User talk:Thatcher/Archive22

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.

Block of Jessica Thunderbolt

I have seen the user being a very beneficial Reference Desk contributor over the last month. Now I see that they have been blocked. I'm sure it's for good reason, but is there a page indicating the run-up to the block or the full rationale. Just to satisfy my curiosity. Thanks! Fribbler (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual...

...your blocks led me to find three more. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

*Yawn*

If you feel like it, can you mosey over to Special:ListUsers/Bnawltr and get rid of them? All were created around 19:30 on September 26, and most have made 10 or so edits to their userpages, so obviously they are waiting for autoconfirmation to hit so they can vandalize. I'd block the obvious ones myself, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. Could you hammer in a {{checkuserblock}}? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not for about 10 hours. If it can wait, fine, otherwise, block on suspicion and I will check later. Thatcher 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, all 12 accounts were created by the same person. I suppose if that person has a decent explanation for his behavior, you could unblock one of the accounts. There is no obvious connection to any prior vandals. Thatcher 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Freedom skies

I suspect that Freedom skies/Vtria 08/whatever has reincarnated yet again.

Given your familiarity with his use of highly dynamic IP addresses, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. JFD (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Invisible block?

Hi Thatcher, I recently responded to a {{helpme}} template at User talk:86.29.138.172, an IP which apparently was blocked by you for being "used abusively". I told him how he could request an account through proper channels to get around the block. The thing which is curious to me is that the IP has no contributions prior to the posting of the helpme template, and I can also find no record of the block in the block log, so I am curious to learn 1) how do I go about finding the records of blocks like this in the first place and 2) what exactly the initial block was for. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• When an IP appears to be blocked but there is no obvious block, look for a rangeblock by clicking the rangeblock finder in the list of links at the bottom of the talk page. Here, the block is for a group of addresses used by a repeat vandal, the block message is {{checkuserblock}} <!--repeat vandal, no other significant traffic on this range, ask checkuser before granting IPBE-->) . A checkuser block should only be unblocked by the blocking admin or another checkuser. In this case, the person requesting the unblock is the vandal. Thatcher 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tajik

Since you are familiar with Tajik, see if you can solve this one Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tajik#Tajik-13. Thanks!--119.30.74.162 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignore :) It's sorted already. And, BTW, that's Nisarkand :) - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty

Hi Thatcher, I see that i've been indefinitely blocked once again in connection to vandalism that is not my own. I was wondering whether it would be possible to unblock me for a specific period of time and bring my case before arbcom so that I can prove my innocence. If this does not work, then simply re-block me per wikipedia policy. I continue to maintain my innocence and stress once again that those vandals do not belong to me. I also have left a series of questions under an {unblock} request on my talk page. I hope that if i've been found 'not guilty' then we can put this egregious mistake behind us and continue improving the encyclopedia. --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 07:35, 11 September 2008(UTC)

Hi Thatcher,

As I mentioned previously, I log on in different locations, (some of them public) in order to do research for my articles. Some of these locations contain a large amount of PC's all connected to a single modem (workplace, Library, Internet Cafe etc.) . . .hence the ability to revert vandalism of someone using a similar/same IP address (As wikipedia is the most popular research tool used today, there will be people in your location viewing and in some cases unfortunately, vandalizing the encyclopedia). I do not deny in any way the evidence that you presented via Checkuser, however I do deny the accusation that I am the vandal in this case, simply because I’ve put too much time and effort over the past month to enhancing the project and reverting vandalism, and vandalism goes against everything that I believe in. I find Vandal's generally adopt a 'hit and run' mentality. They don't become bothered over a block to the extent that they attempt to appeal their blocks as much as I have.

Also, I use Internet Explorer mainly for writing articles (original and the best :D), however for some reason TWINKLE and Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool aren't compatible with IE7, so I’m forced to use Firefox. Vandalism of Wikipedia is a fact and it occurs from every location.

By blocking regular contributors such as myself, on account of circumstantial evidence, you are simply letting the Vandals win. If in the case that you and your fellow administrators agree to unblock me, I solemnly pledge to do all of my editing from a single, safe location to avoid any future misunderstanding. And if, when unblocked such a case will materialize once more, I will not dispute an immediate indefinite block to my account. I eagerly await your decision.

--Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK)

Just some confirmation

I would just like to know if you posted this message on my talkpage? Thanks! E Wing (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not me. As shown in your page history, it was the IP address, falsely signing my name. This is a person whom I caught vandalizing anonymously while pretending to be a good user, and he is not handling the outcome well. Thatcher 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and Checkuser criteria

As an admin with Checkuser privileges, I notice that have abused or overused it. Please explain your criteria for running checkuser because you seem to lack discretion in using it. --Unico scopo conto (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously based on your brilliant analysis I am covered in shame and should resign at once. Bye. Thatcher 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really should get my eyes checked again. You don't want to know what I thought I read instead of "shame". Please do not resign, this page would be so boring ;-) Risker (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and your favorite little stalker would have no one to lust after in utterly inappropriate ways. Wait, that seems a good argument for retiring...Forget I said that. (wiggles fingers in your face) 'These are not the droids arguments you are looking for. Move along.' :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who this nut is, but he is a distant fourth place on my talk page twit list. Thatcher 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Who takes the gold, silver and bronze then? 211.30.12.197 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no trophies for vandals. Thatcher 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they meant the composition of the bat with which to pound them mercilessly, Thatcher. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Uni block

So, what do you say to giving Inks.LWC (talk · contribs) IPBE for a month? Spellcast (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He's fine. I only softblocked the school but FT2 upped it to a hard block I guess. Thatcher 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki barnstar

Thatcher, today's Defender of the Wiki!

My first ever awarding of a barnstar to anyone, in 4+ years on the wiki.

For repeatedly (and with great skill and dedication) detecting some of the wiki's more persistent sock users, truly above the norm.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100% agreed. Well earned, sir! - Alison ^❤ 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pretend I was in #-checkuser and ditto this :) Daniel (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oohrah, very well deserved. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does he seem to be quacking a bit much? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There is nothing unusual there but I don't know what I am looking for. Thatcher 05:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

He is having very similar name with confirmed Pax puppet (User:The Graet Duck) and he is only editing 2 "Pax" articles. This articles are Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara and Thompson (band). This 2 articles has been edited by 10 or more Pax pupets (example: CeoMaiy, Loopextra, Decensi...) and so..... I am sure that after check you will find Pax, or Washington IP is playing with us.--Rjecina (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the same person. Thatcher 00:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TOR nodes

Gotta be some of those tonight -- see the block logs. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I plowed through this last night but I was pretty tired. I think I am  Done; there were a few that did not match the usual patterns for G or any of his usual copycats, though. Thatcher 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent redirect problems

Wouldn't it work to blacklist that text, making it so the person behind the IP that has been harassing you can't do so?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the blacklist. The vandalism is coming from 4chan.org, where grawp or someone like him posts a url to an old diff and asks people to click it and click "save." None of the IPs are related. I suspect that if you blacklist one phrase he will easily pick another. Thatcher 11:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser autoblock problems

You issued a checkuser block, and there are now autoblock problems. I didn't want to respond to this unblock request without letting you take a look-see at it. See: User talk:SE7. Please respond to this request, as you noted in the block that you were to be directly contacted for any unblock requests. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted at Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix which is noted in the block log, accounts that were created before 15 July 2008 may be granted IP block exemption; although I have just clarified this more explicitly. Thatcher 13:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser review request

FYI, Rlevse has requested that you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Puttyschool. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Hey, Thatcher! You have been accused of failing to assume good faith.[1] I am so disappointed in you. </sarcasm>Jehochman ^Talk 11:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a good one. In regards to that checkuser case should it be archived, now? If there's ever a need for it in the future, which I doubt, it could always be unarchived and/or relisted, so I'd say it's about time at this point. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The clerks usually archive cases after a few days. Thatcher 02:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

4.23.226.254

Hiya. If you get a chance, 4.23.226.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an {{unblock}} on it, but when I checked it it was giving me contimeouts, but it looks like you worked magic back in august. anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked for now per the reason on the talk page but I am suspicious of the person who asked; will need to follow this up later. Thatcher 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/The_One_and_Only_Hollaback_Girl

Care to take a look? S/he's been spamming Jimbo's page for a long time, and it would be nice to get rid of him/her/it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try a short Anon Only/ACB range block. Thatcher 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in the mood to bug checkusers, can you (or someone...) take a look at the Campfire Guy report on WP:AIV? Something like that is a little out of my field of play. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thatcher. Just popping in to make things easier for you; the AIV report on User:Campfire Guy was last shown on this revision. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been handled. Thatcher 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Phenomenon8980

Thanks for the CheckUser and subsequent block of this User:Phenomenon8980. I've reported some of the IP attacks to the common ISP; should we need to report previous activity under the actual username, would I go through you to somehow pass along the checkuser info to them? — TAnthony^Talk 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Best way would be for the ISP to contact Mike Godwin or Cary Bass at the Foundation office. If they agree to provide the info under the privacy policy they can do so directly or pass a request on to me. Thatcher 05:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Moulton sockpuppets

I noticed the block of IP.68.162.241.114 and related blocks of User:IP... style accounts. There is also IP.68.162.241.114. Other accounts created by User:Moulton include Every IP in New England, Block the World, Out the story line and Never Again. There may be more, we're having a hard time keeping up with his activity. The only activity I'm aware of on wp is two minor anon edits. [2] [3] See also s:Wikisource:Administrator's_noticeboard#Moulton and meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#IP.68.162.241.114.40enwikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser permission on wikiversity. There is some discussion on the checkuser mailing list about this issue but for now, you will have to contact a steward if you suspect more accounts. Thatcher 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla

With regards to the request here, do you have any CU data from a check you did on Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) in April? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, anon covered by your rangeblock

I declined a request for unblock at User_talk:71.107.159.190. This IP was covered by your block of 71.107.128.0/17. He can write to unblock-en-l if he wishes. He has no previous record of good edits. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Grawp. Thatcher 06:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thatcher/Archive22's Day!

