be controversial and extensive (there are many archives and subpages). It involved over 50 editors and ended (officially) on 23 April. As the person who set it up, I've felt responsible for trying to keep it on track etc. This proved difficult both because of the absence of guidelines to follow, and because I was an (anti-placeholder) protagonist myself.

Although the main discussion is long finished, two editors are trying to keep the page active - improperly in my view - and go beyond the conclusions already reached during the actual discussion. In my view, the discussion should be archived, a marker be put down and further technical discussions be carried on in a new location (probably a project).

Anyway I would now like to step back from the discussion and let someone else - someone impartial - take it over. GregManninLB suggested asking an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and I accepted his idea. I put a notice on ANI here, but after a day I've had no response.

Perhaps ANI is the wrong place to ask? Can you suggest how I can handle this so I can pass on the baton to someone better able to resolve the issues. Thanks and regards. (I'm happy to use email if you like.) --Kleinzach (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've now moved my message to the main Admin noticeboard here. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ohconfucius

Sir, Were you stating that the IPs are unrelated or that the users are unrelated? Hoping you did take into consideration this particular piece of evidence I noticed lately. Thanks and Regards, Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • IPs are located in different countries with no signs of proxy use. Thatcher 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Did you compare the two paragraphs I point to in the link given above? I would be thankful if you could let me know your opinion regarding the similarities. I find it hard to believe these were written by two different people and the similarities are there by mere coincidence. How could such word-for-word resemblance occur if the two users are completely unrelated?
Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, different IPs, in itself, is hardly conclusive evidence that they are unrelated - it is very easy to TS ( mstsc.exe/ Microsoft remote desktop ) into a system located anywhere in the world and work from there. Anyway please let me know what your perspective on the similarity in edits is.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser result is that they are unrelated. There certainly are ways of editing from multiple IPs in different locations, but that either requires the use of open or closed proxies (not likely in this case), or some form of prearranged cooperation, or some form of illegal activity (trojans, botnets, etc) neither of which can be determined by checkuser. If you believe these editors are related or are otherwise inappropriately coordinating their activities you should open a case at suspected sockpuppets. Thatcher 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored request

Hello. Allow me to say that I'm quite disappointed at your failure to reply to my e-mails last month. That was a serious matter where I could have used some help - or even a simple "sorry, I'd rather not get involved" would have been enough. I suppose I know now not to e-mail you for advice, but I've learnt the hard way. Biruitorul (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check user results

Thank you for the speedy results at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CyberAnth. It has helped me and others very much, and will greatly benefit the multiple articles that myself this user(s) have disagreed on. Again, thanks. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warning4

Someone else nomm'd Template:Warning4 for deletion, if it goes through, should I userfy them? Also, I think he forgot to notify you. MBisanz talk 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Honestly, I use {{Warning3}} and {{Warning5}} a lot more than 4, so I don't really care if it goes. I usually do prefer to write out a custom warning reason, and I find a lot of the iconography used on other warning templates to be needlessly aggressive, which is why I created this one. Thatcher 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ip block exempt

Hi Thatcher I was wondering if you could add me to the Ip exempt user rights as I have to use the college network but because it is blocked I have to use a proxy server from which I can then edit from. Thats why I want to ask for the access to the Ip exempt category. Peterpipper (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need ipblockexempt, because your college network is only blocked for anonymous users and new account creation. Since you created your account elsewhere, you should now have no problems editing from college. In fact, if you really were blocked, you would only be able to edit your own talk page but not mine, and there are several other editors at your school happily editing without restriction as we speak. You should be good to go. Thatcher 10:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truther socking

We have a problem with socking that needs further attention. [6] A user is logging out so they can avoid being subjected to WP:ARB9/11 sanctions. This violates the avoiding scrutiny policy. Jehochman Talk 11:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the IP up for a ban.[7] Jehochman Talk 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confirmation requested

I wish to occasionally write medical articles. I saw that you are a checkuser. Please confirm that my IP is that of a doctor. When I search my IP under http://ws.arin.net/whois/ , it does confirm it. I do not wish to write under my real name because other users do not. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to decline your request. Not to be pedantic, but editing from an IP assigned to a medical office does not prove you are a doctor; many non-doctors might have legitimate access to that address. And ultimately, editors are known by their contributions and their behavior. A claim of credentials does not give your edits any more weight than anyone else's. All edits are expected to follow principles of verifiability through reliable sources, no original research, and so on, and in the long run you will be judged by the quality of your edits, not your credentials. Thatcher 13:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have confirmed that I may be a doctor and that I am editing from a medical office. You can conclude that I am not editing from a prison nor from a pharmaceutical company. I do not want people to think that I am a convict nor a person trying to promote a new medicine. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Thatcher has actually stated the exact opposite - that a checkuser was not run, because it would do no good anyway. Contributions from a user in a prison or a pharmaceutical company are perfectly welcome...as long as they meet the standards that anyone else's contributions must meet. Promoting a new medicine would not qualify - even if a "verified" doctor were to post them. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is a very basic, core principle.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree with Frank. I am writing from my office. My IP is that of a medical office. Thatcher spilled the beans that I am writing from a medical office. See above.
I must state again the reason that I am concerned about this point. If I write that a certain class of drug is useful in hypertension and I work for a drug company that makes it, that is a conflict of interest. By proving to the best that I can that I am a doctor and not a convict or drug company, then you don't have to worry that I have a criminal agenda or a medicine sales agenda. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Thatcher spilled the beans that I am writing from a medical office. See above." - ah, actually he didn't. He pointed out that if you were, it would not amount to proof. He did not at any time indicate that he actually checked - Alison ❤ 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify policy, it would be a good idea for you to read the checkuser policy, especially the section on grounds for checking. Your request does not fall under those grounds, and your idea of somehow verifying yourself runs contrary to Wikipedia's policies anyway. No individual is given extra influence over any article in the entire project. Some (very few) pages can only be edited by a select few users, and some only by administrators. Those restrictions are to protect against vandalism, not to validate content or the editors who provide the content. On occasion, pages are protected when they experience a high rate of vandalism which cannot be controlled by blocking the user(s) in question directly. None of this has anything to do with the name, age, gender, occupation, location, or anything else regarding the user. It is all about the project itself. As you are hopefully aware, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We verify by providing citations that anyone can go and check independently. We do not do so by saying that a user is infallible and has been given some special status in the project.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Exemption?

I kind of don't understand what you did; I'm not tech savvy. So somebody was using an IP address that was the same as mine to vandalize? Wouldn't that exemption make it easier for them to vandalize? Lighthead þ 00:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked policy. Basically, you and the Grawp page move vandal live in the same area and use the same ISP. Each time you or he resets his modem, you get a new IP address randomly assigned from a pool of 16000 IP addresses. So the only way to stop him was to block all 16000 addresses. That normally affects all editors on that range, not just the vandal. The exemption means you can edit from that range even if the IP is blocked for other users. Admins have always had this power, it can now be extended to a limited number of editors under special circumstances. Thatcher 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lighthead þ 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The_undertow

FYI - I've restored the request for arbitration. According to James F's message on his talk page, he was "temporarily" desysopped, which implies that something else is coming down the pike. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by James' message on WP:AN where he called it a "courtesy desysop" and that UT could not reapply without consulting Arbcom. That certainly sounded to me like the situation is closed unless UT asks for his sysop back, in which case we can open a hearing, assuming AC wants to hear it publicly. Thatcher 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, as a courtesy note, I have re-added the thread. I simply don't think editors or clerks (depending which hat you were wearing here) should be blanket-removing threads on an issue, the specifics of which are currently unclarified and vague. For example, there has been confusion expressed, as to whether: 1/ the_undertow is permanently desysopped (what the initial thread was calling for); 2/ what role the committee will play if the_undertow requests resysopping: what weight does "they wish to be consulted" carry?; 3/ whether they will be fully desysopping him, and whether they wish to hear a full case on the matter.
Apologies for the revert, but it's necessary at the present moment, until an on-Wiki statement of clarification is made.
Regards, Anthøny 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher's interpretation of the situation is correct. The_undertow is desysopped, and he will need the AC's approval to get it back. Thus, at the moment, there would seem to be no need for an arbitration case. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thread has been re-added by FT2, and is now live on Requests for arbitration. I must say, this whole thing is turning into a game of ping-pong. We really need an en banc statement from the Committee, to clarify the ambiguities of this issue. Thoughts? Anthøny 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A thought? How about "No point in chasing a headless chicken, it will eventually fall down on its own." Thatcher 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one took 18 months to fall down. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for this fix. That was only my second RFCU and the first re-listing I did. I just couldn't figure out why it wasn't showing up in outstanding cases.
Thanks again!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

You have email from User:Philippe. - Philippe 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosencomet

It's my understanding that you're familiar with Rosencomet. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you have anything to add here? This seems to be a sticky situation, and input from people familiar with the situation who don't have a direct interest in it would be greatly appreciated.

