User talk:Thatcher/Archive21

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

Checkuser req

You already checked the following accounts:

  1. IntoCreativeJan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Prepelos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. FortyFootEcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. BrendaSongLOVER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. GimmeLuna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. GossipGFan1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. BrendaSongISSEXY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Sise2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Gimmeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Closerflicekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When you have an opportunity, could you verify these are connected:

  1. Hankochieflo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Peyton Waldorf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 86.141.12.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. 86.141.35.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Similar pattern of agressive/disruptive editing on Disney-related articles. Thanks. Gimmetrow 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, Rradulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a strange pattern of edits which suggests a grawp sleeper. Gimmetrow 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.L.King

Sir, could you close these cases here and here? I have been attempting to contribute to an article on The Gong Show and my edits are being repeatedly reverted by Cumulus Clouds in complete disregard to Wiki:EP, Wiki:Consensus,Wiki:V, Wiki:CS, Wiki:AGF. When asking him for advice or assistance, he ignores my request and simply claims my edit to the article is self promotion... and that makes no sense at all. I was careful to pick an area to which to contribute that had at no time and in no way ever edited by CC only to have him appear and revert out of hand. How can one ever contribute, if every contribution is hacked away out of spite and without regard to policy and guideline? Its frustrating. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thatcher it would be useful if you would complete the checkuser case here by running it against the IP listed under L.L.King's first case. This would provide important evidence in the sockpuppet case and help direct the users there on what the best course of action to take would be. I've already contacted Deskana and Alison about this issue but have not yet recieved a response. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I do not wish to burden your talk page, but since my (former) adoption in January by LaraLove, I have not been at all disruptive. Since March have spent a lot of my spare time simply reading Wiki policies and guidelines in order to learn. Indeed, ever since my account opened, I have had to be scrupulously careful to avoid Wiki:COI and maintain a Wiki:NPOV. I have tred very carefully. However, there is one editor who not allow me to contibute because of the taint of the blocked sockpuppet group. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I would like to contribute to Wiki. I have a growing understanding of and definite respect for guideline and policy. I am doing nothing as a sockpuppet. I am not being abusive. I just wish to contribute. I thank you for the opportunity to learn, and again ask that the case be archived for the reasons you stated on that page. Thank you, Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or it could be that you're employing the exact same tactics you used six months ago to try to escape a checkuser being run on L.L.King. There is ample evidence to run a second checkuser and I'm confident that it will demonstrate that you have edited from the same IP as L.L.King and all his blocked sockpuppets. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sums up the concern at the present time. If this user is attempting to claim a fresh start, should it be granted? There is no current evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. What current edits are disruptive enough to justify breaching the privacy policy? Thatcher 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'ample evidence' bit is determined by the checkusers who have to deal with the particular case. Right now, I'm inclined to agree with Thatcher here on this one - Alison ❤ 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's only edits have been to promote his projects on Wikipedia. He has not made a single edit outside of the scope of anything he himself has not been directly involved in. Considering that his previous accounts were not abandoned but indefinitely blocked, I do not believe this user is editing in good faith or even intends to abide by any of Wikipedia's rules governing POVs or COIs. Since this is very likely an indefinitely blocked user returning under a new sockpuppet account, the IP check should be run against it to determine what action should be taken against the new account. L.L.King's extensive sockpuppet network and their careful manipulation and abuse of Wikipedia processes should also be considered when weighing the new checkuser request. Since their abuse was habitual, since the original account was blocked for editing in much the same way and since this account now appears to be a single purpose account devoted solely to promoting its namesake, the checkuser should be run to provide important evidence in the sockpuppet case and help guide our decisions on what to do next. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the continued disention sir, as I am out of my depth. The claim being made now above is at odds to the false claim [here] that I was writing myself into an article. And a request for a ref for such claim was ignored here. I do not believe adding carefully neutral, cited, and contextual facts to the Gong Show article could be considered self promotion... where here I add information about six persons acting as judges... and where here I simply state what I had added and promised that there would better cites coming. I have maintained an absolutely neutral point of view, bordering on dry and boring. The information belonged where I placed it, as I carefully explained here, when remarking that separate articles for subsequent programming would likely have been merged here. My future actions will speak for themselves, and I will be held accountable for any future impropriety... IF it were to happen... specially since I am being followed everywhere I go on Wiki by Clouds. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I withdraw this request, the IP check was already run in January and Morwen confirmed that IP belonged to L.L.King. MichaelQSchmidt has already signed an edit made by this user, so there is ample evidence now to proceed without a checkuser. I apologize for the confusion and I appreciate your consideration in the matter. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2008

Is one allowed to only pick those facts one likes and ignore the rest? When does a willful mis-statement become a blatant lie? The first time it's made? The sixth? The fifteenth? The histories show that in August 2007, nearly one year ago, account User:Mqschmidt was blocked for incivility and for creating "nonsense" pages... nothing else. [6] The histories show that a sockpuppet case Clouds opened was adjudicated and closed 7 month ago. Isn't that horse dead yet? How many times must it be beaten? Those same histories will also show that since more experienced editors took me under their wings and began to educate me in the policies and guidelines of Wiki, I have been as scrupulously forthright and upfront as possible.[7] I owe these courteous editors my gratitude and they have all earned my respect. I once again attest that my return was not meant to circumvent a block... that my return here was initiated by Clouds himself when his actions to reduce me and my profession to a laughing stock were brought to my attention by fans... that I was just as willing as he to have the entire Michael Q. Schmidt article removed rather than have it be made a joke... that I was convinced to let the matter be decided by consensus and would accept their decision... and further, that it was Clouds himself who brought me back into discussions when he ignored last January's consensus and began yet again to decontruct the article... turning this into this by once again using his disingenuous tactic of first removing cites and sources and then removing the facts that had once been sourced... without consensus and without discussion... in order to make me again appear an object of ridicule. It gets quite tiring. However... I will not let this continued series of personal attacks on me goad me into the angry pique of last January and I am sorry that your more important works are being set aside in order to deal with this. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're admitting that you are the puppetmaster behind L.L.King? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaw dropping in astonishment! In my note to Thatcher I said absolutely no such thing. My sentences above clarified why Mqschmidt was blocked, underscored how a 7-month-old closed sock case was being used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a bullying tactic, and thanked the wisdom of the editors who taught me to keep a cool head when faced with continued attack. Before their intersession in January, I was impolite to you. They taught me the wisdom to apologize and indeed it seemed fruitful when you in turn wrote back with a civil explanation here (middle of page after section headed Ninth) and more specially when you further wrote "I would encourage you to get more involved in other articles pertaining to things you are knowledgeable in". Having done exactly as you yourself suggested, and being as careful as I could to be neutral, I will now not let you goad me into making an uncivil response to another false assertion on top of the dozens you've made so far. One case in point being that I have still not seen you source or retract or explain or apologize for the false assertions you made here and here when you claimed I was trying to write myself into an article... and was asked to source the statement by several other editors because it was obvious that I had done no such thing. Aren't you the one who insists that everything on Wiki be sourced to perfection? It seems strange when you yourself are asked to source something, you ignore the request in violation of Wiki:EP, Wiki:CP, Wiki:V, and Wiki:Civil... but yet you absolutely demand it of others. Look, though I no longer believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, I still have hope that its possible we can work together to make Wiki a better place... just as I wrote to you here on July 5th and July 6th. And how about we move any further discussion to my talk page rather than cluttering up Thatcher's? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current contributions of MichaelQSchmidt need to be evaluated by an independent administrator. Someone who makes a mistake (whether sockpuppetry or hiring the wrong person to edit for them) is not necessarily banned for life if they can learn from their mistakes and become a better editor. Thatcher 11:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPs

Given the requirement that [subsequent sockpuppet accounts] of Giovanni be banned, would it be possible to retain the IP/Account results of the most recent checkusers on his current sockpuppet list? I suspect that he creates sleeper accounts whose identity may be lost once the checkuser logs expire. --DHeyward (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your e-mail

What a pity—and there was I, thinking of us, you and me, as enjoying those ironies together. I liked yours, anyway. The way you recycled that phrase from Giano was an excellent critique-in-action of Giano's vulnerable position under "civility parole". Thank you! Showing us how Giano says something and gets blocked for it—and then how Thatcher says the exact same thing and does not get blocked, or even warned (except jovially by Bishzilla, who obviously meant you no harm)—it was the genius of pedagogy. Where were the eager blockers when you performed your "exercise in pointing out certain inequalities" [8], where was William M. Connolley? It certainly wasn't because they recognized your quote as quote and irony that the admins refrained from blocking you; for they didn't recognize it. WMC: "It went over my head, sorry."[9] You're a fine ironist. I'm sorry so many missed the subtleties of your position. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I saw it from exactly the opposite point of view. While I was not blocked, I was sternly warned several times:
consider this a formal warning
Please refactor, or else I must request your recusal.
Thatcher, please respond. This isn't heading in a good direction.
No, no, Thatcher. It was the fucking refactoring, not the remark.
Okay Thatcher, I'm going to submit a formal request for your recusal and replacement.
And of course, it is a key point that I do not have a history of making such remarks but Giano does.
Perhaps Viridae and Durova are too earnest to appreciate the ironies we were supposedly sharing. It was certainly not clear to me at the time that you meant to be ironical as well [10], and if you thought my point was that WMC had overreacted to Giano's comment, you are mistaken. It was my intention to demonstrate that Giano's friends are willing to forgive him for making comments that are considered unacceptable when made by other editors. I suspect that if I was under a civility restriction for repeatedly making similar comments in the past that I also would be facing a block, and who would step in to reverse it? In fact, I believe I have used the word "bullshit" only 3 times on-wiki, two of which were yesterday, and I do not recall ever calling anyone "stupid" or "ignorant" when I was not trying to make a point.
To lay all my cards face up, I believe the Giano's "stupid ignorant person" remark was a blockable offense under the restriction, given the many many similar comments that have preceeded it. The fact that I generally object to extending blocks when someone vents about their block on their own talk page does not mean that the original comment was not out of bounds. I note no lack of criticism of arbcom in recent weeks over many issues, but not once have I noticed any other editors use castration metaphors (ball chewing, from the IRC case) or call arbitrators stupid and ignorant. Everyone but Giano seems to be able to express their concerns about Arbcom without resorting to personal insults and other grotesque comments. Thatcher 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how these memes start. There I was, supporting WMC's initial interventions over on WP:AE and then trying to counsel Giano on his talk page - yes, publicly chiding him for calling people stupid. Most of the editors who popped onto his page basically told him to chill out. Geogre, on the arbcom page, says that yes, he likely would have blocked too. I'm not sure what more people expect of Giano's friends than that. Sometimes admins get it right when they block him. On the other hand, the number of blocks done out of process, or with conflicts of interest, is quite disturbing - even when the actions may have warranted a block. Incidentally, I wasn't sure if you were being instructive or making a point; I just wrote it off to it being a hot day on a long weekend. Risker (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre certainly unblocked him after the extension when there was no rush to do so without consultation and deliberation. In any event it is clear that my comment was ineffective at best and a mistake at worst, on every level it was intended. Oh well. Thatcher 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What!!?! It hit at every level. Both in showing how Giano's supporters reacted to your comment as well as Bish's observation that Giano's detractors didn't rush out and block first, ask questions later. At the very least, it illustrated the problem with an established editor that goes off the reservation with respect to the community rules and how it derails discussions and defocuses the objective. It might be too subtle, but it should be required reading (possibly a template :) ) as part of a friendly advice notice on established editors that decide to be a little aggressive can read as well as required reading for admins that choose to address such issues with blocks and warnings as the reaction (both for and against) is often more disruptive and distracting than the incivility. Brilliant yet troubling. The only thing missing was a spillover to AN/I for incivility as well as an obligatory notice and discussion on BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Socratic Irony Barnstar
For Skilled and Eloquent Irony. In a somber moment of deep self-reflection, Socrates summed up the entire Wikipedia editor experience in his final words which he posed as a question: "I drank what?" DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that?