User:Thatcher/Archive22 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Thatcher/Archive22's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Thatcher/Archive22! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your own block needs your own special attention

See User talk:FRGHart. I was going to grant an IP block exemption, but you specifically requested that you be contacted personally before doing so. Please check this out, and grant the request (or deny it) as you see fit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the account was active before the vandal on that range started, it is probably safe to give him IPBE. Thatcher 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So done. If he goes off the deep end, we can block his account manually anyways. Thanks for getting back on this as soon as you did! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Block exemption

Message for you here. Regards.81.135.161.69 (Talk) 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in being my mentor during my first month as a newbie checkuser. Thanks so much! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously dude

• Don't go off the deep end. Don't let them bring you down. Your work is appreciated, and just because a person or two is intent on getting your goat, don't let them win by driving you away. You are better than them, and you do have widespread support and supreme respect from anyone who cares... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• WTF, dude? I haven't been keeping up with the drama around the project, but I've caught wind of you wanting to throw in the towel. Not cool, Thatcher, not cool. The voice of reason in too many retarded situations, you are... and yes, I just went all Yoda on your ass. But srsly, uh... can you not leave? Feel free to head over to my talk page to vent your frustrations with whatever stupidity on this project is bringing you down. I provide that service to many, free of charge (gratuity appreciated). E-mail me if ya want. *Huggles and such* لennavecia 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just a sanity break of indefinite duration. Possibly short, who knows? Thatcher 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And Everyme had nothing to do with it, although the nonchalance of the community response had a little bit to do with it. I've had the wikibreak tag up for a month or more and my average edit count lately is about 2 per day, I'm just going to try and take the break concept a bit more seriously for a while. Thatcher 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

House mates or sock puppets

Dear Thatcher,
I have seen that you have intervened once in this ocasion, because the particular users were house mates or sock puppets, but at least collaborated together in talks in a way that they mangled a certain user. The same is happening currently at the article Dorje Shugden controversy and the Talk Page of this article. There are the same users Atisha's cook and Truthsayer62 concerned. They are defending a dissembled presentation of the truth in this case. In short: in the Dorje Shugden controversy some newspapers accused Shugden followers of the murder of the priest Lobsang Gyatso and currently the article contains just the Shugden side of the story. The house mates / sock puppets (as I suspect them) don't allow Rédacteur Tibet to place a contribution which shares the allegations against Shugden followers. Can you please block this IP-address again, but now without believing in the good faith of the contributions from this IP-address? Davin (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is on a bit of a wiki-break right now, and may not respond promptly. (I hope you are enjoying your well-deserved time away, Thatcher!) In the interim, I have protected the page from editing for two weeks while all editors involved work out how best to resolve the disputes using the talk page and our content dispute resolution processes. Risker (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You made a good deal for the sock puppets. This is not a good solution. Davin (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming that these are users who know each other but are not the same person (they live in different countries, in fact) I am not interested in mediating a content dispute. The usual routes of dispute resolution are third opinion, request for comment, mediation, and then arbitration. Thatcher 16:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My edit notice

How about this variant? Prior to your unilateral and completely unwarranted meddling I had already toned it down, but then decided to turn up the transgression factor again. It was an aesthetic choice to include that instead of a lenghty explanation of what type of guy someone who doesn't know me can expect when they post at "my" talk page (you do of course notice that I included regular quotmarks this time so as to make sure nobody overlooks them). Anyhow, using or omitting swearwords has nothing to do with civility. That's just my personal conviction. I'm not addressing anyone in particular with "Watch your fucking mouth, retard" and, even more importantly, Nobody is forced to read that edit summary note to begin with. How, some thirty years after Carlin first defined the seven dirty words such silly pseudo-outrage can still have any impact just stuns me.

And, I've said it before, to many others who don't understand what it's all about: I'm easily ten millions times more actually civil that those high-handed WP:CIV priests in that I take painstaking care to be straightforward, intellectually honest at all times. I'm aware that intellectual dishonesty and not using cursewords counts for civility in this primitive discourse space. I know about that, but I don't think I have to like it. Especially not when I have a legitimate point with my views of civility vs. civility. Also, it's fair game to say that Metros was just desperately looking for something to throw at me when he said his feelings were hurt over those naughty words.

Finally, I'm honestly upset that you edited my page instead of contacting "me" on "my" (notice?) talk page and just ask me to change it. That sort of unilateral action generally doesn't go over well with me. So I have to deduce that you didn't know that, or that you didn't care and thus weren't interested in a mutually agreeable solution but just wanted to beat me over the head. Everyme 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but where did "Metros" (what's your point in consistently using my old name, by the way?) say that his "feelings were hurt over those naughty words?" All I said was that I was shocked that someone would think it was appropriate to post those as a notice to other users who are trying to edit the page. either way (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, people who are "shocked" by words are usually indifferent to truly shocking things. Compare Bill Hicks and other great people. Better don't, you would be shocked by the language and might miss the humour and humanism entirely. Wasn't there a professor who infamously started his lectures with a regular statement that he hates "women, blacks and gays", just to quickly get rid of politically correct bigots? Everyme 03:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship, Probation and Editing restrictions

I've just posted this section to WT:MENTOR, and I pointed out there that Wikipedia:Probation got blanked in September 2007 (by you), though it later got redirected to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Would you be able to clear up the history behind that and do you know what the current practice is with listing probations? Should they be listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or at Arbitration case pages, or both? Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

again and again Pax

Somebody is again active on user:147.91.1.45. Can you please check this IP and User:147.91.1.41and block newly created puppets ? (if we are having old sorts of puppets)--Rjecina (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give fast look to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Don Luca Brazzi--Rjecina (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review your autoblock

See User talk:Gnuoynomis. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review your Checkuser report at WP:ANI

There are some editors who are claiming that simply editing from the same work address as BryanfromPalantine (which has over 17,000 workers, all of whom use the Internet) is proof positive that I am him. Also, please take a look at the editing histories of User:Curious bystander and User:Marx0728. These don't appear to be the same person to me. They appear to be two different people who use the same IP address. Using inductive reasoning on your comment, apparently they're here in Chicago. It shouldn't surprise anyone that when they finally crossed paths, it was on an article that's related to Chicago. Please clarify at WP:ANI. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher: Sorry you're being dragged into this abusive, mutliply-blocked account's drama. At any rate, if one takes a cursory look at the edit histories, it will appear one is interested in LGBT issues, and the other sort of edits obscure articles at random. However, all of their edits when not on obama-related articles consist of fixing typos, moving commas, slightly changing syntax, etc... That is, the only edits of effort or substance are made in the one area of content dispute. At any rate, to say that Acorn is a chicago-related article is laughable. It's a national org, based out of new orleans, that has been connected to obama by people like Wacker. Go well and thanks for your time.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• In some cases, such as 300wackerdrive, it is easy to tell that an IP is shared at a workplace. That is why I was careful to say, "300wackerdrive edits exclusively from a workplace previously associated with BryanfromPalatine" rather than say that 300wackerdrive was technically confirmed. Certainly there are not 17,000 Wikipedia editors on that IP, maybe 3 or 4, of whom only 300wd edits heavily from work, with the others only rarely. (In fact, I was somewhat surprised to see 300wd claim that certain logged out edits were in fact made by his supervisor; I would expect someone's supervisor to take a rather more dim view of editing Wikipedia on work time.) In the case of Curious bystander and Marx, there is really nothing in the checkuser results to confirm or refute that it is a shared IP. I am familiar with many sockpuppeteers who segregate their contributions to make it appear as if they are different people who share one common interest among many different interests, it is a pretty common tactic among moderately advanced sockpuppet users, as is the tactic of using home and work to appear to be two different people. It is quite typical to find editors who edit only from home (K4T); it is much rarer to find legitimate editors who edit only from work (300wd), and even more rare to find editors who edit only from a mobile phone (WB74). (As if someone with a Smartphone and a Wikipedia obsession would not have internet access at home or work.) The findings are consistent with 300wd, K4T and WB74 being the same person, taking steps to avoid technical discovery, and with Curious and Marx being a different person who knows 300wd and is coordinating their editing efforts with him. I can not say this with 100% technical certainty, but see MastCell's excellent discussion about the relative value of checkuser in the earlier discussion of the block of User:IwRnHaA, further up ANI. Thatcher 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't see MastCell's discussion. It must have been archived already. Would your findings also be consistent with five different people using five separate accounts? 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• In an infinite universe, anything is possible. Thatcher 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

for your help. I hope its not inappropriate to thank you on your page for your thoughtful advice to a novice of wiki. Aruhnka (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocking Problem