Feel free to let me know -- by e-mail or on-wiki -- if you have any concerns regarding this request.

Thanks a bunch. - Revolving Bugbear 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sock of DavidYork71

They say on AN/I to let you know :http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_sock_of_DavidYork71 -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myu0246 (talk · contribs)

Hi, Thatcher, I think this new editor is likely a sock of Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) or Yuan.C.Lee (talk · contribs) due to their uncannily same editing behaviors on cuisine/film/Korean companies related articles (unnecessarily switching Japan-Korea orderings[8][9] or blanking properly sourced materials[10][11][12][13] which Azukimonaka or other indefinitely banned user Yuan.C.Lee used to edit a lot). Can you look at the user? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is now indefinitely blocked[14], but I'm still curious as to whether the newbie is a reincarnation of them. Thanks..--Appletrees (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Checkuser

Hi - I'm not sure whether this is a technical issue or my request was actually declined, because there was no explanation on the page from an admin as to why it was declined, or even an icon. Would you mind checking, please? [15] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU needed quick

I would go to RFCU but this is an emergency. School threat was received and we need the IP information for the local authorities. Proof of threat. here user needing to be checked. User:Deathboy52. Thuran has contact with the authorities so ask her for the needed contact details. Rgoodermote  22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being quick. Sorry for the pesteringw. Didn't know which would be quicker. Rgoodermote  23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Real Life Barnstar
For your great work in possibly saving lives today. I'm glad we have folks like you around. Toddst1 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done.

Please check your email, expect to hear from the West Windsor PD soon. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case

Hi, you might remember me. (Star wars featured topic,pc12345,herowiki101) anyways I have another case now. Note it's pure coincidence. I only have one alternate account. User:Mr.Xp for public computer logins. I have yet to need this account but it's still there. However the socks are not related to me. I made an accidental edit mistake.Please clear my name.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too am suspicious of the interest of that editor in your RFA, but technically your IPs and ISPs are certainly unrelated and a great distance apart from each other. Thatcher 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For consistent work dealing with issues regarding cross wiki vandalism - many thanks Herby talk thyme 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hyper Girl

User requesting a dialog with you, as the blocking admin. Getting a little confusing now! SGGH speak! 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vtria 08/DZ Sepia/Garza 17/Sentinel 2008 sockfarm

It just occurred to me that the Arch7 checkuser request came back  Unlikely as opposed to Red X Unrelated. Was Arch7 on the same ISP as Vtria 08, DZ Sepia, Garza 17 and Sentinel 2008? JFD (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please reply on the checkuser case page. JFD (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for double-checking Arch7.

I hate to bother you again, but is Ramsay 09 (talk · contribs) on the same ISP as Vtria 08, DZ Sepia, Garza 17 and Sentinel 2008? JFD (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following accounts are sockpuppets of each other and on the same ISP but different IP than Garza, Sentinel and Vitria:
  1. Foreman 53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Goring 53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Dither 56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Gordonramsay 33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Ramsay 09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Fog-tz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Chef 00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Thatcher 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sweet sodding Jebus.

Judging by the edit pattern, it's definitely him.

Thank you for taking the time to check Ramsay 09. Heavy is the hand that holds the broom.

If you can answer this question, can you tell me just how dynamic this ISP is? This user almost certainly edited from 122.163.22.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 23 April and from 122.163.22.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 5 May. That doesn't seem that dynamic compared to last year when his IP range was 59.94.96.*–59.94.106.*. Is his IP range that much more dynamic than is suggested by these two IPs (122.163.22.54, 122.163.22.80) alone?

Also, is there any way to have a checkuser regularly performed on this user so that he doesn't get away with this in future? For example, the edit pattern of Christopher Crighton (talk · contribs) matches this user exactly but went stale by the time my suspicions were sufficiently aroused to request checkuser. And we wouldn't even have caught this nest of socks had it not crossed my mind to checkuser Ramsay 09.

JFD (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's hard to say, exactly. Vitria had one IP for 9 days; but as it appears to be dsl, he could probably reset it several times a day if he wanted to. I've seen 122.161.xxx.xxx through 122.163.xxx.xxx, so a pool of at least 200,000 IPs to draw on. Pretty hard to run fishing checks as there are many good users there, too. If you spot someone who acts like Freedom skies, and they turn out to be on the same ISP, that's less likely to be a coincidence. And if that user has clearly created a sock farm simultaneously, so much the better. But it would not be helpful to run random checks on all the wikipedia editors in Delhi. Thatcher 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. JFD (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've got another one. JFD (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Kinsella.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Kinsella.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thatcher, you uploaded only a cropped version of the image. A living Canadian lobbyist/blogger. GRBerry 14:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimpsonsFan08

[16]. I guess the book is closed on it, but I think we have a serious problem on our hands. I'm pretty sure the user has already created more socks (there's one specifically I'm pretty sure is him). Is there any way that new accounts from that IP range could be monitored? I understand it's too wide a range to block account creation entirely, but I really feel some kind of action needs to be taken. Enigma message 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For various technical reasons, monitoring the range of IPs available to this person would involve running 20 or more separate checks on sub-ranges, and even then I would not know who the good editors and who the problems were unless I looked at all the diffs, or if I got lucky and caught a series of account creations at the same time from the same IP. You can block on behavior, now that you have an established pattern, and contact a checkuser for verification in case someone protests that it was a mistake. Or list the new suspects hoping to find sleepers, which may or may not exist. Thatcher 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter

First, thank you for performing the work involved. I'm guessing there was a fair amount.
Second, I've (hopefully) responded to your questions there.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some part of the "process" that I am missing? or is it that you're not "allowed" to respond to questions concerning the use of CheckUser? - jc37 22:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to go about this

[17]. At the bottom of the page I cut and pasted my concerns about the user. If you follow the links and the pasted discussion , then I think you might be able to see a logical call for a check user. If i didn't do it right, and I'm sure I didn't, please help me to get it in the right place in the right format. Typing is a very laborious process for me.:( Die4Dixie (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of User:S_charette

Hi Thatcher,

I've been bold and unblocked S_charette (talk · contribs). He was one of the ones you listed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Taddeus45 as "note: some of the edits are from suspected proxies, but there is not going to be a 'magic bullet' IP block. These accounts listed below should be checked; if they fit the pattern, block them ..." In my opinion, having worked with S_charette for a while now, and knowing him as an exemplary editor, he does not fit the pattern of the serial spammer indicated in the CU case. I left a note for Hu12 as well. Recognizing that I can be wrong as easily as anyone, either you or Hu12 are free to overrule me and I won't unblock him again -- especially as you may know details I do not -- but in my opinion he is an innocent user who happens to use the same IP range and lives in the same town in BC. Thanks and best regards, Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution history has little to do with this case. This was the only account not initialy blocked after being confirmed by checkuser. I left this account unblocked and when the core IP was used by two more of the sock accounts it confirms that they are connected with this account.
  1. Garreck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. S charette (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Jackie256‎ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
This seems indicative of operating one account "clean", while using others to engage in disruptive behavior.--Hu12 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that S charette is unrelated. He has switched to using a local non-proxy ISP, and was only on one of the proxies that the other accounts had in common, and seems to be different from Garreck and Jackie256, who are the same person and have switched to an alternate IP that is probably also a proxy. Maddy812 (talk · contribs) and Odalys58 (talk · contribs) are unblocked socks. Thatcher 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thatcher. I'm going to go on my gut feeling and a strong inclination to assume good faith, especially considering how he went way out of his way and spent considerable time helping me to shut down a pair of harassing sockpuppeteers back in January, and I'm going to leave him unblocked. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a good reason to avoid proxies. Thatcher 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance to recheck for more IPs and accounts, Gabrial77 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) came back today, this appears never ending. Thanks, Thatcher.--Hu12 (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's only got one edit that I can check, but it is on the same proxy and user agent as Garett37 (talk · contribs). Thatcher 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cadey07 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) posted today (only one link which I've blacklisted). --Hu12 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions

Is there a way to see what special pages I deleted from User subpages? I went to Special pages to see the prefixes but of course it only shows me the nondeleted pages. I had collected some IP editors and that leads into the second request: I think Bmedley_Sutler has returned. His broken written english, article choice and some phrases have led me to believe that Olawe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) matches but it's early. It's been too long for a Checkuser request so I was hoping to find an IP edit. This is the actual Bmedley_Sutler, not FAAFA using his account (which is why he was banned). Olawe here and Smedley here got my attention (bad man?). Style/English of Olawe and Smedley. Theres more but I need more time or an old IP if i have it on a deleted user prefix page. --DHeyward (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is a page you edited I (or any admin) can see the edits in your deleted contributions. If it was your own (prior username) subpage, I can restore it and move it to your present user account. If it was someone else's I can restore it as well for use as evidence. Do you have a rough idea of the page name? If it relates to your prior user name you can email me if you prefer. Thatcher 14:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's easy, just restore them all. If not, if you could give me a list from both accountds, I can pick it. If you delete the prefix if you like so there is no username or you can email it. Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only deleted pages in your former user space are User:Smith/vandals and User:Smith/Blu Aardvark, neither of which have anything to do with Bmedley Sutter. Was the page in someone else's user space, and do you remember who? Or, there are a number of user subpages in your current name space you can search here for user and here for user talk. Thatcher 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in my account but didn't have as much on BMedley as I had hoped. This IP was what I was looking for but it's not BMedley IP. I was hoping to compare to Olawe with CU but not enough to ask yet. The trick is to find the Bmedley IP instead of the FAAFA meatpuppet IP. Thanks for restoring. I'll go through the normal delete process for stuff that I don't need. I don't need the vandal or Blu Aardvark stuff from my previous account. It was proxies that had it. I used the page as a sandbox for the IP template and check for open proxies beig used by sockpuppets. --DHeyward (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Lauder/Sussexman sock

Hi Thatcher, noticed you were online. Perhaps you could run a checkuser to confirm that User:Isabela84 (contribs) is a sock of the Sussexman/David Lauder variety? I know Alison has handled most of these, but I assume she may not have started her day yet. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Isabela (or Isabella) is not a sock of David Lauder - Alison ❤ 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this edit will be somewhat interesting[18]. Not quite sure what that is all about. Risker (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting, and I've pmailed Thatcher about it as I'm aware of aspects of this that some may not be. Per privacy, though, I'm not commenting here - Alison ❤ 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jokeshow

Heya :) Can you have a quick look at the other sock added to the case afterwards? (This case is weird indeed) I'd go ahead and indef block the SPA, but I'd prefer not biting a clueless editor, since he got blocked for his edits for 24h already. -- lucasbfr talk 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I expect this is going to be ongoing, as I'm pretty sure it's a holdover from a past case, and darn, this is disrupting one of FACs best reviewers. I just added another one. I'm going to be traveling this week; could you possibly keep that CU page watchlisted for any other additions, or do we have to keep adding it to new requests? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection

The connection? Well, Eixo was shut down for vandalism, while Lampman was created for vandalism. Panichappy, on the other hand, is just a sockpuppet. I'm not sure what the connection is, why? Is this some kind of riddle? Lampman Talk to me! 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (7th)

Please take a close look at this sockpuppet case. You are probably in the best position among all the administrators to make a decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your work at Checkuser by protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential future disruption and abuse. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Hu12 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RK RFCU

I disagree there was no policy violation. He admitted to sharing his password, that's about as clear as it gets, clear policy violation. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS if he didn't change his pwd with the new account, he's still in vio since he's still editing. Did he change his pwd? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The renamed account is reblocked for the password sharing business. The question is whether there was a violation of the sockpuppetry rules for his using the Bermuda Triangle account, and it looked to me more like he was trying to dissasociate his editing from his real name than any serious attempt to pretend to be someone else. As long as he and only he uses the Bermuda Triangle account, there is no need for an SSP or RFCU case, and his other problematic behaviors can be dealt with by the usual means. Thatcher 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He did more than CHU edits while he was unblocked. I still disagree about this disposition but also think it's not worth belaboring. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd

Heya, as you can see I have blocked everyone but User:Egyegy because according to his -extensive- block log, he got mixed once with Verdict after a RFCU. Since I see no prior evidence of sock abuse, I'd prefer not blocking him if you aren't sure at 99% that he is the sockmaster. Can you double check? Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I am correct, all the accounts including Egyegy are socks of an as-yet unnamed editor. I have asked on the CU mailing list for a second opinion. However, there is no doubt that Egyegy is involved in this particular sockfarm. Thatcher 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

Hello Thatcher, Sorry you dont know me but I saw you on the checkuser request page and thought you might be able to help me. I think I encountered two users who have very similar editing history (articles such as "blond", "Asia", "Europe") and I suspect that they might be sockpuppets. I would love if you could check if there is any connection between user:Kesälauantait and user:Lycander's Aim. I am a new user and I dont know how to check them or whatever you do. If I am wrong and they are not sockpuppets its ok too. Thanks --Orbias (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To file a checkuser request, go to WP:RFCU and follow the instructions, use one of the accounts to create the request and list the other account. You will need to have some evidence that they are not only the same person but violating some policies (like double-voting on polls, agreeing with each other on controversial debates, reverting for each other, etc. Thatcher 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thatcher! You did a very good job. I was shocked by the number of sockpuppets. Several names sounded very familiar such as Grinkov and Kotlyarov and many others. People have a lot of free time these days I guees. : ) --Anna polly (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Hello!

First of all, I'm really sorry if I'm bothering you by doing this.

I submitted a checkuser request on May 26 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it. It is the third request I have made in for this banned user/sockpuppeteer with the previous 2 confirming sockpuppetry. I want to see if there's any way to run that check anytime soon. I only ask because OOC OCD (talk · contribs), what I believe to be the latest sock from this farm, is engaging in some very flagrant copyvio/BLPvio/personal attacks (something the previous socks are well known for) and it's becoming quite disruptive to other editors on the same articles.

I know you have enough on your plate without me pestering you so I will understand if you tell me to wait in line like everyone else, but this guy has been very persistent in the last 4-5 months and I've been trying to keep up with his as well as I can. The community has nicely told this person they are not welcome here but, thanks to his dynamic IP, he is back time and again and he's not ashamed to admit that either. I just want him off of here, that's all.

Thanks for listening and, again, please forgive the annoyance.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've processed your checkuser case. An uninvolved admin will be along shortly and will most likely block the account. Thanks again - Alison ❤ 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

For being a voice of logic. Sadly, I still feel like I've been railroaded off enwiki. Perhaps our paths will cross somewhere else at some point in the future. I hope so. Best, Astral (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing editing restriction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hi. Since you were the one to block me, I decided its only fair to address this to yourself. I would like to appeal my placement under these restrictions. Following repeated conflicts with several editors, including being on an incivility warning, and in an ANI case now, it has become apparent (thanks to User:Woody) that my problems are largely confined to the issue of source verifiability, and can all be resolved via the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or when the newly proposed Sourcing Adjudication Board may come online. With this in mind, would you be able to suggest the process, if one exits, of appealing my placement on this editing restriction, and how to proceed. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRP

I noticed you blocked some accounts saying they related to GRP...I found this. You might want to CU it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's him. No other accounts on that IP though. Thatcher 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design editors rfar thread

Not sure your comment qualifies as a clerk note; would you consider moving it to a proper statement? Being picky, I know, but it's important to recognise what hat you're wearing when commenting (IMO, at least). Anthøny 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's content-neutral advice on filing an effective case. It could apply equally well to any case, for the "prosecution" or "defense". Thatcher 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Impression

