User talk:Thatcher

Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I can not disclose Dremeraldgibb's IP information on the say-so of an anonymous IP who claims to be Dremeraldgibb. You can post a request to USer talk:Dremeraldgibb asking that the checkuser findings be released and confirming that you waive your right to privacy under the meta:Privacy policy with respect to the disclosure of non-public IP information. (meta:Privacy_policy#Policy_on_release_of_data_derived_from_page_logs)Thatcher 11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Even if your account is blocked you can sign in and edit your own talk page. Please make your request on your talk page, User talk:Dremeraldgibb. Thatcher 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Head's up

See here. Not sure if you still oppose, but thought you should be aware. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While I think some of the IPs you have used could be shared, I believe your explanation falls far short of the complete truth. For further information see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_ban_of_User:Burrburr_et_al.. Thatcher 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless work on checkuser - community service worthy of recognition Thank you Matilda talk 22:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, I was just going to offer to stab you in the head, but heck, a barnstar works even better. Plus, it has more pointy points for stabbing you in the head! lol! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurofinishusa RFCU Question

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

DWhiskaZ Returns

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

Problems with an admin

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

I have investigated this complaint. There has been no administrative abuse. User: Jeffrey Pierce Henderson is having trouble getting along with other editors and needs to stop being combative. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be putting it mildly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Burrburr

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

• Been out of town. Will get to it in a day or so. Thatcher 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_ban_of_User:Burrburr_et_al.. Thatcher 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Padishar

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

I've granted this user IP exemption, which should hopefully solve the problem, as he/she seems to be a good user. Feel free to alter, revert or discuss as you feel fit as this is the first time I've tried doing this. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The blocked range is a hosting company, which rarely host legit ISPs and frequently host web servers that are misconfigured or compromised. However, that user seems to be ok as far as I can tell. Thatcher 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More signed in vandalism

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

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

User talk:J. A. Comment

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

• The only accounts with checkable edits are J. A. Comment, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.102.204, 153.39.144.157. Those three IPs are, generally speaking, in the western suburbs of Washington DC. J.A. Comment's IP address is not directly related to those, but is probably a public library or other public place also in the Washington DC suburbs, and within a few minutes travel of the IPs, assuming the geolocations are correct. Thatcher 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)