I seem to have a problem with my IP address also I am not exactly sure if I am putting this in the wrong place. I do have a user account and it works but when I am not logged on I am blocked from posting. I have gone through the help pages and descriptions of reasons why I am blocked and I am unable to find the reason why. I am at home and no one else uses this computer. You are the Admin who blocked my IP so I thought I would ask you what might be the cause. Another tidbit of information is that this has happened to me once before. Sorry if i am putting this in the wrong place, if I am could you direct me to where i should put this? Bobanole (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As it states in the block message, there is a particular user in your area who has been banned for very good reason, but who continues to try and edit using public wi-fi spots. Some IPs in your area are blocked for anonymous editing but not logged-in editing, and some are blocked for all editing, due to this individual. I have temporarily given you an IP block exemption to allow you to edit from any location, even if the IP is blocked. Thatcher 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Man, those were some good questions. I'm tempted to run for ArbCom just to take a crack at answering them! But actually, numbers 3 and 4 pegged the reasons why I've thought better of the whole thing. Curious to see what people have to say, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole attack page 2008 edition

Hi Thatcher,

Since Gene Poole is a perennial behavior problem, another round of high maintenance is needed.

Gene's 2007 on-wiki attack page was deleted, followed by his migration of it to a 2007 external attack page discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Gene Poole and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jun#Storm in a teacup.

Gene is back with the 2008 edition of his attack page. Prior to the 2007 suppression of it, NewYorkBrad said that he would appreciate other views. You've worked the Gene Poole cases before, so I request that you re-suppress the 2008 edition on wiki, and again externally if it comes to that. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Illicit check using

Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept the premise that use of checkuser was "illicit." Catherine de Burgh may have been an "open secret" among your circle, but I was not aware, nor were the people I contacted privately. In fact, I asked if this was an open secret and noted that I was reluctant to take action. I also attempted to contact you privately and you flipped me off. Thatcher 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you have asked if it were an open secret if no one suspected or knew it was open secret, and if you did not know it was open secret why be reluctant to take action - you don't seem to be making much sense Thatcher. You now say you checkueserd me months ago and knew, Gerard checkusered 2 years and knew, it appears not to be tmaking much sense. The truth, appears to me, to be that you just wanted to see what you coud find out. So we now have 5 checkusers who all knew months, if not years ago. Including you who knew in June [4] that I had a sock, and yet you somehow managed to forget about it. Not looking good really - is it? Giano (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, when I checked Catherine de Burgh in June I did not find you behind the account. There are a number of potential reasons for this, including but not limited to dynamic IP addressing and/or failure on my part to pursue the matter deeply enough. In my email to Jimbo, David and Newyorkbrad I said I wanted to "tread gently" in this matter, because you were involved and because a comparison of the edits of your accounts found very little article overlap. In point of fact only two checkusers have ever checked User:Giano II (including myself) and only those two plus one more have ever checked User:Catherine de Burgh. For more specific information you will have to contact the ombudsman commission. As to why David G. allowed Catherine to pass unremarked two years ago but blocked the account now, he can speak for himself. I find it amazing but not surprising that while you and your circle have been vehement opponents of a particular admin clique on IRC, I am now faulted for not recognizing the inside games and jokes perpetrated by your clique. Thatcher 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. After reviewing the entire checkuser log for the June check, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on User:Grawp today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) Thatcher 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never released or used private information about anyone, no matter who they are. Lady Catherine has never been attacked to such a degree that she reqiested checkuser. I have never edited lady Catherine on any IP other than my general one. That anyone could not see she was a spoof is amazing, and I would realy question their worldliness. Giano edits from IPs all over the place, but mainly one in London, the same one that Lady C has always and unfailingly used. It is inconceivable that a checkuser on her would not lead to me. Inconceivable! It is alos inconceivable that a checkuser would not know edits were likely to be stale, if so why run the checkuser? Now who are the other chckusers? Giano (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No Giano, sorry, I think you are missing one point here: checkuser IP info is only stored for a couple of weeks or something, and when Thatcher checked her in June, Catherine had been inactive for a while, so it's entirely natural the records didn't lead to you at the time. Thatcher is right about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, I do realise that, which is why I repeat (as above)"It is aloso inconceivable that a checkuser would not know edits were likely to be stale, if so why run the checkuser?" Giano (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many times checkusers run checks of accounts whose edits are stale. For one thing, it is simply easier (lazier) to click the "check" button and let the system tell me whether there are any results, rather than first checking contribution history, especially when checking a lot of accounts. For another, the checkuser tables include deleted edits and the sending of emails through the special:email function, neither of which shows up in a quick check of contribs (although deleted edits would show if I looked at both the live and deleted contrib pages). As far as the oversighted edits, I'll cover that in email with Giano. Thatcher 11:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RCU clarification

In the CdeB case, under which of the acceptable criteria listed on that page are you justifying your use of Checkuser? I can see that the unacceptable reason Vote fraud, ongoing vote might disallow the use of Checkuser, but apart from the wishy-washy catch-all of G, I can't see any of the other reasons allowing its use. It would be handy if somebody with Checkuser could edit that page to reflect the actual use of the tool, so as not to mislead. I have removed the bolded statement in the header, as it does not reflect reality - I have seen at least two instances of you using Checkuser as a first resort, and the statements from the Arbs in the David Gerard request are overwhelming supporting the use of Checkuser in this manner. Yomangani^talk 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Use of checkuser is covered in the checkuser policy at Wikipedia:CheckUser, specifically, "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project". The page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser was created as a centralized place for editors to request checkuser investigation, and the instructions there are written to try and help editors understand what kinds of checks are usually run and what kind are usually declined. Only a fraction of checkuser investigations are requested through the RFCU page. Checkusers may run checks based on private requests (email, talk page or other contact methods) or at their own initiative if they see something funny going on. For example, I have run of number of checks related to discussions on the admin noticeboards, where I thought there was an issue that would benefit from a checkuser investigation. I provided the following statistics to Wikipedia Review a few months ago, I meant to post them here but never did. Here they are if you are interested.
  

Hope this answers your question. Thatcher 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I can't say it provides a particularly satisfactory answer. I get the general idea that the criteria listed on WP:RCU would appear regarded by the Checkusers as little more than advisory, and since the acceptable reason "G" provides a get-out clause anyway, there is little point in having them listed as Acceptable and Unacceptable other than giving a false impression of the stringency applied to requests for CU. As to The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project, vague as it is, I wonder which part of that you believe justifies the check on Lady C? On a related note, are there any rules or guidelines governing the use of checkuser, or are you free to checkuser as often and as randomly as you like? Yomangani^talk 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady C was playing games with the Arbcom election. That falls under "limiting disruption". Thatcher 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a broad definition of disruption. Please don't think I'm attacking you; I picked on you because of past experience and the current case, but I just want to see how somebody operates in the role of checkuser so the appropriate pages can be edited to reflect reality rather than misleading non-Checkusers as to the likelihood of them being checkusered and opening those with CU up to claims of abuse. Yomangani^talk 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for a check user, they all knew who it was. They abused their powers to find out who I was - and for what purpose? Giano (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the checkuser who ran the original check, and Thatcher, apparently did not know who it was. I always thought it was pretty obvious, but if these two people say they did not know, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that the abusing powers argument doesn't hold much water (other than perhaps on the grounds of personal ethics). I too thought—and hoped—that the requirements for use of Checkuser were more demanding, but it appears that once granted it can be used with impunity, so you can't blame Thatcher for exercising this ability within that framework (or lack of framework). The information on the various policy pages was misleading at best; I've started work on rewording them to make the lack of protection for the average user clearer, though what we really need is some regulation and accountability for the use of the tool. Yomangani^talk 16:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also completed this essay, which discusses various privacy-related issues as they pertain to Wikipedia. I won't say that it reflects best practice, simply that it reflects current practice and perceptions. It would no doubt benefit from your gentle editing touch, Yomangan. Risker (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatal!ty