I am afraid you are mistaken in your assertation. I am not the person making "throw away vandal accounts". The IP range that I usually use is a corporate one. There are other people in my department who have created vandal accounts. I have spoken to them regarding the issue and asked them to cease doing so. Simonm223 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If true, that is a good thing, and hopefully you won't get caught in any more autoblocks. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to discriminate between good editors and bad editors on shared corporate IPs, and a good editor making vandal accounts for recreation looks very much the same as a good editor who happens to have a bored co-worker. Thatcher 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. In this case it is the later unfortunately there is no realistic way to prove this to you. Hopefully I will have availed upon them to cease and there won't be another instance. Simonm223 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greier

Hey Thatcher. I'm pretty convinced based on the behavioral evidence that these two users are the same person. Do you think I can simply block based on the CU result? I know it's not "confirmed", but "likely" seems good enough to me. Khoikhoi 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you were ready to block anyway, and now you know it is not an exact IP match (what would be after 2 years?) but is in the same city and ISP, it seems reasonable to me. Thatcher 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. Thank you for handling that RFCU I filed. Just a one question. How long should be the second block for that very same crime? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paknur

Hello Thatcher. I CUed this guy on the suspicion that he was the still-banned Nadirali (talk · contribs). However, it wasn't him, but another user whose ban has now expired, except he is now running multiple socks on the same IP. But because I ended up reverting a person who wasn't banned but accidentally came across other socks, can you please take a look for independent 3rd party confirmation? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's absolutely obvious. Betacommand's user compare tool shows numerous edits to the same articles, and this is a recreation of similar behavior. (On the other hand, Boatrights (talk · contribs) is another banned user Hkelkar.) What do you want to do about it? Thatcher 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I reverted the guy under the assumption that he was banned, and he isn't, I just figured that I should ask someone else to confirm it lest I be accused of framing someone I was reverting. I just need you to list the exact guys on that IP- there is one guy who's ban has expired and a whole stack of socks and I'll ask someone else to block it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nawabshahi (talk · contribs)
  2. Paknur (talk · contribs)
  3. Mirza Barlas (talk · contribs)
  4. Misaq Rabab (talk · contribs)

--Thatcher 10:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Siddiqui's block has expired. Still The accounts were used abusively e.g. reverted to each other on Pakistan Studies. I have blocked Paknur for one month (it seems to be the main account nowdays) and the rest permanently. I propose to Community Ban the user if one more sockpuppeting found Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

I'm probably missing something very simple here, but how do I e-mail you? -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/207.189.99.134

You found the two users to be the same, but did you determine if they are the same as the IP address? That IP contributed again to the article, still injecting their POV. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRP

... is back at the Chicago Public Library right now making new socks. Can you quick look at 64.107.0.0/22 and 66.99.0.0/22 (I'll make a formal CU request if you would rather). I suspect this is one, but I think he might have made a bunch before I shut down the ranges again. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hdayejr and his socks

Hello, Thatcher,

I was just wondering, since the list has vastly increased since when I first filed it, to see if any of the users listed matched the large range of IPs now present. As I have not really seen any recent activity, the list as not really expanded as of late, but the ranges which he uses are becoming quite clear. Here is said page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. Thankyou for your time no matter what you decide to do.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve\ Contribs 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can list the names as updates to the checkuser case if you want confirmation, your list is in alpha order rather than date so I don;t know which are recent enough to be worth checking. There's probably not much point in checking IPs unless its a current 3RR issue or something. You pretty much know where he lives, I think, so IPs from there that walk and talk like him can be blocked pretty easily. Thatcher 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy /Evidence

Is there some way to see a scrubbed version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence as a normal user? Should I be asking someone else about this? Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, I didn't see that when it happened. Scrubbing it would have to be a manual job and I don't even know what was allegedly revealed. You might the clerk listed as handling the case if he has the time to make a scrubbed version; otherwise ask arbcom or Dmcdevit I guess. Thatcher 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't noticed there's a listed clerk. Gnixon (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuss

Ok, I'll be a good boy. Lampman Talk to me! 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recarnation of Azukimonaka?

Hi, Thatcher. Can you check this seemingly sock IP(s) of Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)/KoreanShoriSenyou (talk · contribs) and his multiple gangs? Recently, manhwa article has been (typically) vandalised by very persistent ocn.ne.jp IP user(s) over the same matter just like Azukimonaka did on the manhwa related articles. The ocn anon(s) appeared to blank the same thing at Blade of the Phantom Master which he also did. Thanks. *61.119.138.171 (talk · contribs)

--Appletrees (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the anon in question is not related to Azukimonaka, another obvious sock Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) seems to be related to him/her. per the long break from 8 months and the timing. Can you look at the sock? Thanks.-Appletrees (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the case, but I can't prevent the disruptive removals and POV pushing by this obviously Azukimonaka-ish ocn. anon and sock account Jazz81089. Besides, if Jazz81089 uses ocn.ne.jp IP, he clearly violated 3RR rules. I talked to the anon/jazz to participate in an open discussion countless times, and even requested RFC, but his disruption does not stop. So typical WP:DR is no use because he has not responded to any of them. In such case, what else can I do? File this at WP:SSP or WP:ANI or just keep reverting his blanking after my limit of 3 time reverts is over? --Appletrees (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for protecting the page, but the last edit was by Jazz81089 (talk · contribs). Until he edited, the lead section clearly said about Korean Manhwa and the current protected page only supports the disruptive anon/Jazz81089 (talk · contribs). The work is created by Korean artists and my version is a compromised version, but he does not listen to. Can you revert his edit? Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only semi-protected the article. Anonymous IP editors may not make changes but registered users such as yourself can. Thatcher 11:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Amoruso

This user is challenging his 2-month block for sockpuppetry, based on a "likely" finding you gave at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Can you comment about what you found? He seems to think that the checkuser result identified him as having the same ISP... I don't believe that but it's probably best if you comment. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocking IP range

Greatings, some of the registered user from bosnian Wikipedia have complained about blocking their IP addresses see here. Can you resolve the problem please, thanks in advance.--CERminator (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been a lot of inappropriate edits there. Certainly I would not want to think that any of the bosnian wikipedia editors were responsble and wanted to edit anonymously to avoid being connected to their home accounts. Anonymous editors are blocked but editors with accounts on enwiki can still edit. I suggest they either create a unified login so they would have a single account on all wikis, or they ask the unblock-L mailing list to create an enwiki account for them. Either way, they would then have an account here and could edit from that range with no problems. Thatcher 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply. We already solved the mistery. Affected user(s) don't have unified account, and I'm afraid she/he cannot do that because affected username is already occupied on en.wikipedia. Anyway, thanks a lot. Best regards--CERminator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi. I’m directing this message to you because you were the one who confirmed the Wellwater Conspiracy CheckUser request. This is a very difficult case because the guy has been creating numerous accounts to evade blocks. On no.wikipedia, he has come clean, and the community has decided to give him a second chance, but here they all got blocked. Of course he has created another account here, no surprise, User:Alive Would? Sun (confirmed on no:User:Superunknown). I just thought I’d let you know, so you can decide what to do with it. — H92 (t · c · no) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I don't usually make blocking decisions on my own technical findings, the place to ask would be the admins noticeboard. Thatcher 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for a quick reply. Because the user has been annoying me and loads of other users on no.wikipedia I just asked for a second opinion. I don’t know if the community wants to give him a second chance. I’ll write something on WP:ANI. Thanks! ;) — H92 (t · c · no) 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser activity

Would you be able to comment at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers? Thanks. I also mentioned this (and you by name) at this ANI thread. Apologies if my impressions were mistaken. I think I should have asked you and Raul at your talk pages before mentioning your names at the ANI thread. This is one reason why I would like to see activity logs, as that would confirm impressions and correct mistaken impressions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You spelled it wrong

Hello Thatcher, I'd like you to take a look at my block log where you have made a spelling mistake. It is an "a" not an "e". Please correct. Thank you. StickySugar (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thatcher, although I would still like you to correct your mistake on the other block log, as it will make you seem somewhat naive when anyone looks at it. Anyway, have a nice day. Kelpcarp (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avril vandal

Whoops, sorry! Thanks for informing me about this, I have passed the info along to other account creators via the mailing list (Accounts-enwiki-l) which is where this request came from. I have recommended that all 'suspect' usernames/emails have the requested username checked against known Grawp/Avril paradigms (although unfortunately this is unlikely to catch all requests). If anything else should be done, please let me know. Thanks again for telling me about this. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:13, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could ever know for sure in advance; maybe the user has a "tell" in their email or something. Thatcher 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nlwiki rename

please see nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Oscar#Take_over_username.3F thx ;-) oscar 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done: please confirm there, thx ;-) oscar 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thatcher 11:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

You have mail. Risker (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.Comment

Sorry for disturbing but I am having 1 question. If I am not making mistakes IP are not geographically similar but they are Verizon ([19] [20] [21] and earlier blocked IP [22] [23] ).