I am not sure what this edit mean? It seems as if you were removing it from the list of RfCU's to be listed. If so, can you explain your reasoning, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already listed at the bottom of the page in the non-compliant section, meaning a clerk thinks there is a problem with it. I was removing the duplicate listing I accidentally created. Thatcher 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy

There is some concern over whether your recent edit to the checkuser policy is an attempt at clarification or a change in Board-directed policy. A comment in the checkuser section of requests for permissions (specific case affected by this change is linked) could go a great deal towards resolving the confusion. Thank you! Kylu (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thatcher 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probation violation

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be violating the terms of his probation again, thought I would give you a heads up.--Finalnight (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should make a report to WP:AE. Thatcher 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I couldn't see the full terms of the probation due to all the silly photos he added to his talk page.--Finalnight (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eichikiyama

Can you take a look at this new account Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)? The user's deletion campaign pretty much resemble like Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) for the user's same habits (blanking only Korean related mentions from ancient Japan and distorting information on food related articles). Or seems like Watermint (talk · contribs) or Boldlyman (talk · contribs), The user in question deleted cited info as stating that "no source" or "it is not true according to source", however all of which are not true.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban of my account

Dear Administrator, I am writing in regards to my account in hope that you may help. Another wikipedia editor who I knew personally was seriously abusing sockpuppetry. You did a checkuser that showed we had different accounts but said it is likely we are the same person. You said we are in the same geographic area, which is true, but we are one hour apart! We did both go to a Buddhist festival at the same time as well. We were still on totally different ISPs.

I was using a second account when I first started on wikipedia, but stopped completely after I learned about sockpuppeting. I would like to request for you to look at this that my account be unbanned. I have not edited since I was banned.

Here is the checksuser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha

My account is wisdombuddha and the one I stopped using was wikilama. Fourthdragpa was another person at the residential Buddhist Center where I work from. I have no idea about flowerlover67, maybe someone from my corporation. The user who abused sockpuppetry was Wisdomsword and used Geoffduggan, Helen38, Helen37, Trudy21, ect.

I do not think it is fair that I have been banned indefinitely and all the sockpuppets are put on my account. I have also asked other admins to look into this. Thanks wisdombuddha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.193.243 (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related Note: Thegone (talk · contribs) (who had similar style to Geir Smith (talk · contribs)) was banned this morning and edited the same cross section of articles. Not sure if it warrents a check user request since both those accounts are already banned. But might relate. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdombuddha and Thegone are on opposite sides of the dispute. Thatcher 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that Thegone and Smith might be one and the same. Moot at this point since they're both banned? Or still worth submitting a request since they might request unblocking? - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith's edits are too old for comparison. Thatcher 11:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot. Thanks for reviewing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser stats

Kelly Martin posted on Troll Review that "It would be informative, perhaps even nice, if the other checkusers would provide similar information, but I don't expect we'll be seeing such information from the likes of Raul654, David Gerard, or especially Jayjg." I don't have her contact information handy, so I'd appreciate it if you could see to it that she sees this. (Note: An 'incident' is a set of checkusers done in succession.) Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my checkuser activity, June 18 - July 18

  • Scibaby-related checkusers:
    • 5 - Specific requests by someone else - turned out not to be Scibaby (2 incidents)
    • 12 - Own volition, turned out not to be Scibaby (2 incidents)
    • 51 - Own volition, turned out to be Scibaby (many incidents)
  • 2 - Cannot remember purpose
OK, I'll let her know. Thatcher 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need input

Hey. I need your CU input here: User_talk:Rlevse#re:_Nyannrunning on a very persistent puppetmaster. It's getting creepy and Everytime one gets block, he just creates another. Pls respond on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with Beh-nam and NisarKand, OY VEY! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance. She popped up once since the 3rd Nyannrunning sock case to make the one day edits to Janis Joplin using the nick User:Downonme. She made a huge production out of being at the hotel where Joplin died and that her IP would trace to that. I suppose that was in response to the discussion of traceroutes from the 3rd sock case. I tagged that account and she didn't come back. I wonder if she's using that place too? The fact that she's investigated enough to know my Senator's name and the town near where I live has become creepy. In any case, thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggd2

Hey - A sequence of accounts such as User talk:WikiBomber51, all checkuser-confirmed socks off Eggd2, are posting a lot of abusive unblock requests. Can you rangeblock the IPs please? Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is already blocked but that won't stop him from editing his own talk pages. Thatcher 14:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Duh. If I see any more I'll start protecting talk pages. Mangojuicetalk 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

This'll be a hell of a ride. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing I'm not on the committee, I just stand on the sidelines and prod things along. Thatcher 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part where if I could find the right code..

you'd be getting a Barnstar of Good Humo(u)r. Anyone who can work a Python joke into an ArbCom statement, and have it work, needs one :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Anyone who can work a Python joke into an ArbCom statement, and have it work, needs one (thanks Risker) SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Hey Thatcher I protected your talk page for a few hours, feel free to remove it early if you want. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brohans Dude

The above has posted an unblock request, having been blocked by you earlier as a sock of User:JeanLatore following an unblock. I can't see where in the checkuser this account was turned up as a sock - am I missing something? GBT/C 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the check. I'll post it to the page if that would make a difference, but I'm not sharing the actual IP data. You can ask any other checkuser to double-check me, but it's clear as a bell, and there are a number of other recent accounts blocked as vandals or as Wiki brah socks that are the same person. Thatcher 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For sake of good form I think it would be sensible to add it to the page - the user is requesting an unblock, and at the moment the template at the top of the page tells them they're blocked pursuant to a checkuser which doesn't actually mention their username. Thanks. GBT/C 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Benjam47

User is requesting unblock from a checkuser range block placed by yourself. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's Grawp's range, so I granted Benjam47 IPBE. Thatcher 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

As the user who dealt with the last checkuser case regarding this user, I felt it appropriate to inform you there is an RFCU on the user at the moment. If you're not too busy, it would be much appreciated if you could drop in on it. Cheers 210.19.71.60 (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the current RFCU and I agree that we would like your comments- but note that the above message was added by one of the suspected socks - for who knows what reason.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New SSP case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th)

Hi Thatcher, as I am aware that you have had experience of GG, I'd like to ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th) and bring it to a speedy close if at all possible. I know there have been a variety of such cases (mostly ill-considered) brought forward by various well-intentioned editors but I am sure beyond any doubt that this one is the real deal. I am also passing this message to Steel. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Archtransit

Hello Thatcher, I noticed that you unprotected Archtransit's talk page several months ago so that he could "say something." It appears that he has not yet taken the opportunity; should the talk page not be re-protected and redirected? GlassCobra 04:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless it's being abused, there is no particular reason to change the status quo, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Thatcher 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:82.43.88.87

82.43.88.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is asking for another unblock auto - it appears there is even more sockfarming going on there. Or there really is collateral damage: your call, maybe you should look into it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your mail

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learned Hand peer review

Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We would appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments of Jade

Hello,

Sorry to bother you again with that, but I was wondering about your decision to block the user Fragments of Jade [11]...