He is requesting unblock, professing remorse. Since you were the blocking admin and this guy was a major sockpuppeteer, how do you feel? Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• His IP is clean, so either he has been behaving himself or he got better at hiding it. I would not object to a second chance. Thatcher 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano/CDB checkuser

I think you misunderstood my question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at my clarification. Specifically, I think you interpreted my question as being much more hostile than I'd intended it to be. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I answered the question ("Right" -- as, it was not David G. who asked me for an opinion on Catherine de Burgh) and then added an additional comment; while I did not interpret your question as hostile, I do interpret many of the other statements as hostile. Thatcher 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'd interpreted the "right" as being sarcastic. For whatever it's worth, provided that the other checkuser was also unaware of CDB's identity (which I find quite plausible, provided it wasn't David Gerard) I find your explanation entirely satisfactory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on WP:RfAr, I can confirm that Thatcher sent an e-mail to me, which if I'd been online and seen it would have nipped this situation in the bud; unfortunately I took an uncharacteristic night off (I was at a location where I could not check my blackberry for several hours) and missed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately FloNight seems to think my check "exposed weaknesses" in how IP checks are handled. It is hard not to see that as criticism of myself. Thatcher 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I went over the top at you this afternoon, I completely lost my temper. I feel very angry that my privacy has been invaded and allowed it cloud my judgement where you are concerned. I hit you hard because you were there and Gerard was not. That was wrong of me, I should not have done that. Sorry! Eating humble pie by the dish load. Giano (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I did try to handle the matter discreetly and I certainly regret the way things turned out. Thatcher 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Msg

You have a msg. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue RFCU

I took on me to delete the RFCU and block the user. I don't think keeping this rant available would serve any good purpose. Don't hesitate to revert me if I am wrong :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Thatcher 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Osxdude Checkuser

So there would be no way to tell between the edits which were actually his and which came from the user who stole the password? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 01:22

Removal of proposed motions

Re [5]. I know my adding of the motions was unusual. But where do you get the idea that only arbitrators may add stuff there? I can see why this would apply to the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section. But the proposed motion section is a separate section on the page, at the same logical level as the Arbiter's discussion section and not subordinate to it. I could not find any rule or suggestion supporting your view. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The "motions" section at the bottom of the thread is indeed for use only by the arbitrators. However, you can create your own section (above the "clerk" and "arbitrator" sections) and make any comments or suggest any motions you wish to (without bothering with the support and oppose headings) and the arbitrators will see and consider them. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad! You may notice that I have done just that quite a while ago. You may (or may not, if you are not very perceptive) have noticed that I'm not very good at taking things on authority alone. How do you support your claim (beyond the fact that I respect your opinion as one of our best and most sane arbitrators)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a proposed motion section of the page that is made specifically for arbitrators to vote on official motions written by arbitrators. As a practical matter, it would not be possible for arbitrators to vote on every motion thought of my a member of the Community. It is difficult enough to vote on all the ones suggested by arb. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, some things are what they are. Arbitration cases have workshops for public suggestions of remedies, the motions section of RFAR does not. Granted, this request has raised more comment and more side issues than most, but that's the way things work. Thatcher 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"some things are what they are" is not an argument, but, at best, resignation. Your position would have more force if the written rules would be similarly enforced to the unwritten ones. FT2's "500 words or less" statement is now at 4500 words. Slims reply is at 1200. This is not a normal motion, and I continue to fail to see why normal rules should apply only to parts of the community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching Arbcom

Good comment today. Watching Arbcom is like watching a tragedy unfold. I get the feeling that we are in the chorus. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What the man said. You really got to the root of the matter with your comment. Paint me impressed. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser query

Hey there. I'm wondering if you could advise me on how best to set up a CU request in which I'm looking to determine whether a rangeblock or two targeting a repeat vandal and harasser will be detrimental or not. The background is here, and a community ban request that should be able to close as successful is here - hopefully that provides enough emphasis to make a checkuser appropriate. I'm just not sure how to define the official request, and thought you might be able to point me in the right direction when you get a moment. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is an anon-only block of 3 /16 ranges. That doesn't need checkuser since it won't affect any registered users. If the individual creates an account, presumably it will be easy to recognize and deal with. Thatcher 12:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking of Pax?

Hi,

I see here that Pax is unblocked. According to him, his account was stolen. Again. Luckily, this time he was not proclaimed dead. That's a step forward ;). LOL.

I'm an CU on croatian wikipedia. One of the Pax's sockpuppets is user:NICrneGore. This puppet also has croatian account: hr:user:NI, and he was blocked for sockpuppetry nad inflamatory behaviour.

Pax would like other people to believe that someone stolen his account, but the problem with that idea is that hr:user:NI account is 2 years old and shows consistent behavior that is the same as all those Pax's sockpuppets, here and in croatian wikipedia. Also, note that some of Pax's sockpuppets here are also more that 2 years old.

So, person who controls all this socks is active for 2 years. This same person obviously used the same IP as Pax for years. If someone from Pax's vicinity stole his account recently, that would be acceptible to believe.

But, Pax want us to believe that there is a person, who spends great amount of time on wikipedia, and uses the same IP as Pax. According to this scenario, Pax does not know who this person is. How propable is to have two very active wikipedians, unaware of common hobby, using the same IP for 2 years???

Or, there is one other possibility - Pax lies.

What do you think?

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I can't believe it.
Privesla te ka malo dite. You've been doublecrossed (by Pax).
Incredible, knowing his history of "death" and "resurrection".
I cannot believe that Wikipedian users (and admins) are so naive. Some users are so easy to pull by the nose.
Now, Thatcher, what do you want us to believe that was in Pax's case?
"Various persons" from the same University, with common hobby (Wikipedia; in English, that narrows the group), same area of interest being edited (!!!). And "they don't know for each other"? Thatcher, do you know how small number of such persons is?
You (nor other admins) gave no time to others to give comments.
13:16, 30 November 2008: you gave the proposal of unblocking on WP:ANI.
16:47, 1 December 2008: you alread unblocked him.
In less than 24 hours you've unblocked infinitely blocked user??
For such punishment, you've shortened the discussion in less than 24 hours?
What was the argumentation for such daring action of unblocking? "Per emailed appeal"??? Go on, shall we unblock every vandal and troll who posts an e-mail? There's a saying in Croatian: "Obećanje ludom radovanje". In this case, that'd be: "A promise is a joy of trolls and vandals.". Every troll'd say "I won't do it (anymore)." "It wasn't me, it was somebody else."
If you believe to those naive users that call him level-headed: do you remember the case of article "Serb lands" [6]? Please, see the talkpage. Kubura (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• He was indefinitely blocked as a result of my checkuser finding at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss. I reconsidered the findings, and believe there is room for doubt. As I stated, the majority of harassing edits come from a particular residential ISP while PaxE edits from a different residential ISP. It is not impossible for one person to have two different internet services in their home but it raises doubts. Future harassing edits will not be tolerated, of course, and if new evidence ties them to PaxE he can be blocked again. Thatcher 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stewards

Please remove my admin and checkuser access. Thatcher 02:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pax unblocked, part 2

Hi,

I see that you resigned, but only after comitting what many see as big mistake. Acording to your CU findings, you decided to unblock Pax, who was block based on the opinion of little bit more people that you alone. Also, you wrote that his sock used only university's IP address. Pax started to complain only after 3 months, so we can do CU check again - how convinient! But, since I'm CU on coratian wikipedia, and I have some saved data from this August, I can tell you that this sock used both university and home IPs, so Pax is obviously befooled you.

But, now you are gone, who will take responsibility and correct this error? You can't just make a mess and dissapear! --Ante Perkovic (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes. My response to your earlier post is archived. Since he was blocked largely on my word as a checkuser, why not unblock him if I think I might have made a mistake. And there are checkusers on highly partisan nationalistic wikis? Wonderful. Thatcher 07:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? Nationalistic? Are you suggesting that I lied about my logged results? But, what did you based your unblocking of Pax on? On your personal opinion or on opinion of small number of highly partisan nationalistic suporters? Either is nonsense.

Someone has stolen Pax's identity, and he waited for 3 months (doing nothing, not caring a bit about his very important hobby!) to claim innocence, and he claimed that it can be proved by looking in CU data, the same data that expired after 3 months. How convenient! Aren't you being a little naive? Just a little? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you come back soon!

I thank you for the work you've done during your time on Wikipedia. I hope you will decide to come back sometime in the near future. Best of luck :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Returning the favor and the thought

Enjoy a well-earned break: you deserve it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You gave me some flowers a year ago that meant a lot to me, so I'll return the favor with a hopefully less feminine version. Please enjoy whatever time off you take, and I hope we'll see you back refreshed and renewed. Turning off the darn box for a couple of weeks always works wonders, and there are good people and articles worth coming back for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't come back...