Because of that in my thinking situation is similar to block discussion on this talk page about Velebit/Giuvon puppets.

On other side your check and this evidence is enough for action on page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets ?

  • All the IPs you cite are in the area of Washington DC. J.A. Comment is also in the Washington DC area, but not on Verizon, and there are certainly many people who live there so that alone is not conclusive. Thatcher 14:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me options about Verizon IP and Balkan articles which this user has edited ? (because this is evidence that we are having 1 user)--Rjecina (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Thatcher 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user with multiple Verizon IP is playing with Balkan articles. We are knowing that 1 user which has earlier used multiple Verizon IP has been banned [24] and can we stop him from playing again with Balkan related articles ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Thatcher - Please, be aware that the IP address assigned to me does not mean that I live in the Washington DC - any Verizon customer can use any of their servers when logging into his/her account from anywhere across the USA or Canada. That means only that the server I am using is located there (greater Washington DC area). Verizon has 40 million users in the USA. The IP address is not the address of my computer - it is an address temporarily assigned to me that protects me from any outside intrusion. My ISP (Verizon) will not give any information about me to you - but their technician will confirm my words - if you ask him/her. Saying that the IP addresses are geographically similar would only fuel frivolity of this person in his/her accusations of others - which might lead to blocking other innocent people by some of his/her friends (admins) - as it already happened to NovaNova ( three times checkuser refused confirming that NovaNova is a sockpuppet - but third time the 'geographical closeness' prompted some admin to block this user)
You have used similar arguments before and they have been refused because "recent contributions from this IP are nevertheless consistent with it being used only by socks of Velebit/Guivon" [25]--Rjecina (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kloksmann

Hi. As you are the checkuser responsible for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn, I'm submitting the unblock request of Kloksmann (talk · contribs) for your consideration. His contributions do not seem to match those of Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least.  Sandstein  19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton

Moulton has used a page in his userspace to out Filll, User talk:Moulton/Answers. The edits in question have been deleted but you can find them in the logs. Considering he was indef blocked for so long and was only temporarily unblocked to clean up his userspace, I'm inclined to reinstate the indef block, so I'm giving you a heads up. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_personal_information. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widsombuddha

Can you clarify your results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha? Is Wisdombuddha = Helen38 = Geoffduggan = Wisdomsword = Helen37 = Trudy21 = Wikilama? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comfort women episode

I put this on the comfort women episode. you ought to have a look at it too. i make no apology for the first statement

how do I make a link to kargaroo court from here, mate?!!213.230.203.86 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


rlevse is a complete liar.

he says "The IP your user page redirected to, 207.112.75.189, was already blocked for making death threats on the footnotes RFAR page earlier today."

but the redirection on the users page User_talk:Documentingabuse was to REDIRECT User_talk:222.150.193.35, the link is here [26]. Loud and clear mate.

the same ip address is also clear in the history.

Rlevse did not "put a tag on him". Rlevse blocked him indefinitely on the basis of being "a suspected sock puppet of Davkal" without any proof at all. its here....[27].

look at the subjects matter of their edits. they're entirely different. It is here......[28].


the named account was only made on 14 June 2008....the edits on the article were made before it was made.......so h ow could he edit while logged out? this is when he start to use it..... [http/wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php=3ftitle=3dWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Caspian_blue=26diff=3dprev=26oldid=3d219319251] 


its all completely dishonest.

he is the only one discussing the topic.

he is the only one making edits. 

all the rest are just erasing every one he makes every time.


its all here........ http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Comfort_women&limit=500&action=history 213.230.203.86 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

Perhaps YOU can explain what policy you are folowing here, Thatcher:

on 6/15/08 12:27 AM, east.718 wrote:

> Hi, > > You were blocked on the recommendation of a network administrator who > has access to confidential system logs which I am not privy to. You may > email Thatcher to contest the findings at > <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Thatcher>. > > -Eric (east.718) > > Dremeraldgibb wrote: >> Well, you appear to have blocked my account. Obviously without any >> justificaitopn, so please unblock it. I can't be responsible for other users >> edits can I? >> >> If you have other more some cunning explanation, then perhaps I could be >> enlightened as to what it is. >> >>

"A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies ."

There is nothing to suggest this account has been used in anyting other than appropraite eding. You shoudl unblick it immediately,. Relying on anyonymous evidence that you cannot or refuse to share is particularly discreditable.

90.17.74.19 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Banned editors are not permitted to contribute, and Wikigiraffes was banned before the checkuser request was ever filed.
  • Good hand/bad hand editing is not permitted.
  • I only disclosed the relationship between the accounts, I did not block them. You should make your policy argument in an unblock request on your own talk page and any admin who thinks you should be allowed to contribute can unblock you. Thatcher 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, Thatcher, but East thing says he acted on your recommendation. I'm not surprised neither of you wish to take responsibility. I asked you to disclose the 'evidence'. I'm not going to appeal when I don't know what the charges are based on, Mr Guantanomo Bay! I'm not going to appeal anyway, its not a big deal, but I think am still entitled to 'an explanation'? Disclose your 'technical advice' the block was based on. Was it having someone sit in this room and observe Wikigiraffes and me merge into one person?

90.17.74.19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.65.201 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is very typical of WIkipedia isn't it? I signed the above by indicating that I was the same person as before, ie 90.17.74.19. Indeed the IP changes. I can't AS YOU MUST KNOW communciate with you by editing this page while signed in. SO to accuse me of not signing myself as dremeraldgibb is a bit much, isn't it?

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, which I have taken up. Please email me the info 90.17.74.19 now as 90.17.11.25 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)?[reply]

Eurofinishusa RFCU Question

for whenever you're back. Question on this RFCU. What, if anything, happens with the IPs. Both Harvard and Eurofinishusa2 are indeffed as socks but I'm not really sure what happens next. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DWhiskaZ Returns

hi - wanted you to know that user DWhiskaZ (whom you helped block) is at it again (edit wars, and his obsession with linking Mohammad to the Bhavisya Purana) this time as user "Padan" Padan (talk · contribs). Can you help block him once again? I dont know how. I reported him to wp:aiav last night, but I dont know what it takes to have some action taken. This user by now has a long track record see here for instance of vandalism and sockpuppetry and there must be some way to make a more permanent ban? Thanks. I'm also leaving a note with Abecedare who helped with this user before. -jak68 P.S. Paul Barrow is currently investigating User Padan for additional sockpuppetry, here Thanks. Jak68 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrburr

What came of this? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Padishar

Hi, that user is subject to a rangeblock of yours. Can you help him out?  Sandstein  19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted this user IP exemption, which should hopefully solve the problem, as he/she seems to be a good user. Feel free to alter, revert or discuss as you feel fit as this is the first time I've tried doing this. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blocked range is a hosting company, which rarely host legit ISPs and frequently host web servers that are misconfigured or compromised. However, that user seems to be ok as far as I can tell. Thatcher 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More signed in vandalism

It appears there is yet more signed in vandalism coming from User:212.219.59.241 (see unblock-auto request on talk). If you could re-run the checkuser to see if another block is helpful, please do. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed it on the talk page. As the vandal came right back after the block expired, reblocked. Also odd that the IP would ask for unblock as none of the registered users there was actually autoblocked as far as I could tell. Thatcher 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your tireless work on checkuser - community service worthy of recognition Thank you Matilda talk 22:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gee, I was just going to offer to stab you in the head, but heck, a barnstar works even better. Plus, it has more pointy points for stabbing you in the head! lol! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with every corncob IP wanting to stab, you, Thatch? Are you magically delicious or something? lol :P - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Rex checkuser