On her discussion page, you explained that you saw her break the 3RR on July 2 [12], but I'm only seeing three edits by Fragments of Jade on that day? Erigu (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to insist, but it would be very helpful if you could simply tell me if you decided to block Fragments of Jade for 3RR violation after confirming that she was also 76.120.173.40. Fragments of Jade is currently suspected of sock puppetry and claims she's not 76.120.173.40. I'd like that particular issue to be finally solved, and I'd rather not make a possibly redundant checkuser request... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I thought it was clear in the context of the ANI report that Jade had violated 3RR through a combination of logged-in and logged-out edits. Thatcher 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I suspected, anyway, based on your comments... So you are confirming that Jade and 76.120.173.40 are one and the same? She's denying that and has been using 76.120.173.40 to push her views regarding an article (there's also yet another IP with eerily similar WHOIS results I suspect she's been using in the same way). There's an open sock puppetry case about her here, and her overall disruptive behavior has been bothering some users (myself included) in the past few weeks. I believe a confirmation from you would solve that issue. Erigu (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still resorting to the same dirty tactics, I see, just because you can't win an argument. Have you even bothered to read the rules? Staff cannon reveal the IPs of people with accounts. It's considered a violation of privacy, not that a stalker like you cares about such things. And don't forget that you are ALSO suspected of puppetry, and part of the reason you hope to get me blocked is to save your own hide. I know my IP is not either of the ones you're trying to claim it is, and if I get blocked, it will only be because you have that staff member who helps you bend the rules.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Staff can check the IPs of accounts suspected of sock puppetry. There's nothing "dirty" about it, really: if you're lying to us from the beginning and using multiple accounts to fake support for your views, you should get blocked. That is all.
Also, you're the only user suspecting me of sock puppetry (for some reason), as far as I know. Go ahead and file a report. Good luck with that. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You filed the report, and that's the end of it. You can't go around crusading and trying to trick staff into revealing people's IP addresses so you can stalk them. And you're one to talk, considering you've argued your case as both 88 and Erigu. Doesn't matter if you've chosen to now admit you're the same person, you didn't originally-you only did it to try and avoid being labelled a puppet.Fragments of Jade (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't go around crusading and trying to trick staff into revealing people's IP addresses so you can stalk them.
I'd like to be done with you. So the "stalking" part really isn't alluring to me.
you've argued your case as both 88 and Erigu. Doesn't matter if you've chosen to now admit you're the same person
I never pretended I wasn't Erigu, and vice-versa. That's the big difference between you and me, sock puppetry, and just some guy finally getting an account (and getting logged out of it all the time for no reason). 88.161.129.43 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have pretended that, and I would like to be done with you. You've already proven you're stalking three different Wiki users, not including myself, who you have been stalking to some extent already. You need to grow up and stop making accusations against people, just because you can't handle the fact that they might be right and you might be wrong.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have pretended that
Nope. Gratuitous accusations, just like for the "racism" thing. Lovely.
And please take it to my user page.
(I'm really sorry about the mess, Thatcher) 88.161.129.43 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You alone are making ridiculous accusations. And don't try and make me out to be the bad guy here. You know you should never have posted here in the first place. What you were trying to do is a vagrant violation of the rules.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for parties

(FYI) These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.

  1. Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
  2. Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
  3. If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
  4. We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
  5. To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
  6. The Committee will understand participation in the case by a party as assent to the principle that the information circulated is confidential (cf. Wikipedia:Mediation#When should a mediation be held confidentially? for some good reasons).
  7. The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.

Charles Matthews (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Makiyu

Please see the above mentioned talk page. He's hit by a rangeblock, should he be given IP block exempt? –xeno (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems ok. IP exemption granted. Thatcher 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks...Might you also review User talk:Bacasper? A similar situation, but with not as much of the good-faithy background. –xeno (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. –xeno (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ah crud, did i f up ? i thought he was cleared? –xeno (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a lot of discussion and no one asked a CU until it had gone on several days, so it's not really anyone's fault. There is something odd about the IP from which the account was created (subsequent edits seem to have been made from tor, of course). I would like to review the account creation, hopefully with some input from the editor, any maybe have it reviewed by another CU, before taking action. There's not really any mischief someone can get up to with IPBE. Thatcher 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Relates to Rove2 (talk · contribs). Thatcher 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • alright. and of course, feel free to revoke IPBE if things aren't resolved to your satisfaction. cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splat5572's logged out edits

These are 68.4.* IPs, not 75.47.* IPs, right? --NE2 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would that be important that I should reveal that? Thatcher 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a suspected sockpuppet report claiming he's 75.47, and he has revealed that he is 68.4. --NE2 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, in that case I can confirm he is telling the truth about editing from 68.4 and he does not edit from 75.47. Thatcher 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thank you. --NE2 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you know...

who this is. LaraLove|Talk 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk

I asked you for the same CheckUser request on IRC a few days ago. I don't think you gave me the same result as Alison, though (I could be wrong). Could you please clarify your CU results on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I know Checkuser is not a crystal ball, but recently ODN users who have the same agenda of Azukimonaka or 2channel have a deep grudge at me vandalised my talk page several times. Pabopa's attacks seem to be in the same extension. Anyway, thank you for your help. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail again

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thatcher 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you, but found another one. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thatcher 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Checkuser?

[13] I think this warrants an emergency checkuser. Sending email with more detail. RgoodermoteNot an admin  15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dear Thatcher, Rlevse has suggested that I approach you with regards to clarification of IP addresses. I have been accused of sockpuppetry and specifically creating the account Plasmons. Can you identify the IP addresses used by Plasmons and myself please Justinmarley (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that your claim to be editing from the UK is true, and Plasmons' statement on his talk page that he is editing from India is true. Thatcher 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Thatcher, thank you for this information Justinmarley (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Thatcher, Rlevse has asked me to ask you to confirm with him the above information. Many thanks in anticipation of your kind help in this matter Justinmarley (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

At Talk:Comfort women a new user Priorend (talk · contribs) appeared to demonstrate an agenda shared with Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) and Logitech95 (talk · contribs), or Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs).[14]. Is the anon evading from the given blockage? And I'm wondering whether Ex-oneatf who created an article with plagiarism multiple times is related to any of Pabopa (talk · contribs)'s sock or Boldlyman (talk · contribs)(blocked on Jan. however the user is active on multiple Wikiproject) or Carl Daniels (talk · contribs) (likely boldlyman by last checkuser). Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Piorend is  Likely Carl Daniels. Thatcher 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you also confirm on whether Piorend/Carl Daniesls is related to Ex-oneatf or not? Because the current dispute has been initiated by Ex-oneat with spurious list of his alleged references to back up for "Korean own comfort women". Besides, Ex-oneatf created his account on July 10 and after his block on July 19, he disappeared. On the other hand, Carl Daniels was inactive during the period[15], but reappeared after July 22. I think Ex-oneatf is Carl Daniels and Boldlyman for similar writing style and agendas. If Carl Daniels are really a sock of Boldlyman, it is a block evasion again. Can you confirm on this too? Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these editors are in Japan as you know, on various ISPs like OCN, ODN, Softbank, and Plala and more. Ex-oneatf is in a different country. Boldlyman is too old for a current check, but if he was likely to be Carl Daniels before then that will still be true. Thatcher 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Then Ex-oneatf would be likely Jjok (talk · contribs)? Because Ex-oneatf's edit and agenda are overlapped with Jjok much such as Comfort women, Chinilpa, Prostitution in South Korea. Ex-oneatf quoted Jjok's comment at Chinilpa as an attempt to move the title of the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jjok's last edits are too old for a check. I may have saved some information at home, will check later. Thatcher 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jjok's previous information was a different (non-Japan) country than Ex-oneatf. Thatcher 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User hit by hardblock

This is in regards to an unblock-en-l request. Suntag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hit by (two?) hardblocks levied at Grawp. A review of their contribs indicated constructive contributions and un-Grawp-like. Their IP address is 71.107.149.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grant IPBE? –xeno (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops...shoulda checked his userrights first. move along, nothing to see here ;> –xeno (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request for you, sir...

User talk:Murmel - Enjoy. No idea what it's about, so it's all yours. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, East helped me out on IRC. I may grant an exemption if it doesn't seem like the account's compromised, East said you'd said that would be acceptable at the admin's discretion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa

Hi, Thatcher, could you look into the case one more time? Because two users add more evidences on block evasions by likely socks of Pabopa. The two editors accuse Bentecbye (talk · contribs) and 218.218.132.9 (talk · contribs) are sock of Pabopa. Moreover, I believe that this ODN user is Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) per his usual habit of using (restore, by koreans, conceal etc) "rstored blanked by Koreans.　Korea must not conceal the fact that does Kowtow to China." and his fondness in Japanese traditional culture.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucyintheskywithdada and Carl Daniels

Hi, Thatcher, can you take a look at this? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I don't think Lucy is Carl Daniels per writing. Lucy is a native speaker of English as opposed to Carl Daniels. However, all I'm asking you and Rleves is to remove the personal attack on me from Carl Daniels' talk page.[16] Carl Daniels' said I should "follow an official rule" to remove it that he never informed me what it is. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/24.3.180.166

Hello,

Look, I feel really bad about bothering you again with this, but the SSP case against Fragments of Jade got archived for "lack of manpower" eventhough you pretty much confirmed earlier that Fragments of Jade and 76.120.173.40 were one and the same.

I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I may be overlooking something here, but is there a reason Fragments of Jade didn't get blocked for sock puppetry already? Should I submit the SSP case one more time? Or a checkuser request? Wouldn't that be unnecessary, considering you've confirmed the sock puppetry already (unless I'm mistaken about something)?