...don't come back for any other reason than you really really want to. The world out there is much bigger (and I have to say, fulfilling) than this website. Good luck, have fun. Viridae^Talk 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good break,

You deserved it, Thatcher.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement

I am taking a holiday from all responsibility on Wikipedia. You won't see me running naked through the dandelions (thank God) but as close as I can come.

Since becoming checkuser I have been involved with more disputes, messes, and just plain bizarre situations than I care to remember. Peter Damian is just the latest. I almost resigned over the SlimVirgin-Lar business, but tried a wikibreak instead. Hah.

I have serious concerns with the lack of oversight of the Oversight and Checkuser functions. I may say more about this later.

I may come back at any time...tomorrow after a good night's sleep, or next week after I finish a manuscript, or after Christmas. I don't intend to retire, and I don't intend (at this time) to permanently resign my sysop and checkuser. But I make no specific commitments.

Note regarding non-public data

During my term as checkuser I have occasionally saved certain information for future reference. I have also occasionally saved IRC transcripts, and I have certainly received emails containing non-public information in my role as checkuser. I affirm and confirm that I have destroyed all such information in my possession.

To any IRC chanop

Please remove my access to #wikimedia-checkuser, #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks, #wikipedia-en-checkuser and #wikipedia-en-admins. My cloak is wikipedia/Thatcher131.

Oh dear; I had no idea this was in the offing. You have always held my esteem and respect, regardless of one evening's events. Best wishes for a good wikibreak. Looking forward to your return. Durova^Charge! 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just one evening. For a long time I've felt like Agent D at the beginning of Men in Black. I never look at the stars anymore, you know, just to look at them. Thatcher 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whew; if only I'd known. Rest up. Come back tanned and ready. Warmest regards. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of the -en-admins access. Truly sorry to see you go. Hope you return soon refreshed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This saddens me deeply. You seemed to be a voice of reason in the wilderness. I hope that you will return soon and continue to use the various tools the community has entrusted you with with the same degree of responsibility and good thinking that you have always used. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, you know the obvious advice in this situation: give up the tools or start a new account and rediscover the joys of article writing. Anyway, as far as your concerns about oversight, I hope you'll speak your mind openly, honestly, and frankly so that they can help address some of the issues involved with this project's administration. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your hard work and contributions have been noticed and appreciated, even if no one mentioned it to you. Cla68 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua. You seemed to be voice of reason in the wilderness. Well stated. This is an unfortunate loss for the project, but I hope you find yourself well. I stated once that getting adminship was like getting the key to the cellar where all the dark secrets are kept. It killed my passion for the project for a few months, along with some other stuff. Anyway, I'm rambling... hopefully we'll see your return, sooner than later, and perhaps you can find some enjoyment from the article space, avoiding the drama and ugliness too often found in the project space. Best wishes and kindest regards, لennavecia 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sad you've decided to give up your tools. You were in my mind one of the most fair and professional admins on the project. You will be missed. 4I7.4I7 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR clarification

After Peter Damian's block for editing mainspace - outside of your agreement, I've put a request in to ArbCom to give him license to improve the encyclopedia in addition to your restrictions here. This should be sufficiently small beer for you to enjoy your break in peace. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hurray. Thatcher 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry :-( Joopercoopers (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Šāhzādé

Hi, I'm writing to you because you had banned User:Tajik for life and recently he was released by someone. Tajik is causing wide scale disruption on Wikipedia, spreading hate, racism, propagandas, POVs, etc, and he needs to be stopped once and for all. These 8 edits by IP 84.59.205.77 will prove that user:Tajik is behind all these sockpuppets. In this edit, he writes like User:Šāhzādé then, hourse later, in this edit he writes like User:Šāhzādé and User:Tajik combined. He writes "Le[t´s] see here"...in the beginning and then changes the style to "But despite Zalmay Khalilza[d’s]"... "Afghanista[n’s]"...[7] To top it off, user:Tajik did this edit and wrote in the edit summary "info + sources added according to talk page", which is letting us know that he was the one who wrote in the end of the talk page of Zalmay Khalilzad. Finally, Tajik is known for writing ā this way, see his latest signatures and his other sockpuppet (User:Al-Fanā). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roge from What's Happening (talk • contribs) 07:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would like nothing more that to assist you in your ethnic battles, but sadly I have given up my positions as administrator and checkuser. Thatcher 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks anyway. I'm just reporting user:Tajik because he is spreading wide scale racism [8], faul language, hate, etc., in Wikipedia and nobody is doing anything to stop him. If you want, you may leave a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roge from What's Happening (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You decided to check on me instead of commenting on tajik. hmmmm, that would mean.... you must have a reason to protect him and his dirty evil work. This guy is going around giving totally false ethnicity to people by using totally false citations or references. For example: Ahmad Zahir is ethnic Pashtun but user:Tajik is removing this and putting him as ethnic Tajik. Here is a link to The New York Times special article about Ahmad Zahir, where it clearly states that he was an ethnic Pashtun. "An ethnic Pashtun who sang mostly in Dari, he won fans in all ethnic groups." The New York Times got the ethnic information from Zahira Zahir (Ahmad Zahir's sister) and other family members that live in USA. user:Tajik from Germany does not care about all this, he wants Ahmad Zahir to be known as an ethnic Tajik to everyone, lol. Only inferior people are doing things like that and Tajiks in Afghanistan are considered inferior compare to Pashtuns. You are supporting inferior people and that obviously makes you as one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roge from What's Happening (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Roge: (1) Take this somewhere other than Thatcher's page, per his wishes expressed pervasively. (2) Never refer to any ethnic group as "inferior people" again or I will permanently block you from editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Roge, I think you are NisarKand. If not, I apologize. If so, someone will block you shortly. Blaming me for protecting people of whatever ethnicity you are not is an old trope that has been tried by many people and never works. Thatcher 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Thatcher, I couldn't remember the name, but I certainly recognised the editing behaviour. One doesn't even need a CU to make this block. Risker (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Predictable sentiments

Here this! In recognition of outstanding service under fire, the floggings will cease and Thatcher's grog ration will be doubled. HMS Arbcom (listing)

I think that after two years you know how much I value your work on this site. I won't say anything here other than that there have been many times recently when I have understood exactly how you felt and feel right now, but that I nonetheless hope to work with you again if and when you are ready. Until then, all the best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your wikibreaks are rubbish! ;-) Joopercoopers (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine or Thatcher's? Don't answer that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not taking a break from everything wikipediaish, just responsibility. Thatcher 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite right - I see ArbCom have doubled your grog ration in appreciation. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this

I have always held you in the highest of regard, I hope you know this. Wish there was a way to make the administration of this project work better. You've done a lot of good work. I wish you all the best. Paul August ☎ 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back...

...any time, as far as I'm concerned. Take a good long break; perhaps a lifetime one if you see fit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine account

Hi Thatcher. Do you have any further details concerning the account of user:Bluemarine? You were the one who left a note at his talk page stating that it was compromised. If you have any other or updates please leave a note here. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your feedback. During the ten months since then Bluemarine hasn't had any problems with control of his account at Commons. Would you prefer resumption of editing privileges under his regular account, or under an alternate username such as Bluemarine II? Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no reason to create Bluemarine II if he has the password to Bluemarine, and if someone is sure he is the same person he used to be. I assume the person posting to Matt Sanchez' blog is the real Matt Sanchez, otherwise the real Matt Sanchez would have made a big stink about it. You might contact him through the email address he uses on his blog and ask him to confirm the email address you have been using lately. Or you might be able to verify him by voice. It would not be good to have the real Matt Sanchez complain to the media that Wikipedia gave away his account to an imposter. But if you are sure, then I see no reason for a new account. Thatcher 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher, and Durova, please notify us on RfAr when you've confirmed Bluemarine's identity.--Tznkai (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I can provide that assurance without further ado. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration statement(s) regarding Peter Damian

I have removed your statement(s) in the current request for clarification regarding Peter Damian because they greatly exceeded the permitted length for such statements (~500 words). Please feel free to resubmit a statement of more reasonable length. Thank you. Kirill ^(prof) 05:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:68.248.73.114

The above IP is obviously adding information that is immediately deleted from the database, why not block it for a few years?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess this is a single individual with a dynamic IP address. If he can reset his address by unplugging his dsl or cable modem or forcing a DHCP reset, there is no point to a long term block. 24 hours is probably more than sufficient, by that time he will have moved on to another address. I gather there are some "senior" people working on this (other checkusers, arbcom, etc.) Thatcher 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Thatcher/Ev1 : why also for registered accounts ?

I'm pasting here our email exchange now that I can edit.