Not that I'm disagreeing with you declining the checkuser request[29] (It is incredibly stale after all), but according to Rex's arbcom case, he was editing as 216.153.214.94,[30] which is only 5 IP addresses off and used by the same ISP provider as 216.153.214.89. So not sure if Rex was physically located in Texas, but he was certainly editing out of the same IP address range as the current IP. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's interesting, but doesn't change the fact that there is no technical way of analyzing the situation with the checkuser tool. You can add that comment to the case if you want, but this would be dealt with better by WP:SSP. Thatcher 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I completely agree with you re the Berks/KB situation, but the discussion of the situation on ANI has mutated from was "Should Giano have been blocked for "outing" Berks/KB (as in linking the two accounts), and the answer to that is, "No, Of course not!", to is Giano being disruptive by inserting that statement on CR's talk page, after it was removed and requested not to post it again, where the best answer to that would be "Giano agrees not to post it again on CR's talk page". If the whole thing hasn't confirmed by now, he could always bring it up with SSP or RfCU, but I don't think that would be productive, considering the serial nature of the two accounts. SirFozzie (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if Giano had been told that user A was being allowed to reincarnate, it would merely be rude of him to point it out. We don't (or shouldn't) make promises of anonymity to people who identify themselves by their behavior. Without that, I see no reason to hold Giano liable for anything. If CR wants Giano to stay off his talk page, CR can remove the comments (he was online at the time) and I'm not convinced that Rockpocket and 1=2 had any duty or responsibility to intervene. (Indeed, I wonder how they found out about it.) Thatcher 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher - a related email is winging its way towards your inbox - Alison ❤ 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt RFCU

Hi Thatcher, I've replied to your comment on that page. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with an admin

Dear Sir, I have been trying to get relief from a rude and reckless admin to no avail. Through some tiresome research I see that you have a history of working with these kind of issues. I am new to wikipedia and am seeking instruction as to how to proceed. Thank you in advance.Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have investigated this complaint. There has been no administrative abuse. User: Jeffrey Pierce Henderson is having trouble getting along with other editors and needs to stop being combative. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be putting it mildly. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for you Jehochman, I am trying to talk with an admin about a very serious matter. It is no concern of yours and your "investigation" is suspiciously biased towards Ohnoitsjamie because a) you did not contact me to get my point of view, which would be a basic part of an "investigation" b) you would also state that Ohnoitsjamie has major problems in the way he communicates with editors, that evidence is all over his talk page, and last and most important, c) in my original request I did not name Ohnoitsjamie as the admin that has been rude and reckless in his actions towards me. You are the one that actually came to that conclusion. As for you Ohnoitsjamie, we have an old saying in my family, "A kicked dog will holler." Thank you for hollering and accepting the responsibility of being a rude and reckless admin. Also you have proven that you are stalking and harrassing me. It really doesn't become an admin. Thatcher I am sorry for bringing this matter to your talk page in this way. I really need help in handling this the right way and hopefully you can direct me to the right place. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:J. A. Comment

Hey -- you handled a checkuser request on this user (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff) -- you said the IPs were "unrelated but geographically similar." I found this a bit unclear -- do you mean between J. A. Comment and the other IPs? Because J. A. Comment ended up being blocked as a sockpuppet anyway, and I think that might have been a mistake. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only accounts with checkable edits are J. A. Comment, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.102.204, 153.39.144.157. Those three IPs are, generally speaking, in the western suburbs of Washington DC. J.A. Comment's IP address is not directly related to those, but is probably a public library or other public place also in the Washington DC suburbs, and within a few minutes travel of the IPs, assuming the geolocations are correct. Thatcher 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for again disturbing. I have looked old blocked IP (confirmed by checkuser) from Washington metropolitan area which are not Verizon (I know that with IP tool) and come to user:64.18.16.251 ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrburr-like IP

71.126.108.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Is this a sock of User:Burrburr? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Catch me if you can..."

"... because your minions sure can't"[31]. Just to remind you of this again :-) - Alison ❤ 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thatcher 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoliticianTexas Socks

Thanks for your work over at Requests for checkuser/Case/PoliticianTexas. I had a mental bet with myself that at least one of those folks would turn out to be a sock of WikiDon, but I didn't mention it in the RFCU to keep things as simple as possible.

As someone who's never done an RFCU before, what's the next step? Do I need to file something else to get the accounts blocked, or does that happen automatically?

Again, thanks for your efforts! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrburr

I see that you did a checkuser on my account which I preferred against since it involved looking at private instead of public information especially given Anothersoloplist's poor reasons. However thank you for proving to him that Sqweakbox is not me. But as much as I dislike revealing private information publically especially on the internet where anyone can see and especially when other people are involved, I should tell you some information that the 30 other accounts, which definitely are not mine except for this one, to help you sort through them all.

This is part of a limited internet connection on a couple terminals in a small boarding school shared by teachers and students. Students have been asked to do work on specific school-related topics for class at least on wikipedia. This has made lots of interest in wikipedia amoung the students. For me this is only one part of my interests in social welfare, child welfare, the underprivileged, poverty, social inequality etc. It is a small school so everyone knows what everyone else is doing and I know some of them like to look in the "Histories" section of the browser and see where each other have visited and sometimes I see a group work at a terminal together.

I guarantee that there is likely some negative work done in wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet because of this and otherwise because of students who can be "difficult". Sometimes when the instructors find out that some students are being too disruptive or abusive of the internet, then the internet is temporarily restricted or limited. Sometimes the students causing trouble are identified and temporarily suspended from most internet features, but sometimes it is entirely temporarily suspended except for instructors. Thankfully school let out a couple days ago but I'd hate to see that happen again. I prefer not to be lumped in with some of the others. Can you please remove this message as soon as you are done reading it for privacy reasons? Burrburr (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see that no one else has undone my work since AnotherS. For example look at this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America. Please if you can look into the nature of his undoing my edits to see if they were justified. Burrburr (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to bother you but I don't know who is the best person to bring this issue to. Anothersolopsist is "stalking" me on wikipedia. I mean by this that he is following me on the pages I go and undoing almost all of my work. Other contributors have edited some of those same pages without any issue with my work. It's just him. I'm avoided the pederasty page and any other that might be also controversial like it because I have no interest in making enemies or being harrassed by more people like him. One is already one too many. Thanks for your attention into this. Burrburr (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, I try to avoid content disputes, especially when I am involved as a checkuser. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking sides based on my findings, or of allowing my opinion on the content issue to affect my interpretation of my fiindings. You can try asking for a sympathetic admin at WP:ANI or try a third opinion or request for comment on the content issues. I am also not convinced by your explanation of the multiple accounts on your IPs. However, I am going out of town so I will ask for a second opinion while I am away. Thatcher 11:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and what you says is reasonable to me. It makes senese you don't want to look biased in a dispute. I will look at the 3 pages you mention. I just wrote a lot on another page on this but at this point I'm not sure if it make sense to pursuing anymore because 1 he is still following me and undoing stuff but at least he looks like more reasonable in his comments instead of like undoing my title "Psychological Damage from Child Abuse" when the paragraph is all about anxiety, acting out, depression etc. It is still annoying but as long as he is being more reasonable I can't really complain about it right? Plus I'm really not interested in getting into personal fights with people here even if that's what they want to do to me.

The second reason is even though I am annoyed by him it's kinda moot honestly. The place is pretty empty but today's the last day we can stay so I'm taking of tomorrow. So whoever else he follows, he won't have me to follow anymore. I respect that you are being balanced with this. I wish there's some way I could prove that I'm not the only one at this address without breaking privacy. I personally know it's true because I've seen bunch of kids on one of the computers at a time. But without having you here physically see it I don't know what way I can do to prove it that would be reasonable. Cheers--Burrburr (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at hte three pages you mentioned and I won't be able to use any of them because unless I'm wrong they all look like I will need to be there for discussions. I already have a section started at the Administrator's noticeboard but even there I needed to be in the discussion. So it will be pointless if I won't be around to discuss it. So I will just leave it at the section at the Administrator's noticeboard. --Burrburr (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted everything out with AnotherSoloplist and we just had a misunderstanding.--Burrburr (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposal

I've proposed a new policy concept at Wikipedia:Devolution drawing on our old discussions of a block review system. Your comments would be appreciated. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haymail

I happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that User:Haymail is a User:98E/User:Rappingwonders sock. Could you perform a checkuser on the IP and make sure there are not any additional socks coming from it? The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 98E. I only asked Spartan because he suggested that Patstuart is his Commons account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haymail (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just FYI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider

I've urged you to reconsider your decline of Rex's recent CheckUser request, if only for the sake of due diligence. Rex always had static IP problems with his ISP, and the fact that both his older (confirmed) address and this new one both resolve up to Massachusetts leaves room for a laundry list of technical possibilities for the apparent change in geographical location.