(by the way, I apologize again for arguing with her here, earlier... I should have stopped that right away) Erigu (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jade was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring; that would normally resolve the matter, unless you believe he has continued to edit war while logged out to avoid detection. Is this an ongoing problem? Thatcher 11:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, it's not just a problem of edit warring... Fragments of Jade denies being 76.120.173.40 (which, judging from your comments, would be her IP while logged-out) and has been using that identity (as well as another, I believe... you can refer to the SSP case for details) to fake support for her views and push her edits. If you can assert that 76.120.173.40 was her IP while logged-out (hence the 3RR violation you signaled), that pretty much confirms there was indeed sock puppetry, right?
The reason I'd like that case to be dealt with is that she's being overly hostile on discussion pages and is stalling a debate that should have been closed more than a month ago with appalling displays of bad faith, "evidence" that she keeps referring to but refuses to produce, and wild accusations (in fact, she recently accused me of being a sock puppet of yours... right before that, she also accused you of lying for my behalf... [17]).
The whole experience has been quite frustrating (as you can probably tell from my logged-out comments as 88.161.129.43 ever since it became apparent Fragments of Jade was lying about quite a few things... I'm afraid patience isn't my forte), and I'd be grateful if you could help solve the matter. Erigu (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely  Confirmed that Fragments of Jade was editing from 76.120.173.40, so this is a lie. It is likely that she also edited from 24.3.180.166 as it is the same ISP, and she could have switched IPs sometime between June 13 and June 17. However, it is not against the rules to contribute while logged out and there is no requirement that you must have a static IP address, so the only violation is the time between June 17 and July 2 where she edited both logged in and logged out and tried to pretend to be two people. Since July 2 she has not edited while logged out (as far as I can tell) so it seems like the problem has stopped. I'm not sure what action you would like taken. Blocks are primarily meant to prevent disruption and sometimes to educate editors, and are not really meant to punish past transgressions that have stopped. Thatcher 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearly confirming that Fragments of Jade is lying about not being 76.120.173.40.
My problem would be that Fragments of Jade's disruptive behavior hasn't stopped. I thought the sock puppetry case would be a good enough reason to block her... In fact, I expected her to be blocked back then, and it would seem the only reason that didn't happen is "lack of manpower"...
While it's true that she hasn't been using her other identities for a while, she's still denying everything. She denies the sock puppetry, calls me a liar, a stalker (I was just trying to find evidence of sock puppetry), a racist (for some reasons she won't clarify), accuses me and others of sock puppetry for no reason (she once claimed that I pretended not to be 88.161.129.43 [18]... one lie among many others) or of sending predators to the other users (her sock puppets)' doorstep by talking about their strangely similar WHOIS information, claims that admins (you're apparently included?) are lying on our behalf and punishing her injustly while ignoring our (supposed) violations... All of that instead of producing evidence she keeps referring to in a discussion she's been stalling all by herself for more than a month now. And of course, she's also overly hostile and insulting on her talk page, even when her interlocutors are simply trying to be helpful.
Isn't that disruptive enough? ^^; Erigu (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

82.5.173.251

I note that you've wondered if 82.5.173.251 (talk) is a bot, due to its rapid editing. Is there a process to investigate such things, or will the IP just be repeatedly blocked as long as it continues to vandalise? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no way to determine with certainty whether the editor was running a bot or a script, or whether the user's intentions were good or not. It appears to me based on checkuser evidence that the IP is being used by the same person who was using it when it was blocked before. The next step would be to see if the person there made an unblock request, to start a dialog. Or the editor there can register an account, and if the account starts acting in a problematic way it will be noticed and addressed too. Thatcher 10:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's now made several accounts, all of which were blocked for vandalism after making numerous rapid edits and then blanking 50%, so I think we have at least a partial answer as to his intentions. Thatcher 11:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

Since the checkuser case, two more users, Special:Contributions/Poklopichika and Special:Contributions/Kyarichy, have appeared, with editing patterns extremely close to those of the two sock farms uncovered in the checkuser case, as well as those of User:Kalindoscopy, the banned user who is unrelated to the sock farms, but whose resemblance with these users is uncanny. I've been reverting the related IPs I've seen - there's been a constant stream since the blockings, such as the ones recently blocked here - but I feel it's rude to revert users unless they've been shown to be related. Could you please check whether these users are related to the sock farms or Kalindoscopy?--Yolgnu (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed as the same as Lacrystallililcry/MagdelenaDiArco
  1. Poklopichika (talk · contribs)
  2. Kyarichy (talk · contribs)
  3. Lothlerarhlichliarmetlialeta (talk · contribs)
  4. O0liIkw (talk · contribs)

-- Thatcher 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.146.58.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Opalnet Manchester, Malta - more of the same? What's the best thing to do with these IP's? Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on further inspection of a couple of article histories I have similar strong doubts about Maltalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cradashj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Knepflerle (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lijamonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely too, sprung up in last two days to edit solely on Italian names of Maltese towns. Knepflerle (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, looks like if it's not one banned user it's another banned one! Thanks for that, though I doubt this'll be the last of it. I feel a bit sorry for the Malta-related articles - there's some good articles there, but there's a concerted attack on them here from an enormous sock-farm, and few frequent editors to protect them (I only happened by by chance). Shame. If I do spot any more I'll let you know, thanks once more Knepflerle (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshirian

Thanks, By the way - it's good to deal with a simple sockdrawer, for once. I'm also sorry for the confusion I seem to have caused - it all worked out, though. Thanks again for your masterful checkuser-ing. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

Hi, Thatcher, can you check on whether this newbie, Mabemabe (talk · contribs) is a sock of Pabopa (talk · contribs)? Because their edits are identical and even misspellings are the same. Pabopa uploaded a copyviolated image to Commons and then inserted it to Samjeondo Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[19], and the new user did the same thing.[20] Also if possible, can you also Pabopa creates sock accounts? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mabemabe is on a different ISP, so no provable technical connection, but it seems quite likely based on behavior. Mabemabe also created a second account, Boobom (talk · contribs). Thatcher 12:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you said Bentecbye (talk · contribs) is likely Pabopa, and Mabemabe is reverting to a version by Bentecybe at Second Sino-Japanese War.[21][22][23][24]

Besides, Pabopa used to end a sentence without spacing as Bentecbye does.[25][26] Webcamera (Pabopa's sock), Bentecbye, and Booboom appear to show a same agenda like this.[27][28][29][30] Well, how do you think about these behavioral patterns?--Caspian blue (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can post your evidence to the admin's noticeboard, or if you add it to the RFCU case and relist it on the RFCU page, I will note the findings and probably someone who watches there will take care of it. Thatcher 11:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but isn't it a matter of WP:SSP?--Caspian blue (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, although this is a long-running matter that has been to SSP before and seems pretty obvious, not needing a lot of investigation. Thatcher 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Just so you know, 82.198.250.106, a range blocked account is requesting an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another 20K sock?

Just wondering if you could take a quick look at this, related to this ANI thread. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. Thatcher 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've been blocked after Alison confirmed it on ANI. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless struggle against Wiki-vandals. In your place I would have lost my patience long ago. --Rjecina (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on AN

Hi. I have responded to your response to me on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:VernKlukas

This user has mailed unblock-en requesting to be unblocked. Apparently this block has caught him. I'm deferring to your judgment. Let me know if you want me to forward the email on to you. --Chris (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some head-scratching I remembered the reason I blocked it; someone was using that range to create user accounts whose only contribs were spam links on their own user pages. I've granted IPBE, it will be easy enough to keep an eye on his contribs. Thatcher 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I'll let them know. --Chris (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need something to give you energy

With all these CU blocks you are doing tonight you need this mate. Thanks for your hard work and diligence. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual...

...midafternoon (USA) activity. Could you do the honors? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and here's a couple more: 1, 2. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks! If you have a minute, please look at my logs -- I've struck the motherlode. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A minute? Jesus wept! Starting at the bottom, I've worked my way up to Thaxxia; all the accounts were created on open proxies, now blocked. I'll finish later. I assume you found a list somewhere? If some CU found these for you let me trout-slap him for not blocking the IPs. Thatcher 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found 'em myself. See here -- just right down the list, one after another. Thanks so much for your help! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And  Done. Thatcher 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Astonishingly enough, he's right back at it. See my last five bunch of blocks. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got a few more, when you get a chance. Thanks!! NawlinWiki (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some accounts probably false alarms,

Right, those didn't fit the meme, should've pointed that out. Sorry. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism IP

Risker suggested I inform you of 12.176.204.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), since you were familiar with Utah. I'm not quite sure what the proper actions I should be taking are: sorry if this is inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

privacy policy

I left a note, it is important we do this correctly. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding there, I really don't mean to be adversarial, but I'm probably reading too much into the "First of all..." response. I want to support you, and other volunteers. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Pls take a look at this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zerida — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New one

Could you check this one please? Seems to be testing what he can get away with. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harass accounts