Hi,

Would it be possible to only block anonymous users ? The RedBurn

Editing from open proxies is generally not permitted, because they can be abused, and anon-only blocks do very little to prevent the abuse. For example, a vandal or sockpuppet user could go to a library, coffee shop, or other location and create many new accounts, and then use them from the proxies. In the case of editors with a good history and a reason to use a blocked proxy, the editor may be granted an IP block exemption. Thatcher

Why not just use a semi-protection for proxy bans ? The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Semi-protection applies to individual pages, not editors. In order to prevent vandals and sockpuppet users from abusing open proxies, open proxies are blocked, see WP:OP. Hosting companies that host web servers for other companies, especially hosting companies with a proven track record of not giving a damn about their customers' security, can act like open proxies, so hosting company ranges are often blocked, If you have a legitimate reason for posting from a hosting company range (for example, you lease a web server and your security is adequate and you are the only person who can post from it) then you can either ask for the specific IP to be unblocked (which will override the range block) or ask for IPBE. Thatcher 11:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I did not realise my opposition affected you so much; I assumed you'd simply brush it aside, since on the face of it, you are pretty tolerable when it comes to things like that, at least in my experience. So, I apologise for making you feel that way. I do have to say though that I appreciate the hard work you did as a checkuser, and I have no issues with your work as one. I am glad I was proven wrong with your suitability. Thanks, Majorly ^talk 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am who I am, some people make assumptions about my attitudes and feelings, they may be right or wrong and it is often a source of amusement (you wouldn't believe who called me a "prig" recently, and why) but sometimes a source of pain as well. I always tried to do a good job, whatever anyone else thought. And I noted your opposition to a potential Arbcom run that you posted on Wikipedia Review and agree with it, I don't write enough articles and I don't interact enough with ordinary content people. Thatcher 01:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Humorless?

At least you didn't recycle my comments into an article about tree frogs. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tree frogs are way cute..! Thatcher, grr. Don't you think so? Bishonen | talk 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Oh... I see you'd already replied. Two minds! :-) Bishonen | talk 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Never say good bye, just until the next time

Take a good break - you deserve it.

You weren't the Wikipedian that Wikipedia deserves - just the one we need. I hope you come back for our sake, and hope if you do you do so happily for yours.--Tznkai (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi I hope you find your break pleasant, however don't feel you've done anything wrong with the last couple of cases or something, because IMHO you haven't. And I agree with you 100% about checkuser etc- who guards the guardians on wiki? Anyway, have an ok time if you feel you have too go for a bit. Sticky Parkin 03:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, come back soon buddy, you are too valuable to lose. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Enigma ^message 06:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This sucks. You are one of the few who are actually honest and sane, while still willing to take on hard cases. Take care. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, you were my gold standard, the kind of Wikipedia admin that I looked to as a rolemodel, in many things. I am very sorry to hear this news, and hope you will come back soon. --Elonka 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I still need my CU mentor. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No you don't, grasshopper. Thatcher 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a real shame. Good luck with future endeavours. I'm not the soppy type, but take care and best wishes. Caulde 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

idiot question

[9] I think I'm just not getting it, sorry--I am feeling a bit dumb trying to wrap my head around how my idea would be bad from a security/exposure standpoint. :( rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two kinds of checks.
• "Thatcher got IPs for rootology." You are privately notified and ask me. Maybe I checked you specifically and have a good reason (or no reason). But maybe I was checking someone else (branch), and your name appeared on a shared IP, so I checked you to confirm or clear you. Let's say you both edit from IBM during the day; if I can show that rootology edits from Verizon in the evening and branch edits from Comcast, then I know you are not the same person. So I give you a vague answer, but later you see that I posted an answer to RFCU/branch. You could deduce that you and branch must share an IP, and that since you only edit from home and work, therefore branch must also work at IBM.
• The other check is "Thatcher got editors for 127.0.0.1." Now, if this check is not reported, then none of the editors on that IP get a notification, making the notification system partial and misleading at best. (Might be one editor, might be hundreds, depending on the IP address.) If all the editors are notified, then I might get dozens of queries, "what the hell did I do wrong?" Take for example the Avril Lavigne troll, who edits from an IP address shared by several schools. If I check the IP, and all the editors from all those schools are notified, I have to answer dozens of questions. Even if I give vague answers, those users could look at my block log and guess that the Avril troll goes to school with them. And if the Avril troll makes new accounts and vandalizes for 3 days in a row, then I check those IPs to find sleepers, then dozens of editors get CU notifications every day. Or take David York, who edits from a particular government office (when he is not using proxies). What happens if someone else in that office gets a CU notice and decides to file a formal legal request to the Foundation to get to the bottom of it. I don't really want someone to lose their job for being a prat on wikipedia. Thatcher 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere ;-)

Don't worry, I promise not to use my feminine wiles on you; even if I had tried, it seems they would have gone unnoticed![10] ;-) Nice tie, by the way... Risker (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I deleted, restored and semi-protected your talk page. A vandal was inserting a phone number again. And it appears that they have already been oversighted. Fast work there. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Between that vandal and 4chan, long term semi is probably a good idea. Thatcher 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd semi my own but then I'd miss the fun stuff like this and this. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajik

You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to redirect page

Hi there - I wonder if you can help me again. I am trying to redirect NLP and science to the section of the main article which it effectively duplicates, as follows:

#REDIRECT [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#The_Scientific_Verdict]]

But there is a message saying it is on some global blacklist or something. An administrator needs to do this. I don't think what I am doing should be contentious, given the reduplication. If that's a problem, let me know. Best Peter Damian (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The form should be #REDIRECT [[Neuro-linguistic_programming#The_Scientific_Verdict]]. Does that work for you. If not it could be a fault in the global blacklist. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You should not need the http business, just the article name, as MBisanz says. Probably the blacklist is set to block all redirects with http in them to keep people from being redirected off-site. By the way, you aren't citing yourself, are you? If those references I saw are you, you should file an article request for comment or request for third opinion to have someone else check them over. Citing yourself is potentially a conflict of interest, although it can be permissible. If the name is a coincidence, then forget I mentioned it. Thatcher 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) My mistake. I copied the URL. (2) Different Buckner Peter Damian (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) Resolved, excellent (2) coincidence or synchronicity? Thatcher 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful explanation on the Review Board page

I would have left this message there but it is now so 'busy' I didn't dare. I like this idea, I hope you stick around to see it through - I will try to help where I can. When you said 'you were on your way out' I assume you didn't mean Wikipedia? Peter Damian (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Out for the evening with my wife waiting impatiently for me to log off :) . I am still reevaluating my overall commitment to the project. Thatcher 16:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; it has been a pleasure to work with you on various projects, and I hope that we can bring the current one to a satisfactory conclusion.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

On User:219.127.119.4

Hello! I found you blocked User:219.127.119.4 as an open proxy or a zombie computer on 2008-05-22T02:36:09. But this IP address (219.127.119.0 - 219.127.119.127) is asigned to Nara Sangyo University. You can check it in some whois site. (for example here]) There may be another reason to block the address. I won't opposite it. But your reason is not correct. So please fix it. Thank you.Penpen (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that it is assigned to a university does not necessarily mean it is not also an open proxy. It could be deliberately set up as an open proxy, or accidentally misconfigured, or infected with a virus of some kind. If it is a closed proxy available only to users of the University then it can be unblocked. However I have given up my administrator status, you will have to ask someone else for help. Try posting the {{unblock}} message. Thatcher 14:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

wenn Judenblut vom Messer spritzt

 I am teaching a course next year on Holocaust. I would like to get the words and music to "wenn Judenblut" etc. 
 The referencees I have seen in Wikipedia under "wenn Judenblut"  give the two lines, nothing more, and no music. 
 I see that it is NOT part of the Horst Wessel Lied as that Lied is given in Wikipedia. 

ANy suggestions? Dr. Allen Podet, Buffalo State College, apodet@yahoo.com

Unfortunate smearing of an innocent

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WIKI-GUY-16 discovered abusive socking, but exonerated WIKI-GUY-16. Unfortunately, the clerk tagged about 16 socks as being socks of WIKI-GUY-16. That's the kind of mistake that can cause WIKI-GUY-16 trouble in the future, so I'd like to see it corrected. I'll do the typing if you can give me some advice about what to do. Should I just choose a sock at random and move all the categories and tags to that name?—Kww(talk) 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems reasonable to change the tagging. Something like "This user has abused multiple accounts and is banned, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WIKI-GUY-16." Thatcher 15:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Happy New Year!

Dear Thatcher,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Thatcher, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doublechecking all those CUs for me Thatcher. All the best! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

[11] in case you have any comments about it. Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So do it.

So do it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do occasionally have other responsibilities drawing on my time. Thatcher 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Between User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and your recent talk page posts to User:FT2's talk page, it's clear you are one of the finest users we have. Please keep at it. The work you've been doing is very, very appreciated by the community and hopefully the (not-so-gentle) prodding will soon resolve some of the past issues that have been left unresolved for so long. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thatcher, as Avruch said, I have stood down, and the evidence has been thrashed over to death. I have archived it fully, not to hide it, but because it's evidently going nowhere else as of today.