I'm honestly not sure what you expect us to do otherwise; we've got an SSP report that no administrator/CheckUser's touched for six days and a probable Rex sock who's using your decline as an exoneration. I hope you can empathize with the frustration, and're willing to review, analyze, and participate in the SSP report if you're still convinced the CheckUser report warrants a decline. The lack of support editors've been getting with regards to shenanigans at Talk:Barack Obama hasn't been helpful, and has repelled many experienced editors from editing there altogether. Most of us aren't process wonks; consider Wikidemo's comments here on how many of us're feeling now. Shem(talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damian

In this edit you have indicated that the old account of Damian was unblocked per Arbcom decision. Can you point me out to the decision? Does he have any editing restrictions on working under the new account or is he is supposed to be clear? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was via IRC, mainly in discussion with FloNight and FT2, as I recall. I do not recall any conditions. Thatcher 03:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering! Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing through

Hello, I have always made a point of not getting involved in the politics of the place, but lately a lot of steam seems to be vented as a consequence of my coverage of pederastic topics. I would like to encourage you, and any other editors here who may have concerns about the way I have handled the subject, to discuss matters with me openly and directly. I am always available and welcome critique and commentary. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. checkuser case Giovanni Giove

Thanks for doing a checkuser on the sock list at Giovanni Giove. My suspicions have been confirmed, but I have a question for you: Why are there no results for 5 of the as likely socks listed users? Namely: User:Captainantoniocorelli, User:Romaioi, User:Regione, User:Ronpillao and User:Ferruccio Vio. Looking at users User:Regione, User:Ronpillao and User:Ferruccio Vio I am pretty sure that they are most definitly also part of the sock circus: i.e. Ronpillaos continuation of a edit war Generalmesse and Radio Berlin began at First Battle of El Alamein or the edit comments by Regione that are very similar to those of the other socks point in my opinion to them being socks too. And then there are Captainantoniocorelli & Romaioi - the first seems to be a sock in store for later, when all the others are banned and the second, well... he protests his innocence (pretty fanatically in my view) and just to be sure I would like to know if he is or is not related to the aforementioned socks. Also I would like to know from where the IP addresses in question are: South America or Australia? thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks I forgot them. Regione and Ferruccio Vio are too old to check, Captainantoniocorelli and Ronpillao are  Likely and User:Romaioi is Red X Unrelated, being, as best I can determine, on a different ISP and 4000 km away. Thatcher 10:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fone4M

You state that you suspect the above may have two sock puppets on the Jack Forbes page. Are you initiating a check on this and action or does it need to be reported? --Snowded (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a checkuser, that is the result. Fonez4Yw attempted to do something clever to disguise his identity, but he was not as clever as he thought. Thatcher 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK this may be my ignorance but I am confused. You said "Confirmed that WalkingTelephone (talk · contribs) and Fonez4Yw (talk · contribs) are the same person, Likely they are Fone4My." Also that "Confirmed that MagdelenaDiArco (talk · contribs) and IrzamAhmad (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Fone4My" . However Fone4My is actively (and aggressively) editing again and asserting he is not a sockpuppet. Shouldn't he be under some form of ban? --Snowded (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a checkuser it is my general policy to present the results of the technical analysis and leave the decisions about blocks or bans to other admins. You can request attention from any other administrator to review the situation, such as by posting at WP:ANI or by contacting any admin you have worked with before. Thatcher 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I have done that - still finding my way around sockpuppetry, but I get a feel its not the last time I will have to --Snowded (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You found another one - he just got blocked. Many thanks for the checkuser --Snowded (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Thatcher. I have semi-protected your talk page, please feel free to unprotect whenever you please. Rockpocket 05:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though if you want (and for a small fee), I can offer to stab you in the funnybone.
Warning: offer not intended as an actual death threat. Please consult your local sense of humor for details. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs on wheel-warring arb cases

You said "diffs later if needed": [32]. Would you have time to look them up now, or try and remember the name or time of the requests that were rejected? I see your point that too much power is given to the second admin, but equally the alternative gives too much power to the first admin. There really needs to be a way to actually record somewhere, for any particular admin, how many of their actions are overturned and why. That would give some idea of which admins jump in too quickly and later get overturned (though jumping in quickly is sometimes good). It would also give some idea of which admins are prone to undoing the actions of another. My feeling is that there should always be latitude to reverse actions if needed (eg. admin carries out action and then doesn't respond to questions for a day or so), but that if there is any doubt, the first step should be to ask the admin. That admin should then respond promptly. The second step should be to ask for wider review (ideally the first admin will open the review as a show of good faith). Also, admins should make a note at the time if they don't mind a particular action being reversed. In the absence of such a note, or in the presence of a note explicitly saying "do not reverse without asking me first - I will be available for x hours", then the assumption is that the action should not be reversed. In fact, if any admin feels the need to say "do not reverse without asking me first" - then they should open a review immediately, as they obviously think someone might challenge it. And when an admin's actions get overturned (by persuasive arguments, or some consensus from a discussion), they should swallow their pride and accept it. Sorry, that was a bit longer than I thought it would be! All fairly obvious, but the key theme throughout is communication, speed but not haste, and responding promptly and calmly to enquiries. Would that all admins could do that! Carcharoth (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past my bedtime. I'll look in the morning. At least one example was a wheel-warring case I attempted to file where there was an action and a reversal and it stopped, and several arbs and commentators endorsed the view that a wheel war had not occurred, despite the fact that (in my view) the first admin had been completely undermined without consultation. Thatcher 08:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One case was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. See particularly FT2's first addition [33] Strongly disagree - an admin reversing anothers' out-of-process or mistaken block isn't "wheel warring"; neither is an admin reversing anothers' out-of-process or mistaken delete. Its the repeat of an admin action a 2nd time, knowing it is disagreed by another admin, that is the "tipping point" where wheel warring becomes relevant between two admins. Also see FT2 and AnonEMouse's statements on wheel-warring on the evidence page.
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Wheelwarring_by_administrators. If you read down to my comments, you will eventually see what Fred was concerned about; I posted links to 5 or 6 other cases of admin reversals.
Also Wikipedia talk:Wheel war has extensive discussion. Thatcher 11:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see you've struck your statement at the RfArb. If I may ask, is it lack of time or just not wanting to get involved? I could mention what you said above if you wanted me to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just tired of the drama and the nonsense, disappointed that Arbcom screwed up the Giano case in the first place, and still not sure where the white hats and black hats are in the FT2-OrangeMarlin fiasco. I've decided I'd rather not get involved. You are free to use the links in any manner you choose, or to ignore them. I thought there was another case I filed that was declined before being opened but I can't find it. The BDJ case also has stuff about wheel warring. I personally think that the approach of applying bold/revert/discuss to admin actions gives the second mover too great an advantage, as discussed on the wheel war talk page, and it is a mistake to allow any admin a free pass for one revert without discussion, as it places the burden of justifying the action on the first actor and not the second who reverts. My statement was a subtle dig at the fact that the committee knew that Giano has friends who will reverse these sorts of blocks, but that under their current view of wheel warring, Geogre was in the right and William was in the wrong. Thatcher 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are in the wrong. A better standard for all to follow is, "If you know a sysop action will be controversial, discuss before acting." Jehochman Talk 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that is not how the committee has handled matters in related cases, and it is not what the policy states. That's what comment in the case was supposed to point out. Thatcher 11:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello,

I would like you to have not posted: [34]

In my unblock request [35] I noted: "I have made a small number (less than 10) edits under a single other account. That other account was created solely for the purposes of acquiring a WikipediaReview account mostly for reading the tarpitted messages. I did not want to give the WikipediaReview information about this account as it is my main account with a long editing history and I have heard that bad things happen to WikipediaReview members and I didn't want anything bad to happen to me." and now you have made a link between two accounts.