During last 20 days my edits are under attack of harass account. In beginning action of harass accounts have been stupid, reverting all my edits (user:PravdaRuss). After that he has used 1 account to revert "only" 5 of my edits (user:Koljicic) and shortly after that he has created account to revert "only" 2 of my edits (user:MaximilianusMaximus). Because all this account are discovered and banned by administrators he is now having 1 edit harass accounts. Only on 29 July this user has created accounts:user:Milica1987, user:DabicPera ,user:CaesarusGrecus . harass account writen here are not even half of created accounts. Because of this situation I have started Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss . Can you please look this case in near future so that we can block IP of that user ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 66.217.132.152 is not connected to any users ??? I ask you this because IP edits from that range are connected with many edits during July (example:66.217.131.60, 66.217.132.170, 66.217.131.62, 66.217.131.112, 66.217.132.56.....). Edits from this IP are 1 or 2 reverts and nothing else--Rjecina (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 66.217 IPs are Paetec in Falls Church, Virginia. J. A. Comment is editing from a public library that is geographically consistent with the Northern Virginia/Southern Maryland/Washington DC area of many of the IPs suspected of being Velebit. The confirmed socks, Rilkas and Worobiew are from 3 other distinct locations. Thatcher 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that user in question is using Paetec proxy. I have asked administrator for check and he has put first tag on his talk page. After that using copy/paste I am writing this tag on talk pages of all 66.217...... "accounts". I am looking only for advice in how we can stop this IP edits because it has been always in support of this case puppets or J. A. Comment which is weird ?? It is not important if this is velebit or not, but I am interested to hear if it is possible to block dynamic IP from future editing articles in question.--Rjecina (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 66.217.131.0 through 66.217.132.256 for one month to prevent anonymous editing and account creation. This is not guaranteed to stop the person but will make it more difficult for him to edit and easier to track down if he does keep it up. If he starts coming from other numbers outside the 131 and 132 ranges, let me know. Thatcher 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:PaxEquilibrium has created new puppets which are now banned (user:TweetyPaxicus, user:PaxDetevan and 2 others). My only question is if he is using new IP or old ? I am interested because after your blocking of 66.217.xxx.xxx we are now having 1 of Pax puppets (TweetyPaxicus) which is editing article of this IP ?! I know about good faith policy but situation is clear ??--Rjecina (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Paetec numbers are not proxies, but a dial-up internet provider in the US. PaxEquilibrium is in a European country, so unless he is using international long distance calling, the Paetec user is not Pax. These accounts were made on a new provider and new IP in that foreign country. Thatcher 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really interesting because all "his" puppets are screaming I am Pax... See all names:user:Equpaxbrilium, user:PaxPaximus, user:PaxDetevan and user:TweetyPaxicus. If this is not Pax why his name is always part of names of this puppets ?? I am not first person with this thinking [31]. In the end it will not be important because with other evidence (his editing and name) he will be declared puppet of Pax or this other evidence is not strong enough ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confused. All the PaxEquilibrium accounts, including TweetyPaxicus, are sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium, who lives in Europe. The edits from the 66.217 IP addresses (which are tagged as Velebit) are from someone who lives in the US, and seem to be close to the location used by J. A. Comment. Thatcher 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have been confused. After fast reading of your answer my thinking has been that IP this new puppets (TweetyPaxicus) is 66.217.xxx.xxx. My mistake. Thanks for answer. Bye--Rjecina (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming crazy. Today administrators have blocked 6 puppets and he has created new user:Pristine man. Can you please block his new IP ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I do not make mistake next is user:ContributorPoland--Rjecina (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts are all blocked, but you'll obviously need to block the IPs, Thatcher. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few, too. I blocked the range AO ACB, but he seems to also have access to multiple ranges including dial-up. A hard block is a possibility assuming we give IPBE to the good editors. Let's see if the soft block holds. However, it is often impossible to completely block a determined person with access to many IP addresses from creating more sockpuppets. Thatcher 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've been adding these to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium since I don't know exactly which ones you've checkusered. You may want to make them confirmed. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check user:Roramaster. He is confirmed puppet master of user:Roremaster which is banned in August 2007. After this banning user:Roramaster has not been active until August 2008 and now he is harass account. Roramaster is writing on my and User:KhoiKURČINA user page that I am puppet master of KhoiKURČINA which is banned on my demand ???? Because of his activation after banning of Pax and because it is harass account we can declare that he is suspected Pax puppet ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Roramaster is Pax. Thatcher 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are having minimal 7 of new puppets user:PaxVendetimus, user:Seth Monarch , user:Loopextra , user:VelikaBugarska , user:Palomapi ,user:MustafaHadzispahic, user:PrincipGavril. I am sure that you are not happy about looking new puppets of this user but he has used old puppet account (user:Loopextra) to evade semi-protection of many article and this is only reason for asking new check.--Rjecina (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seth Monarch is probably unrelated, but the others are Pax, plus some others, now blocked. Thatcher 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New puppets are:User:Wederes and User:Marcellogo. Now I am having weird request. In Pax mind I am puppet master of banned user:KhoiKURČINA. Can you check me and this account ? If I am not user:KhoiKURČINA maybe his attacks will stop !? Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wederes is Pax but Marcellogo is unrelated. KhoiKURČINA is also Pax. Thatcher 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 new puppets are user:Pupusinka (banned) and user:VolodyaPiter. Because of his harass attacks I want to create puppet account for articles which are not related with Balkan. Your thinking/advice ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine, as long as you don't contribute to the same articles with both accounts. Thatcher 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check user:CeoMaiy (I am 100 % sure that this is Pax). Do not worry I will not use 2 accounts to edit 1 article. If nothing else I will be afraid that Pax will discover other account.--Rjecina (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed. Thatcher 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is back ( User:AristoDoga ) and I need to give you barnstar--Rjecina (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my thinking next puppet is user:Za dom.--Rjecina (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both  Confirmed. He can't create accounts so he has someone in another country creating them for him. Thatcher 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New puppet user:Mozart1783--Rjecina (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked. Kevin (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, sleeper. Thatcher 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next puppet is user:Mylan ? He is now playing with "new" articles (not edited by me in this year)--Rjecina (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another sleeper. I wonder if I leave the IP unblocked, how many more will he give me? Thatcher 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deliberately leaving the articles unproteced, thinking that it might encourage more sleepers. He has to run out one day. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After few days I have started to think that this has ended but .....I am sure that User:MilanMilutinovic is next puppet.--Rjecina (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thatcher 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Mimmma is another possible Pax sleeper. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet theater?

Hi, Thatcher. Here's a account that gave me a reason to believe that this is the sockpuppet of PaxEquilibrium.
Nexm0d (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I haven't had any problems with him, but this unexplained edit (a kind of blanking and ordinary-user ability for deletion of article) from 08:46, 24 July 2008 [32] gave me a reason to think, as well as the interest area of this user: Montenegro, or more exactly, presenting Montenegrin heritage as Serb heritage, propagating Dalmatia as ancient Serb land etc.. Please see history of this category [33]; Nexm0d is the creator.
Also, he's the creator of this category [34]. The name reminds me too much on the article that PaxEquilibrium created and called "Serb lands" (and caused burst of anger of users from neighbouring countries).
This map, that he uploaded on en.wiki [35] is a kind of original work; though, I'm trying to prove that Nexm0d is Pax.
It exactly covers Pax's area of interest (and articles he covered). See the file history.
23:44, 17 June 2008: Serb migration in the 7th century from the Slavic homeland of White Serbia located in present day Poland, to the Serb lands of the Balkans. Category:Maps of Serbia.
Serb lands??? Exactly as the article he created [36], 12:29, 7 April 2006 .
See history of redirect [37]; first one is from 02:03, 8 July 2006, and last is ... Pax, 21:01, 20 October 2006 . Among only three of them.
16:25, 11 July 2008: Serb migration during the 7th century. Serbs settled Dalmatia, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece.
His favourite theories. This sounds too much like Pax ("Serb settling of Dalmatia"; see his fierce abduction of article Pagania, Narentines).
So - I'm not asking to question his theories, but to draw your attention to similar edit pattern and same areas of interest as the banned user.
Sorry for taking your time, but I had to draw your attention to this, while the things are still fresh. Kubura (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your prompt reaction. If it's him from another public library or faculty (another IP-account...), we can put him salt on the tail.. for now. :)) Kubura (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely different country. Thatcher 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thatcher. I want you to draw your attention to this SPA-account.
Za dom (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
It appeared 12 Aug 08. It contributed solely on that day. First edit was the edit-war against user Rjecina [38] on this article. That edit was solely for the ban evasion (previous revert was by banned user user:AristoDoga [39]. After the revert, another sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium appeared user:Mozart1783, user:Mylan.
Bye, Kubura (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disturbing. I haven't seen your message above [40]; I only saw red link on user:Za dom, with no tag "sockpuppet", so I've reacted promptly, thinking nobody has reacted yet. I'll tag it now. Kubura (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by MetalGearJoseph

Hi Thatcher. I was looking at this editor's unblock request. In your block notice you mentioned sockpuppetry. Is that documented anywhere? Just looking at the edits by his registered account, there is not quite enough justification for an indef. (About 50% vandalism and 50% fairly-incompetent but possibly good-faith editing). Of course if he also had a sock doing bad things, it would be different. How much scrutiny should I apply before declining the unblock, is what I'm asking. Or should we just ask another checkuser to consider the unblock request? EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment on his talk page? I re-checked his IP and found that he still has the IP he has had since June, that the IP has been used to create multiple vandal accounts, and that whenever the IP's anon-only block has expired, he has committed anonymous vandalism. I prefer not to disclose the actual IP address at this time but if he wants to continue to protest, I will. I notice he has not responded to my comment. Thatcher 10:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see the logic now. Given the situation, perhaps hardblocking the IP might be considered for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This morning's Avril vandalism

The rangeblock yesterday didn't seem to stop this morning's work -- see User:EvilLuthor et al. Could you check these please? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific IP he used had previously been softblocked, which overrode the hard range block. I unblocked the IP which should now give the rangeblock priority. Thatcher 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope there aren't any more of these. Actually, I'll go check the blocked IP logs. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock nest

Bunch of sock accounts created 8/5 to 8/7 -- see my block log. Could you check please? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably unrelated:
    • Reviewers mansion
    • Nameinuseabcdef
    • Woo youl yang
  • Everything else,  Done. Thatcher 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I had already unblocked Woo and have unblocked Nameinuse. Are you sure about Reviewers mansion? That showed on the IP block list as being the same IP used for User:The birds duty and User:Saving the coast, all of which were created just minutes after User:A long train, one of last night's vandals. Again, thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, in case you were wondering, I looked up "Princess Abbey Dawn" -- it's Avril Lavigne's clothing line.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reviewer's mansion's account creation is the only recorded event on his IP. However, the IP is similar to another IP used here and both are currently on a spam blacklist, so they are probably proxies. Reviewer's mansion could be someone innocently caught up, or it could be that the vandal created the account then somehow got autoblocked so he had to stop. Thatcher 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More this morning, accounts created 8/10 -- would you check me, please? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but these accounts do not fit the pattern and appear to be unrelated.