There is one last matter. You posted a log snip which you implied showed discussion of the oversight log. In fact it was on a completely different topic -- the question of fabricated claims that might be backed up by a hypothetical "well it's been oversighted". My comment in that context was that the log doesn't work, so if a spurious claim were to be made as a defence to fabricated evidence, we would not as a technical observation, be able to prove or disprove it.

You can read my reply here (long archive page) if you want, for completeness, but I posted it (for completeness/record) and immediately archived.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually surprisingly hard to make sense of an old chat like that, even when I have the entire transcript, because it also requires an understanding of on-wiki developments like blocks, talk page posts, etc. As best I can determine, Peter Damian had created his new account for purposes of filing a public RFAR case, and I blocked it. In the chat, FT2 was arguing in favor of holding a public case, so that he could prove he had done nothing wrong, which both FloNight and I argued against. I first asked "were edits oversighted" at 1:48, but the conversation bypassed it. Oversight came up again in the context that if there was a public hearing where FT2 got to make his full argument that Damian deserved to be blocked (or only unblocked after agreeing to certain conditions), then Damian would want to air his full side of the story, which would include discussion of the oversighted edits to zoophilia. FT2 talked about offering Damian "cold and solid" proof that Damian "screwed up" in December 2007, that there was nothing wrong with FT2's edits, and there was no cabal of "NLP weilding zoophilia cult" editors responsible for blocking Damian, that it was all Damian's fault. And I was talking about the fact that Damian believed the article had been oversighted and would claim that any evidence by FT2 that did not address the oversight issue would be more evidence of a conspiracy.

• What we did not do, and maybe should have, was to try and investigate the oversight matter more fully at the time. Yes, the log was down, but we could have emailed all the oversighters asking if they remembered doing it. We could have asked FT2 to search his December emails (I don't know why he didn't on his own, but there it is). The best outcome, in my view point, was not to hold a long drawn out hearing to prove that Damian had harassed FT2 and was fairly blocked, but to unblock Damian and say, "just go do something else and let this go." And if we could have said in April/May, "here is what happened with oversight, now will you drop it?" then the unblocking probably would have had a better outcome.
• In any event, I think the log shows that FT2 was aware that Damian was arguing that edits that he wanted to use as evidence had been oversighted. Thatcher 19:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is also this IRC chat log from May 2, 2008. About the time I unblocked Peter Damian, you caught me on IRC and asked me not to unblock him, but it was too late, I had already done it. So we discussed some conditions. Eventually I sent him an email giving him some advice. A small part of the conversation is reproduced below. It seems clear to me that I at least took as a given that Damian was complaining about oversighted edits, and that we both knew about it during that conversation. Thatcher 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: AE softiees

Thatcher, I've got a question about Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement#View_by_Thatcher.2C_part_2. I tried watching the AE page for about a month and quickly realized it would either require all my wiki time or be a fruitless endeavor. One thing I noticed is that from time to time an admin would do what you are saying, take a good sized thread, issue some firm sanctions (indef page ban, etc) and move on. Then UninvolvedAdminBuddy of the newly sanctioned editor would show up. He would know that everyone knew they were friends, so he wouldn't try to overturn the sanction. But he would keep proposing modifications to it, alternatives, compromises, etc, until the end result was the the sanctioning admin became exasperated, gave in, and the sanctioned editor got off with little more than a warning. After I watched this happen three times, I realized any firm sanction given to anyone would result in such a situation and that it really would not be worth my time to spend a month arguing why it was a good idea that someone not edit a page when they had been to arbcom and kept edit warring at it. So how do we fix that? MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After having observed similar, MBisanz, what I started doing when responding was to read, render a decision, and promptly close the thread. Few people would venture to reopen an issue identified as addressed; if they were really disturbed by the decision, they would open a new thread but would usually wait some time.

Having said that, the specific issue under discussion on WP:RFAR was not brought to the AE Noticeboard as far as I can tell. That gives things a different flavour. Risker (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not the 3 incidents I was thinking of, I emailed you the details (since I have no urge to publish things that are months old just to make people look bad.) MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be covered by my solution #4, Don't sweat the small stuff. Although I did not say explicitly, and perhaps should, that admins friendly to the sanctioned editor should not try to unduly influence the sanctioning admin. In pronounced cases, it might even be necessary to open an RFAR against the admin for poor judgement. Thatcher 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement that "admin friends" cause a lot of trouble, both in AE and elsewhere. Especially in the pseudoscience topic area, every single "unfriendly" admin action is challenged, usually by the same voices. For example, when I made a routine 3RR block in the pseudoscience topic area last October, it was immediately taken to ANI, with the resultant drama and accusations of bias,[12] from the same editors as are complaining in the current situation: Orangemarlin, Verbal, QuackGuru, MastCell, Shot info, Dave souza. In fact, every ban or block I've ever made in this topic area, no matter how well deserved, immediately gets dragged to ANI. Sometimes I'm not sure how much of this is righteous indignation and a valid request for a second opinion, how much is over-reaction, and how much is a calculated attempt to intimidate away "unfriendly" administrators. For example: Uninvolved admin Adam blocks Disruptive Editor Doofus. Doofus's friends start up an ANI thread charging bias on Adam's part, but Adam's block is upheld. Two months later, Adam blocks Doofus's editing ally Ellen. ANI thread results from the same batch of Doofus's friends, and the block is upheld again. Two months later, Adam blocks Doofus again. ANI thread results, and this time Adam's Doofus's friends are charging a "personal conflict" between Adam and Doofus. To outside parties, the attacks are difficult to sort out, especially because there really is a history of ANI threads showing every single action was (seemingly) controversial. So how is Adam supposed to battle this? Just give up and walk away? Or just get used to the chaos and constant challenges? Or should we come up with some sort of a sanction for those who are wikilawyering and filing frequent "frivolous" ANI threads? --Elonka 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would favor sanctioning Adam. Specifically, desysop him, for two reasons. First, misuse of admin status in a content dispute. Second, as a deterrent to Admin Betty who is involved in a different dispute involving a different batch of friends. It's going to take a full Arb case to desysop Adam; that takes so long and is so involved that the only way to make the outcome a practical deterrent to Betty and her ilk is for the result to be dramatic. A censure just won't cut it. Thatcher 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think I misrepresented that scenario, let me correct... --Elonka 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I goofed as well, did not read closely enough. Thatcher 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While you're correcting misrepresentations, please be a bit more careful in supporting your claims, at least if you're going to mention my name. You lump me in as part of a cabal of "admin friends", or whatever, who stoke drama and accuse you of bias. Look at my actual contributions to the thread you cite: [13], [14]. I think those speak for themselves, both as attempts to reduce drama and as lacking anything resembling criticism of your action. In fact, I explicitly supported your block as justifiable in the second diff, though I suggested alternate approaches that I've found effective in such circumstances.

If you want to encapsulate my concerns (or "accusations", as you seem to categorize them), then look no further: I gave general feedback which was supportive of your action while suggesting constructive alternatives. You write off even that mild and generally supportive feedback as drama-stoking and "accusations" from a biased individual. I have always supported wide latitude for admins enforcing discretionary sanctions, but I can't continue to do that when I feel an admin lacks both discretion and receptiveness to any sort of feedback that's less than 100% supportive. I regret that this is characterized as "undermining". MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, chill out, I'm not attacking you, I'm making an observation. Let's stay on topic, though if you'd like to send me an email about the rest of it, you know how to reach me. --Elonka 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, this is a discussion about Wikipedia practices, being held on Wikipedia. Why should it be continued off-site? Risker (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said "the rest of it", I was referring to something else that MastCell knows about. He has been sniping at me in multiple venues for several months now, ever since I challenged one of his blocks. I've tried engaging him in discussion about it multiple times, but the threads usually trail off, he says "he's thinking about it", and then never replies. So I was referring to that, and if he wants to start the discussions up again, he knows how to reach me. As for the discussion about actual arbitration enforcement practices, I agree that that should stay public. --Elonka 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that your framing of my motivation is unlikely to withstand scrutiny. I asked you to correct a misrepresentation, and you responded by compounding it with additional unsupported accusations. I don't see what there is to email about. Carry on; I'm going to unwatchlist and leave Thatcher in peace. MastCell ^Talk 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me make my own scenarios.

1. Admin Adam blocks Doofus, ANI mess, block is upheld. Adam blocks Ellen, ANI mess, block is upheld. Adam blocks Greg, ANI mess. Greg alleges that because he is friends with Doofus and Ellen and Adam has blocked them both, Adam is "involved." Response, Bullshit, block stands. Consider additional sanctions against Greg for gaming the system.
2. Admin Adam blocks Doofus, ANI mess involving Admin Henry, a friend of Doofus, block is upheld. Adam blocks Ellen, ANI mess in which Henry opposes block, block is upheld. Adam blocks Greg, ANI mess. Henry alleges that because Greg is friends with Doofus and Ellen and Adam has blocked them both, Adam is "involved." Response, Bullshit, block stands. Consider sanctions against Henry for long-term gaming the system and conduct unbecoming an admin.