Uncle uncle uncle 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

While I have no intention of becoming yet another performing act in the circus, the clowns seem to have decided this [36] (I thought rather witty) aside to you is yet another of my crimes.So keen are they to have it, it was actually listed twice. If you are one of the very few here with a sense of humour, perhaps you would like to inform them. Thanks. Giano (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a witty comment, is all - and rather typical of your wit, actually. I'm not seeing any personal attack or whatever in that - Alison ❤ 17:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed on the workshop. Actually, it seems completely irrelevant, and I don't see any point in Stifle raising it as an example. The only comment cited by WMC was the one to Avruch. Unless the other comments were cited by others at some point in support of arguments against unblocking, they seem to be irrelevant to the case. I certainly understood the comment directed to me as humorous. (In fact, my last Thatcher ancestor emigrated sometime before 1800, he is somewhat mysterious. My last Irish ancestor is here. Thatcher 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Thatcher, one should only mention one's relations once in a lifetime, and then only amongst the immediate family, but while we are having a boast here is one of mine - it may explain one or two facets of my charactor. Giano (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez. I never realised you were my cousin - probably about 45 times removed but even still. Risker (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware Great Grandpappa ever had a snow boarding holiday. Giano (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, this seems to be the place to inform you about [37], in case I've misinterpreted you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you to decide if you want to restore them, Thatcher. Daniel (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even aware that WMC had been doing that stuff, though the diffs Daaniel has been leaving do help. I found Thatcher's comments very relevant, and think they should be restored. Even if they are not, I suppose they can be entered as evidence. By the way, Thatcher, you said "Did anyone at any time use those other diffs as justification for agreeing with the block?" - i think if you look at the AE thread, you will find Avruch laid out a long list of diffs. See Wikipedia:AE#IRC, and the exact diff is here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me

[Weakly] Good... heavens: [38] Words fail me. Yes I know it's mentioned on the proposed decision page... but not, surely forcefully enough. This is an admin, editing an RFAR on themselves...? Why, somebody like, say, Eternal Equinox wouldn't have made that edit! [/me shuffles off to fetch Bishzilla, shaking head bemusedly.] Bishonen | talk 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Bishzilla should probably go easy on him and just nibble a few toes or something. It is certainly odd of him to edit Stifle's proposals, but having removed the incorrect diffs, leaving the single diff that was the real stated rationale for the block, most of my comment is rather pointless. Thatcher 00:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it removed your very salient point that "I think you have to read the comments on FT2's talk page in order starting here and clicking forward." Context is important when judging such things. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected Stifles proposals. You'll notice that he is happy with that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentingabuse

Thatcher,

I would like to ask you how to correct a number of detrimental false impressions that you have left on the Checkuser for Documentingabuse. Excuse me I am still with a dynamic IP address only from the same ISP.

You have stated that I edited whilst logged out. If we look at the actual diffs, you will see that this is not true. I only made the account AFTER editing and so could not have logged in in the first place

60.42.252.205

started - 14:43, 11 June 2008 end - 21:26, 12 June 2008

60.42.252.111

started - 07:02, 14 June 2008 end - 16:14, 14 June 2008

222.150.193.35

started - 16:40, 14 June 2008 end - 17:18, 14 June 2008

Documentingabuse

created - 17:36, 14 June 2008 end - 18:26, 14 June 2008

I myself added blocked user Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and alleged "death threat" canadian editor 207.112.75.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

so as to remove them from the excuse being made against me by Rlevse in order to make a ban.

That has now been resolved with an apology and removal from various pages but not all. To my knowledge you made no formal Checkuser and yet the page is left as if it to look it was. I encourage you now to do so and correct or remove this.

You have had previous dealing with Caspian_blue (talk · contribs · logs) and Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over similar Japanese-Korean issues. I clearly state and stated that I am not Asian despite editing from Japan. I have since confirmed that Caspian blue does indeed have 'issue' in this area [39], this diff also shows the Caspian blue to Appletrees account transfer. The accusation by them would appear highly contrive to act as a disincentive against their position.

Rlevse (talk · contribs · logs) has since removed the alleged sockpuppet of Dvarkal tag off my page and withdrawn the allegation about the Canadian ISP but I remain unable to edit from Documentingabuse except on my own talk page.

  • I do not wish to make another account because this will surely be used against me and more sock allegations made.
  • I wish to have the previous allegations removed as they are factually incorrect. The sequence shows I was not acting as a sockpuppet.

I have always made clear either by redirection or clear notices [40] which IP I was given, e.g. "Please note that for accuracy, my host IP gives out dynamic IPs and so there is NO intent to act as a sockpuppet. I also have no intent of evading any block but just wish to continue documenting this case." " [41] and yet this remains recorded as "Confession of his sockpuppeting and block evasion" by Caspian blue.

I only create the user account to documenting the block revisions of the article, as I had to in order to be allowed, as I continued to have numerous other editors make identical revisions against me ... none of who would or were willing to discuss. [42]. My position is frame by my response to what I have experience attempting to improve these contentious topics, here; [43].

In order to communicate with Rlevse over this, I have made a new account Not-a-sock-just-for-rlevse.

Note this was the identical IP address I left my last note for you to prove the connection [44].

Thank you. --60.42.244.160 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill

Hello,

I was wondering if you could check these users for sock puppetry:

  1. Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 76.120.173.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 24.3.180.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe you've dealt with Fragments of Jade recently, and she's at it once again. 76.120.173.40 just provided timely support, too. Thank you in advance if you find the time to look into this admittedly quite trivial matter... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 24. IP address is not involved in the current editing. Between the 76. IP and Fragments' account there are only 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, so no policy violation yet that would justify an official confirmation. Thatcher 13:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It's just that there's a dispute going on... One party is apparently refusing any kind of compromise, and Fragments of Jade, 76.120.173.40 and 24.3.180.166 constitute the entirety of that party. There's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that suggests we might be dealing with sock puppetry (such as strange accusations of racism for apparently no reason whatsoever from two of these users...), and the possibility that all three "votes" for one of the options were actually all cast by the same person (who denies any sock puppetry) casts some serious doubts concerning the overall good faith of that "party". I was hoping we could know what we're dealing with exactly.
I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I don't know how these things work exactly, so I apologize if none of that justifies a confirmation. Thank you for your time anyway! 88.161.129.43 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation

to say the same thing as you did, but agree with Durova - might need some refactoring.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Case clerk or not, your comments here are unacceptable. You have been asked to refactor several times, one of which you have to have seen (after which you added to the incivility), so consider this a formal warning. ViridaeTalk 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dats a redlink. Did you mean [45]? Strong language, but the request is a very odd one William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not paticuarly that one, that which followed was the most offensive. Combined they have no good effect. ViridaeTalk 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resigned as clerk a couple of weeks ago. I believe I have used profanity ("bullshit") a total of 3 times out of 24000+ edits, including today. The second remark was carefully calculated. Thatcher 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second, I believe is a Giano quote. I'm not close enough to the intricacies to know who that barb is aimed at (or, as T said; carefully calculated. But it went over my head, sorry). Which is one reason why I've come back to suggest to T that much though I agree with the sentiments of the original comment, the B-work would be best refactored in these troubled times. Everyone is being asked to admit mistakes. I have William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The second remark is primarily what I am objecting to. I have no paticular problem with "bullshit" on its own, but combined with the second remark it only serves to add the the hostile atmosphere. Can you please carefully recalculate that second remark to not include the insults. ViridaeTalk 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. ViridaeTalk 22:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it an exercise in pointing out certain inequalities. Irpen's suggestion, nevertheless expresses a certain lack of informed commentary about the usual procedures of handling cases not involving Giano. Thatcher 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - You're listed as a current (but inactive) arbitration clerk. If you've resigned, you might want to update the clerks page. You were a very good clerk, though, so hopefully you choose to remain inactive for the time being and resume service at some point in the future. Avruch 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the label makes a difference. Unless I horribly disgrace myself somehow, I expect the arbitrators would accept me back no matter what the label of my status is at the moment. I resigned once before, and came back for a tendentious case that needed a firm hand. It ended up not helping one whit, and I'm sure that somehow the clerks and arbitrators will manage without me for a while, possibly indefinitely this time. Thatcher 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher/Archive20&oldid=1149995731"