    • Demon of the sky
    • Mrz. Spectacular Blue Smith
    • Comfortpuppy

Thatcher 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You've got a number of different vandals here, including the Avril vandal and Mr. Toofy, but you seem to have already unblocked the unrelated accounts. Thatcher 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading Protection

Can you turn it of on your /alpha subpage as it is protecting the editabuse template for no reason and i nheed to make an edit to it.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted sock

You may want to look into this: User_talk:MBisanz#banned — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a report to WP:ABUSE if he is evading blocks, Ill handle it personally   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a check

I just wanted to verify if you received my (unwieldly) email about the socks situation that I sent Friday morning. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

LMAO! You said much of what I'd been thinking. Over the past couple of weeks, I have been repeatedly tempted to post:

<obscure Monty Python reference> Where's the duck? </obscure Monty Python reference>

--Elonka 19:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax

Hi Thatcher. I suspect User:Pasha011 (see Special:Contributions/Pasha011) to be possible sock of Pax. This account was created recently when the most of other were, Pax has never edited Zadar article before, but what Pasha011 is pushing there now is the same what Pax was doing in other articles last month. It's possible that he spreads his actions on other users he was opposing in the past, after being a shadow of Rjecina in the last month. Please can you check it? Zenanarh (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the witch

Oh, thank you, well done, Thatcher. But I think you forgot to say "lynch mob" and "pitchfork"? I had already noticed from Seicer's statement that the links in my statement are mysteriously invisible, so no surprise there. Can you see this one? Or these RFAR page instructions? "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. " Bishonen | talk 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I know those instructiona well; I wrote them. I was replying mainly to Geogre regarding his assertion that it was somehow unusual to supply evidence of wrongdoing in an RFAR. In general, the case as framed is unlikely to be accepted. The issue is not that Elonka somehow deceived the community; every admin applicant including me makes promises to work on backlogs that we never follow through on. A case framed as "Elonka's adminship is detrimental" is likely to be looked at differently. It may seem like semantics to you, as the underlying facts are the same, but I know how the committee thinks, and the arbitrators' comments are indicative of this. Thatcher 23:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it just looks like climbing up the political ladder. El_C 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment. Thatcher 11:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not in the business of coddling the arbcom's comprehension or "how they think". (I don't believe their thinking is a monolith, anyway.) Let them throw it out if they want to. To me, your posts on this page just look like feeble foot-shuffling to obfuscate the shitty insulting comment you made at the RFAR. I thought there was some mutual respect between you and me. But never mind, now you have Elonka's pearly laugh on your page instead, don't you? Congratulations. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
On reflection, I agree that the last part of the comment was uncalled for, and I have removed it. I had just visited the latest lynching of Betacommand at ANI, and then saw Geogre's comment that it was somehow unprecedented for arbcom to ask for evidence of disruption, followed by an insinuation that Elonka has an improperly close relationship to the committee. Certainly you don't need 500 diffs to make a case for opening a hearing, but something along the lines of "[here] is a noticeboard discussion about disruption, and [here] is the first recall discussion, and [here] is an RFC endorsed by several notable and normally steady admins questioning Elonka's judgement..." would go a long way toward convincing the committee to open the case. You presented an argument framed on a technicality rather than on the underlying dispute; you may have linked to the same discussions but context and presentation are important. Kirill and Fayssal (item b, I think) seem to be looking for the underlying dispute but the other arbitrators, as well as commentators like Mackensen and Kelly, saw only the technicality. Of course, you should proceed as you think best. Thatcher 17:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now we just have to wait for someone to bring your (Thatcher's) "burn the witch" comment up weeks later in an unrelated discussion. Then it will be a perfect parallel of Lar bringing up Durova's "head on a platter" comment over a month later as evidence about her judgment. But I guess we all have such incautious posts (humour is a funny thing) clattering around in our editing histories. At least you retracted your comment. Maybe it was another example of the dangers of editing just after putting up a wikibreak notice? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humor is certainly subjective. Although once again, I wonder if Bishonen is holding me to a higher standard than she holds some others, at least as far as sharp-tongued comments are concerned. (Note, however, that I aspire to higher standards so this does not bother me except in the abstract.) My perception of events is also colored by my experience as checkuser. Not to belittle the concerns that seem to exist about Elonka, but I've seen far worse, and the wiki has survived. Thatcher 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen's humour can certainly be described as subjective as well! :-) By the way, talking of your reference to Betacommnd and lynch mobs, have you seen this? I wonder if the formation of ad-hoc mini-committees might actually work as an alternative to chaotic noticeboard discussions, unwieldy ArbCom cases, ArbCom-initiated subcommittees/working groups, and discussions where a single person closes. The closest I think I've seen is where XfDs are closed by one person and then several other admins officially support the closure. Well, that and the bureaucrat chats. The downside is that such ad-hoc committees might still be deadlocked, and that there is a degree of loss of individual responsibility (as with any 'communal' decision). Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on a similar idea, see WP:DEVO. Thatcher 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I had to click that link to see what it really was! - Alison ❤ 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was deviant! :-) I remember Mackensen mentioning this a while ago. I had almost forgotten it. It seems to have a bit of opposition, mainly from those who want ArbCom to "do its job". I think the idea of ad-hoc committees is looser. Ad-hoc means just that. Form them quickly, channel discussion through them. Dissolve them when they are done. Might not work. We'll see. See also adhocracy. Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with ANI is that everyone wants their say. It's easy enough to self-assemble an ad-hoc committee on wikipedia, just wave a sign that says Free Beer!. But you're then stuck with two problems; how to limit the size of the committee to something less than the usual number, and how to ensure you will get a more sensible result than from the usual suspects. Thatcher 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's also the problem that any perceived status differential, privilege, or membership in any group with a selection process is instantly decried as cabalism, favoritism, anti-egalitarian, immediately suspect, etc. But you wouldn't see that, would you, Mr. Checkuser? :) MastCell Talk 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe in the cabal, it is everywhere. Suppose (following Carcharoth) that instead of letting every editor have an infinite right to comment on every situation, the first n editors or admins to comment on a situation would be sent to a subpage for a calm discussion, and everyone else would be shut out and invited to the next crisis. It might not do better than the current system but it could hardly do worse. There's your ad hoc committee. Thatcher 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the rationale there - trying to improve the signal by limiting the noise. I guess I think it would become analagous to ArbCom: while those n editors tried to deliberate calmly, people would circle outside the door speculating, imploring, berating, stomping their feet, speculating about who is siding with whom, and so forth. It seems like a cultural thing here, and I'm always wary of technical solutions to cultural problems. But I don't mean to shoot it down - I've been accused of excess negativism, believe it or not, and we'll never know if there's a better way until we try some out. MastCell Talk 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- Such things are often called juries. We could create a pool of editors/administrators in good standing and then grab half a dozen of them (randomly, or in order) for each "hard problem, ask them to form a committee. If everyone is able to participate, and there is no cherry picking, such a thing might work. For instance, if an admin places 0RR on a page, a committee of administrators could review that situation. Surely six administrators working together, chosen "at random", should be able to overrule a single one.

The other thought on my mind is that because the community can grant adminship through RFA, the community also has the power to take away adminship through a symmetrical process. This power does exist, but has not been documented. I suggest we do that. Perhaps an RFC that demonstrates substantial doubts about an administrator (e.g. ~60% or less of the community favor them keeping the tools after a discussion lasting a few weeks) should trigger a reconfirmation RFA.

Both of these ideas could potentially help. Jehochman Talk 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Could you take a look at this notice at WP:AN/I? Going off User_talk:Thatcher/Archive21#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FMagdelenaDiArco_2 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco this is the same case (Fonez4My, OpalNet Manchester IP's etc.) which you are familiar with. This is some seriously disruptive sockpuppetry - it's been going on for ages over many, many articles and needs a more permanent solution. Suggestions? Knepflerle (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BN thread on renames we chatted about

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Odd_happenings_with_renames. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack

[41] Not questioning the information you are adding/striking, but did you intend to strike your own comment, or that of Lar? Thanks. Risker (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's. As I noted, I proposed that comment in an email discussion with Alison, Lar and Sam; and Lar posted it without realizing it was technically incorrect and gave a false impression. As I said, there are no other interesting editors on that range and ISP. Whether that means that someone known to Giano has adopted a new ISP to hide himself is not something that can be solved with checkuser. Thatcher 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that makes sense to me. Risker (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Caperpike8

Was just blocked by you, but you need to lock the talk page too. That's where the idiot's vandalising after all. This is the fifth or so case with exactly the same pattern in the last 20 minutes :p De728631 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's another one: User talk:Hellermeller. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked those accounts on June 15. If you are concerned, you could ask that any other accounts I blocked at about the same time and with the same reason should also be deleted and locked, since they are the same vandal. I'm sorry I don't have time right now. Thatcher 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "further review"

Regarding User:Truthsayer62 with multiple accounts on the same IP, what was their explanation and was there ever any "further review" of the situation? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.16.xx.xx

Not sure what's going on here at all, and don't have the time to really look, but are you aware of Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikipéire? I knew I'd seen '78.16' before, as I brought Wikipéire to light. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a big ISP, and the edits are stale, so I can't confirm anything from a technical standpoint. However, Pureditor's sockpuppet account is Mulacho (talk · contribs) who shares an interest in Editors with Wikipéire, and the naming dispute is similar to disputes that Wikipéire got in to. I'd get an uninvolved admin to look at the contributions or list it at WP:SSP. Thatcher 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is User:Wikipéire for sure. Bummer - I wondered this before over a national anthem issue I had with him, but I had been off for a month and I suppose wasn’t up for it mentally. All the editing patterns are identical, and the post-ban account creation fits too: National anthems, Wales, Scotland, British Isles, national sovereignty, Ireland-piped-to-ROI, Canada and the Editors band. His slip with Mulacho and the 78.16 link completely seals it for me. Special:Contributions/99.232.55.119's edit on Wales here is a giveaway link for this IP, and is an interesting IP range to add too.
Some more 78's for the 'Wikipeire list' from the Editors article:
Special:Contributions/78.16.60.135 (from May),
Special:Contributions/78.16.77.212 (a recent August one - useful?),
Special:Contributions/78.16.103.84 (goes back to 2007 on Ulster - but with 9 months between edits)
This last one is close to edits by User:Derry Boi, who has edited recently on Editors in his own name, and very few people do when you remove Melvo/78.xx.xx.xx/Wikipeire/Petitpois/and now "Mulacho" (all the same person) from the picture. Derry Boi edits on similar Irish issues to Pureditor (like Derry). I actually don't think there is anything in it now as I can see that Derry Boi has been editing mostly on Gaelic football for years, but I'm still pointing it out as it seems reasonably valid enough to do so (so apologies to Derry Boi), and it could save somebody else some time. Someone from Derry/Irish articles called User:Violetriga actually edit-warred with Wikipeire's sock User:Melvo on Editors – so maybe the band are linked to Northern Ireland in some way, although I can’t see a link - they are all English people in an English band, it seems to me.
I'm determined to get this guy whenever he pops up, anyway. He wasted hours of my time when he joined forces with the multi-sock-user User:Iamandrewrice's puppet 'User:Gozitancrabz' on Wales. He screwed me as an IP 3RR'ing on British Isles, and has trolled me as an IP too in fact. All the bad memories are coming back!
If you look at his earliest edits from his rarely-used User:Melvo account from Dec 2006 here - it seems reasonable to assume that throughout 2007 there could have been socks we didn't know about (possibly still don't). There was no editing 'gap' between him editing as Melvo and starting Wikipeire in Feb this year, just a few days. If he was 78.16.103.84 on this 2007 Ulster page - he could be somebody else on it too. 78.16 appears recently on Derry here, but Pureditor is only on the talk page. I'm sure most of the 78.16's are him.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that it looks like I misread your reply - you clearly want me to either to go to another admin or take User:Pureditor to SPP myself! Having done all the above I suppose I may as well take it on. I have a feeling I used 'request for checkuser' with Wikipeire - if I did I may go straight to that again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say I've done this, by the way Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Wikipéire_(3rd)#User:Wikip.C3.A9ire. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I've amended the first line of the SSP on Wikipeire (Pureditor). It was inaccurate for a whole day (referencing Mulacho when it should have been the IP), and I somehow didn't notice my error while I was padding out the rest of it. I've corrected it now, and it now mentions your name too. I don't know how involved you want to be (if at all), but I thought I'd let you know. I've been doing it with fairly small stints at the computer (and I've amended it a few times), but hopefully it now builds a lucid enough case. Thinking about it, I'll inform GB and any admin properly involved in Wikipeire's cases before, to try and get some responses going.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yorkshirian

Hello Thatcher,

I believe you blocked, and possibly discovered, a series of sockpuppets used by double-banned User:Yorkshirian. He's back, with a bang. We've had about 30 sockpuppets in the last 24 hours, most of which have been targetting me.