Note that I am not endorsing that any of these exact things has occurred in this specific case. In general, there should be a very low tolerance for gaming of WP:AE no matter who is doing it on behalf of whom. Thatcher 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing your talk page from my watchlist now, but how can you tell if Adam or Henry/Greg that's right? Should the community hold an RFC? What should the community do if the RFC gives advice to Adam, but that advice isn't followed? Hipocrite (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One way, because each of the individual blocks is upheld. A second way, by holding an RFC or RFAR. I said consider. It is possible that Adam has a bias, or that Henry has a good faith concern. However, the mere fact of being an admin who patrols at WP:AE should not be held against someone as an excuse why they should no longer patrol there. If a police officer has arrested several gang members over the years, do you ask him not to arrest any more because he is now biased against gang members? I enforced WP:AE for almost a year, probably 90-95% by myself (check archives 2-20 or so). I never took it personally, although I quite frequently thought, "Oh no, not him again." Does that make me ineligible to continue to enforce there? Thatcher 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, Thatcher. The overwhelming majority of your AE actions were based on reports to the AE Noticeboard; that is, the actions of an editor or editors were identified as concerning by other editors and then brought to "community" attention there. (Yes, we both know that means it was brought to your attention, but bear with me please.) There is a qualitative difference between addressing issues brought to the noticeboard, where all activities are highly accessible, and applying and managing sanctions on an article's talk page, without the visibility afforded by the noticeboard. This might be worth exploring further. Risker (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing a priori that prevents an admin from watching a contentious article that is already under enforcement and stepping in when needed. I probably did this a few times myself. You can have situations where the participants don't realize how toxic behavior is to others who might want to contribute (or indeed, they might enjoy the toxic environment). That said, if there is a concern that an admin is being too heavy-handed, it seems like the place to bring it up first is WP:AE so it can be reviewed by other admins who have experience in enforcement matters. Thatcher 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last, I think, is a very fair point. The AE board, for all its hassles, attracts far fewer armchair quarterbacks than AN and ANI; the admins and other editors who watch the page are generally fairly well versed in AE activities and usual practices. I'd very much like to see it on the watchlists of a broader segment of the admin community especially, but at least the majority of admins popping into the page have a genuine interest in resolving situations. Risker (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI often has the characteristics of a flashmob or one of those Facebook parties I read about in The Sun. Thatcher 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR

If 60% agreement is not sufficient to approve a test, then it is time someone took important decisions out of the hands of (physical and intellectual) children and let the grownups take over.

Hear fucking hear. Well said! //roux   01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Subpoenas

I broadly agree with your views, and with your comment here. But I think the scenario of a checkuser having to "fly halfway around the world to testify in a libel trial about the identification of the editor responsible for the libel" is unlikely (unless the checkuser lives in Hawaii or is in the US military serving in Asia). Outside US jurisdiction, a civil subpoena in a US state or federal court has no power and extradition treaties only apply to defendants (not witnesses) and then only in criminal cases. --TS 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized after I wrote it that checkusers are unlikely to be subject to subpoenas issued outside their own country (does the EU have a treaty on this that would compel a UK checkuser to testify in Germany, for example? I wonder...). What most Wikipedians don't think about but some smart lawyer will eventually figure out is that they are more likely to get useful results from serving the checkusers who live in their country than the Foundation. If I still had records of a case for which the checkuser table on the server was expired, I could be hit with a legal order that would force me to testify and would also make it a crime (obstruction of justice) for me to delete the records after I had been informed that someone wanted them. This possibility did not bother me too much as a checkuser, but it is something all checkusers should know about. Thatcher 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking further, your comment that a civil subpoena only has power in criminal cases sounds contradictory. It seems odd that after passing a law that places responsibility for libelous edits/posts on the editor and not the service that carries them, the law would then allow the people who know the identity of the editor to avoid providing that information. Bottom line, I don't think anyone knows what would happen if someone who was damaged by a false BLP not only subpoenaed the Foundation's checkuser data but also was smart enough to ask for the checkuser logs related to the incident. Thatcher 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My wording was confusing. I was attempting to draw a distinction between civil subpoenas (which do not in general have extraterritorial effect) and extradition, which does have extraterritorial effect by treaty but only applies to criminal cases. --TS 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thatcher 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity (I don't know anything about subpoena laws) would a hard bright line restriction on CUs keeping any permanent records be any protection in theory? Or could subpoenas be used to get a CU to give access to their account? If so would a policy that for CU access CUs are required to notify the WMF of the pending action, at which point CU access is terminated? For the actual logs on the WMF side, enforcing a hard rotation/clearance would cover the WMF, wouldn't it? If CU logs are purged hypothetically after 30 days, what would you subpoena? Just thoughts for conversation. rootology (C)(T) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so not a lawyer, but...

...and keeping this entirely within a US context for now...

Suppose John Smith decides to sue Wikipedia because a lie in his bio cost him a job. He is told that Section 230 immunizes Wikipedia but that he can sue the person who wrote the lie. So he files a legal request with WMF to disclose all information about the editor, Munch. If Munch is a current editor and the request is legally proper, someone at WMF will give Munch's IP data to Smith's lawyer so that Smith can try to discover Munch's identity through his ISP. Eventually, the WMF employee might be called to testify if the case ever went to trial. On the other hand, if the edits are stale, WMF's response might be, "We have no information about Munch because our checkuser data expires after X days and he has not edited in X+Y days." In which case most people think that would be the end of it. But, I know that checkusers sometimes keep private files, so if I was advising Smith's attorney, I would also ask WMF to tell me if anyone ever checkusered Munch before. The CU log is not infinite but it lasts a lot longer than the actual data. So the WMF tells the lawyer that Thatcher checkusered Munch 6 months ago (let's say, in connection with a vandal block and autoblock/unblock request). So the lawyer contacts me directly to ask if I have any records saved from that case. At that point, once I have been notified that the records are of interest, I am forbidden to delete them. I can be compelled by subpoena to turn them over, and I might even be compelled to travel somewhere to testify or give a deposition. I'm sure WMF would be interested, but I suspect they would not help me in any way. (If the WMF notified me that Smith's lawyer was poking around before Smith's lawyer actually contacted me himself, it would probably be a bad idea to delete any files, that could look like conspiracy to obstruct justice.)

• Now, if I never kept private files, I would not have this problem, although I could still potentially be called to testify about any blocks or on-wiki comments (such as at RFCU) that were related to my findings. Or, if I deleted my private files before I was notified to preserve them (such as deleting records more than X months old, or deleting all my files when I resigned), there would be no problem.
• As far as I know the WMF has never issued any advice, recommendations or information to the checkusers about their retention of private files. I think it is something Mike G. would rather not know about, because what he does not know he can not say.
• There would be many downsides to having the CU log expire too rapidly, such as making it much more difficult to uncover suspected cases of checkuser "abuse". The log can also help when trying to determine whether a new account is a sock of an old master (although it's not as good as the direct info).
• Does this answer you questions? Thatcher 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much answers what popped into my brain when I noticed all the talk about the possibility of this stuff the other day, and the short answer of there's no good solution that can protect everyone. rootology (C)(T) 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identified flying object

I've closed this AFD. If you can identify any merged material, please turn this into a redirect.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond amazing work today

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your amazing work in rescuing the Identified flying object Identification studies of UFOs from total annihilation! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, whattaya know, I actually worked on content today. Thatcher 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I told you in your RfA that you should write another article someday. Maybe, better late than never. :) As I must frequently remind myself, one is inevitably going to conclude that Wikipedia is a sad place containing little but conflict and disputes, if one specializes for month after month only in working on the conflict and dispute pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • See, content is a good place. If the wikidrama is not allowed to escalate :-) Shot info (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests

There's an out of date reference to User:Proabivouac at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests, signed by you. Events have moved on since 2007 sadly. I don't know whether ArbCom keeps these things logged for future reference, but it could at least be amended so it's not an anachronism. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, it is a record of the results of the case and gives the date and expiration, so it is clear that the probation has expired. If you want to pursue this further ask a current arbitration clerk. Thatcher 11:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no need, thanks. If you think it's appropriate, it's almost certainly appropriate. :-) --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There might be a good argument to remove all remedies that have expired or are no longer in effect, but this would have to be discussed at WT:RFAR. Thatcher 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About 3 or 4 months ago Tiptoety and I went through WP:AER and removed all of the oldest remedies no longer in effect, but any that still might be relevant we left, so it is shorter than it was, but we didn't take a comprehensive approach. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Way beyond my knowledge/experience. I know my limitations and I am not an initiate in the ways of the ArbCom... --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)