There's an outstanding checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Riparder, but I'm actually seeking to have a range block put in place, and I (believe I) need a checkuser to take a look at the size of his ip range, and if it is feasible. Would you be willing to aid me here? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovisionman, GarryGazza etc

I saw that you were involved in the last sock puppet check user case and I think that Onceloose (talk · contribs) is another sock. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Onceloose. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Could you take a look at this for me? New socks appear every hour or so at Great Britain at the Olympics at the min.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of those are the same person but it's a dynamic range and a range block wouldn't really work. Thatcher 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sockfarm

Could you please check the IP for User:Hurricane Gustav, which seems to have created numerous Jarlaxle/Grawp socks on several different days. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pgbb

I was about to indef block this user myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seven or ten socks created on hotel IP addresses. All were already blocked days ago except that one; I guessed someone missed it. Thatcher 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnalsleeper

This refers. What is FT2 up to now. I am checking out NS's edits but they seem great to me, and an editor we should definitely try to keep. User:Burrburr has a massive socklist, but these seem to be harmless (I am checking out now). What is the history on that one, please? Peter Damian (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see this also refers. Who cares. He is doing good work. Peter Damian (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked very briefly at the checkuser evidence on Nocturnalsleeper and found that he has been using multiple accounts, and using them to edit the same articles. He is technically unrelated to Burrburr (but maybe he just changed ISPs) but the behavior pattern is the same; lots of socks making apparently good edits. Now that someone has objected to Nocturnalsleeper and we have discovered the socks, we can't really pretend nothing is happening. As long as he has not been making disruptive or bad faith edits, I would support allowing him to continue to edit from a single account (and blocking all the others). Perhaps you could talk to him? But I can not support allowing him to use multiple overlapping accounts on the same articles, even if the content of the edits is good. Thatcher 18:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK that's very sound. I wil try. I hate socks, as you know, but I also like good editors. Love them. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this well the guy clearly is a sockpuppet. And a plagiarist. Peter Damian (talk)
      • I haven't looked into the matter other than to note the account has been inactive for 30+ months. If it ever returns to active editing, I would be willing to look into the matter. Thatcher 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, on checking my notes I find that Burrburr had used two different ISPs, and Nocturnalsleeper is a match for one of them, so it is very likely that Nocturnalsleeper is in fact Burrburr. Thatcher 00:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply at the Review and my talk. Also, sorry but I can't resist quoting Kelly Martin. You have just equated the Hong Kong University Skeptics Club with an organization that supports pederasty. Peter Damian (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GG - new SSP case

Hi Thatcher, I'm normally a bit sceptical about the GG false alarms we've had, but a small group of users has turned up that I would be most grateful if you could have a close look at whenever you have a few minutes. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (6th). Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really going now

Nothing to do with that particular incident, just the whole thing. Thanks - I believe you were one of the good ones, but it is all too much. Scrambling password now. Peter Damian (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go. Interesting aftermath. Thatcher 03:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You can disregard my email. I ended up talking to smoddy. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hi, I was wondering if you could do a check on Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as he is a new user, yet knows about rollback and arbcom, as you can see from his edits(I didn't bother linking the diffs as he only has 4. I know this isn't much evidence, but things just don't line up. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you didn't forget about this, or did I do something wrong?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very busy lately (see the note above). But there is definitely some funny business going on here. See User talk:Fatal!ty. Thatcher 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

Hi Thatcher, I intend to petition Arbcom re Giano's civility parole, which appears to be unworkable in practice, ill thought out in theory, and ultimately a license for unnecessary wiki-drama that aren't any good for the project. I'm not sure this has been done before - I don't think the format of RFC is appropriate as this will be a petition of support, not a drama inducing dust up regarding Giano in general. Unless you think otherwise, I'll put it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano - although perhaps I should put it on a subpage connected to the case. Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any thoughts or recommendations. I'm not sure you can avoid drama, though, as there are bound to be people who oppose. The problem is that while special civility enforcement against this person is not working out, neither is it appropriate for editors to be calling each other idiots and making deliberately cutting and insulting remarks. Thatcher 10:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Please see my question at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerTown101

Even if the sweep came back negative, can you comment on whether the two named accounts are indeed the same person?Kww (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are technically unrelated to each other as well. Thatcher 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Fatal!ty#Blocked

Oh geez. Why is it whenever I approve someone for rollback it seems to go wrong? (rolls eyes) Neıl ☄ 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just be sure to ask me before you ever get engaged :) Thatcher 11:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had been watching this users edits since he MfD'ed the wikipedia sandbox. Although I was surprised to see him after only one month of editing at my RfA. And he was soon followed by another after only his third day. How do I ask that the !vote be discounted without my obvious bias? Synergy 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mjchesnel is unrelated. You can ask at the bureaucrat's noticeboard for the crats to take note of Fatal!ty as well as the comments of other users such as Mjchesnel who have very short histories. Thatcher 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into this

You may want to read this.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of message to Jimbo

Hi Jimbo - Copy of an email sent to Thatcher - Thatcher is a good man I believe he is honest.

Email to Thatcher

Hi Thatcher I'm doing some research for the blog article, in particular the sequence of edits that got Phdarts banned (and myself blocked for protesting about the ban). Question: are you absolutely certain this guy is the same as the one called 'Headley Down'? His editing style seems quite different. Could it just be that they were both editing from HK university? Interested in your thoughts. I think this ban ought to be overturned. He did a fine job battling the pro-paedophile activists on the 'Pederasty' article. Why do you think it is so many editors like this get banned? With every kind wish, Edward

  • I have family visiting from tonight until midday Sunday. I have started a response but may not be able to finish until then. Thatcher 22:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett

User:Pigsonthewing has returned from a 2nd 1-year forced absence and is again in difficulties (see his talk page). It seems to me that by the rationale of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Log_of_blocks_and_bans his revert parole should be re-started and that this should be noted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, just in case he is still not thoroughly reformed. Occuli (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can raise this as an arbitration enforcement matter. I'm not active there at the moment, but someone else should evaluate your request. Thatcher 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I will wait to see if edit-warring resumes. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a minute...

...to check today's move vandals User:PhilisophicalSatanist and User:THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • BT. Could be anybody. Thatcher 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Settle Down

Settle down? Over what? There are also a list of probable reasons why I've reverted edits from my IP:

  • I use shared computers A LOT
  • I'm at school a lot.
  • My IP, in the past, has run Tor software.
  • My IP, dynamically updates.

I hope this addresses any concerns you may have. Message from XENUu, t 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the chances are so remote. Message from XENUu, t 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "anti-Scientology viewpoint". Where on this site have I *ever* specified I have an anti-Scientology viewpoint? Thanks. Message from XENUu, t 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet theater

Hi, Thatcher.
Here're two possible sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
I've never had problems with these accounts, by few things drew my attention, that makes me believe that they might be his sockpuppets:
- interest area (Montenegro, History of Montenegro)
- very short edit period - this is the feature of SPA's and sleeper accounts
- because of limitation of checkuser tools, it'd good to see if they are sleepers
- these accounts had communication with PaxEquilibrium (and Pax with them)

6 edits, 4 on 30 June 2008 (2 times on the talkpage of PaxEquilibrium [42] and [43]) and 2 on 10 July 2008 Here he refers to Pax's opponent [44] and In fact, Petar Montenegrin appears here as the opponent to Pax [45] (Pax Equilibrium uporno širi prosrpsku propagandu, "Pax persistently spreads pro-Serbian propaganda"), as the one that disagrees with Pax. Was that done with the purpose of confusing the others? Out of 6 edits, he already found Pax?

Even here. Pax talks with him on his talkpage (puppetmasters often do that: talk between puppet and master). Here [46] appears favourite Pax's idea, "fully incorporated into a [[History of Serbia|unified Serbian realm]], the newly acquired [[Serbia]]n land, then called Zeta" (saying for Montenegro as "Serbian land")".
I don't want to etiquette these two accounts, I just want to remove any suspicion. Thanks for the attention, Kubura (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...could be his puppet too. Pax was obssessed with one shaky reinterpretation of historical source De Administrando Imperio, which he used to conquer the articles like Pagania. It appeared that Pax puppets were talking to each other, in this case Pax said "wellcome" to User talk:I am Mario 45 minutes after his 1st appearance. An anon contributing (User:Adam Bishop asked him in the talk page: are you Mario?) to DAI article transformed to User:I am Mario. Pax did distinguish himself from this anon [47], in the same way as he did it elsewhere too, like here [48], as you can see he criticized his own sock edits. While his socks were wild and extreme POV pushers, Pax as master had image of an objective contributor. This account was created in May, there's possibility that Pax created it to support his claims in Pagania article, where he was opposing consensus reached by other users involved, as well as prolong an earlier anon actions in De Administrando Imperio. See Talk:De Administrando Imperio. Can you check User:I am Mario please. Zenanarh (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I bother you, but I do believe this is Pax, User:I am Mario's, User:Pasha011's and User:Progwa's edit dates are overlapping: 24/25 August, 1 Sept, 6 Sept. I'd really apreciate if you check this user, I'm not ghost hunter, just don't want to waste my time with some octopus. Thanks. Zenanarh (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confirmed Pasha011 to be a sock of Pax, User:Progwa prolongs his game there [49]. Zenanarh (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that user:Rjecka-budala is Pax. With knowledge which IP he is using now my only comment is that we can't block him ??--Rjecina (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please look again checkuser case because Kubura has added 1 name, I have added another name. We are even having IP comments (first and last comment from this IO), and after that close this case ??--Rjecina (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pax again user:213.198.217.106--Rjecina (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Garcon0101--Rjecina (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:147.91.1.45 and User:147.91.1.41--Rjecina (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progwa and Rjecka-budala are  Confirmed; all others are Red X Unrelated. Thatcher 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand results about User:147.91.1.45 and User:147.91.1.41 ? On 15:43, 31 July 2008 they both are blocked by you because of "checkuser, due to multiple abusive socking" ??--Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was referring to the named accounts. Those IPs do have a history of problems, but they are shared by multiple users--I think they are a school--which makes a block difficult. Thatcher 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azukimonaka

Hello, Thatcher, could you look into this account and confirm on whether he is related Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) or not? The newbie uses ODN[50][51], one of the biggest ISPs in Japan which happens to be the same one as Azukimonaka used. Their interests, cuisine, comics, history etc are very similar and "being written" is one of Azukimonaka's cliches. If this is another block evasion by him, well, it would be very unfortunate. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing unique about Azukimonaka that would allow me to determine conclusively that this is the same person. At best, the technical findings are  Possible. You can file an WP:SSP report which would take behavior into account. Thatcher 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. Could you also look at Propastop (talk · contribs) and Harada 3nosuke (talk · contribs)? Because the first newbie shows almost same persistent false allegation on my edits just like any of indef.blocked Japanese users before. The user's first edit was to give a 3RR warning to a user[52] when Pabopa (talk · contribs)'s sock was edit warring at Gaya confederacy. I think the person is Pabopa along with the copy of my comment.[53][54]

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Korean_cultural_claims, WP:CANVASSing was occurred and many SPA editors appeared as well. The latter editor has a very similar name with a sock of an indef.blocked user, Kamosuke (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are on different networks. Thatcher 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Propastop is no relation with either Azukimonaka or Pabopa? Propastop is an acronym of propaganda and stop which is also one of Azukimonaka's cliche.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propastop and Harada 3nosuke are on different networks. With large networks that use dynamic IP addressing, it is often difficult to link new accounts to old accounts, especially accounts that are more than a few weeks old. You can apply for sanctions based on behavior patterns. Thatcher 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More SUL sockpuppets

See my last 15 or so blocks, such as User:Insane in the membrane. These were all created (within an hour or so of each other) on other wikis as SUL accounts, but they don't show up on our user creation log (not even as "Account created automatically"), and there are no log entries for the given user. How is this person able to keep these off the logs? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The checkuser table is fixed so it records the IPs when the accounts were created. They were all tor nodes, and there were a few unblocked but you got most of them. I don't know why the log is not working. Maybe ask a steward to look into the account creations, or maybe ask a developer about the log. Maybe there is something different in the way they were created, or maybe some other change broke the log. Thatcher 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Checkuser for the case of 200.215.40.3

Hello Thatcher. In regards to you note that was attached to your enwiki confirmation of this guy's sock puppetry, I would like to respond with a couple of things (a few weeks out of date, I know). First of all, I would almost never ask for this, but could you see if there are more IPs/accounts that are abusively used by the user since all of the accounts were blocked a month ago? Second, and more importantly, isn't there such a thing as a Global Checkuser who can see the issues across the projects? Thanks, that's probably all I need to know for the moment. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really feasible to run blind checks on all those IP ranges without some specific suspicions. They are dynamic IPs for the most part and even if I found accounts they might be totally innocent users. If you said, "Is user:Smith likely to be the same person" that's relatively easy to answer, but "Are there any other accounts on those ranges of millions of IP addresses who might be the same person" is pretty tough. For global checks you need a Steward. Thatcher 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painfully pedantic

But I noticed you linked to this, when this is cleaner (avoids showing the grawp username vandalism as well). When I want that link, I go to a user's contribs and click the "user rights" link at the bottom (which is from MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer). Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Thatcher 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Shouldn't there be a way to remove offensive or "attack" usernames from the user list? Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand from the current RfAr about adminbots that Curps once ran a "block obviously bad usernames" bot, so perhaps we need to look into something like that, although the number of false positives that show up at WP:UAA gives me some pause.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad user names can be renamed by a 'crat or a steward, depending on whether they are SUL or not. Thatcher 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means I don't need to post my edit-conflicted long rambling irrelevancy. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those Prodego names will be gone shortly. Thatcher 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still more unlogged SUL socks

Got a whole bunch more tonight, if you wouldn't mind checking them and blocking the underlying TOR nodes when you get a chance. I will find a developer tomorrow to ask why these aren't in the logs. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please look at User_talk:Mpvide66#Unblock_2 if you don't mind. Inquiry about CU check on Mpvide65. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question in an unblock request

78.168.72.254 (talk · contribs) is asking how it is that he's caught up in a rangeblock you made that he doesn't think should be affecting his IP. Can you look into this? Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you around?

Can you pop into IRC, I need to ask you something about Tweety21, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC? zOMG! Whatever happens, I am already pre-emptively mad about it! :) MastCell Talk 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stay angry, it causes frown lines. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sure whatever the rest of us are doing, you will all find your secretive answers in IRC. Giano (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Lar wanted some info on a checkuser case that he was investigating and that I had previously investigated, and the conversation was entirely private, not in any public or semi-public channel. Hopefully this meets with your acquiescence. Thatcher 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please indeed, I'm sure you are quite correct, who are we to question the workings of IRC, how could Wikipedia possibly survive without all of you on IRC 24/7? Giano (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on IRC as I type this and the project seems to not have come to an end. I'd say I'm not even there an hour a day on average, if that. And I'm a critic of IRC when it's misused (see, for example here: [55] where I point out how dismayed I was at what I saw going on in the en-admin channel) But I never could have gotten to what I think/hope is the right answer in this case without talking to Thatcher about it. It was a back and forth convo that was not going to be efficient to carry out via email, and given the topic, it wasn't going to be done on wiki. You can believe that or not, as you like. But this was one of the times where using IRC was the right way to go. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what it is you check-users get up to on IRC, or anywhere else for that matter, I had a sheltered upbringng and prefer not to think about these things, not a club I choose to join. You seem to be a law unto yourselves. However, one thing that is pissing me off completely at the moment is every time I come to save or log in is a failure sign saying "Wikimedia Foundation Error - You may be able to get further information in the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode IRC network." Well I don't go there, so I have no information, but it may be better for all if the Wikimedia foundation or whatever it calls itself spend more on its servers and less on donations to IRC! Giano (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More, please

3 Several more. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done. Some were clearly Grawp, but others are claimed by the Avril vandal. Not that it matters. Thatcher 11:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Found three more when you get a minute. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Okay, I've seen these several times now, and I still have no idea what it means. What is a graw p like edit? What is graw p?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A typo. User:Grawp, named after a Harry Potter character, a serial vandal who moves pages to titles derived from Harry Potter-associated names and/or containing obscenities and using obscene edit summaries. He has a few imitators, so edits may be Grawpish or Grawp-like if we don't know (or don't care) whether it is the original or an imitator. Thatcher 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You caught some more before I even asked! And I found some more based on yours -- please check those too. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AtticusII may have been a false positive. Thatcher 03:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, maybe, but it did immediately register on en.wikipedia within seconds. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi Thatcher, I just emailed this message to you but I may as well post it here. I reverted, protected and deleted some edit summaries from your talk page. Hope you don't mind! Please check my edits because I realise now that I may have missed some that you had deleted before and may want removed and I may have restored mistakenly. The recording of edits between deletes and restores is unclear to me and I didn't take note in advance as I should have and am going to from now on, so I may have missed some. dvdrw 07:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps since I protected your talk page when you seemed offline my watchlist has stopped!

I don't mind. More 4chan nonsense. One of my little trolls must be annoyed with me lately. Thatcher 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 more

Please check when you have a minute, thanks. (He seems to think putting dots in front of the names makes them harder to find. Go figure.) NawlinWiki (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Found one or two more. Thatcher 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Found a bunch more after that -- I think I have an AL six-pack in there too. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nice boat. and 杉林彬 appear unrelated (but are the same person). Thatcher 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am wondering, do you have checkuser access? - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thatcher 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good....there is a severe backlog on WP:RFCU, some dating back to the 10th of this month. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this appropriate for a checkuser request?

I've just had this dropped on my talk page:

== Sock on Opis ==

Check out the pattern, editing almost perfectly out of each other's way (with one outlier).

|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=NepaheshgarHere] and[56]. This with the comparable interests and conduct is enough for a checkuser report, I would think. I have to run, or I'd figure out how to do it (nothing is easy to file here, and I've never done one), so I'll leave it to you. Hope you aren't too "involved" to file a checkuser report...cheers Aunt Entropy(talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely involved so I don't know if it's appropriate for me to put this here, but Aunt Entropy to the best of my knowledge has not been involved. It's come as a bit of a surprise to me but I know there has been some feeling that CreazySuit may not be completely Kosher, but this is all a bit before my time I think or at least concerns things I've not been involved with. Thanks whatever you decide to do. Doug Weller (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may file a request at WP:RFCU. The checkusers will consider your arguments/evidence and decide whether or not to investigate the matter. Thatcher 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher/Archive21&oldid=1097049593"