User talk:Thatcher/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Thank you for your comment regarding the anons posting with my signature

We like you the way you are 8^p Añoranza 05:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record

this all started because I was foolish enough to correct a minor formatting error, which seemed harmless enough at the time, guess I'll never do that again. Trust me, if I had looked all the way to the bottom of the page history and seen his name I never would have hit the edit button-- 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I do not take accusations from IP addresses particularly seriously. Although at this point, nothing about the Merecat situation would surprise me any more. For example, it is an odd coincidence that Thewolfstar suddenly found a bunch of open proxies at Merecat's ISP. However, it seems unlikely that Merecat had access to a roadrunner IP number from New York city (per reverse DNS and Traceroute) while living in Texas.
That said, what you did seems innocent enough, fixing SpinyNorman's double redirect. Unfortunately, by reverting first it made it look like you were the one doing the blanking and redirecting, which was the real source of controversy. My only recommendation is to stop making sockpuppet accusations and posting information about Zer0's IP address and ISP. Even if you believe it to be true, it is simply disruptive at this point. Being civil, polite and reasonable will force other editors to deal with the content of your actions instead of their source. Thatcher131 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed RFCU

The |{{SUBPAGENAME}} should work, give it a minute to clear the job queue. Prodego talk 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems the piped categories no longer work (they have in the past, see Category:Wikipedia administrators). Therefore, there dosen't seem to be a way to do this. This is news to me, I have no idea why this was changed. Prodego talk 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is fine to subst the templates, it reduces server load, and it makes the code visible. I don't think a backup archiving system is all that necessary, and in this case, what would happen if an RFCU were reopened? Wouldn't it show as closed? Prodego talk 20:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I ran into a situation last week where Kevin took an old request off the main page, added the top and bottom templates, but did not add it to the /Case page. I saw it because I had the case watchlisted. I was thinking what if that happens again, how will anyone know the case exists (a lost subpage with no links in to it). I thought putting in a category would work. I also thought we could change the tag in the input box to a real category "Open checkuser requests" and make it a real category rather than having the non-existant variable date category we have now. In the case of a reopened case it would still be listed as closed too but I don't see that would be a problem. Thatcher131 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That is true. However, the list would be huge, almost the entirely of Special:Prefixindex, so I doubt anyone would go through the whole (alphabetically sorted) list anyway. I think the best method would be to check each case as it is removed. Prodego talk 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever that index thing you just did does what I really want anyway; a way to find if a page has been lost (listing all the subpages of a given page). That works for me. I imagine it will rarely be needed; just in case of a clerk goof or someone naming or posting a case wrong. I guess I'll put it back the way it was. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am glad that worked out ;-), the page is Special:Prefixindex of course, select "Wikipedia" as the namespace and "Requests for checkuser/Case/" as the page (no quotes). It will include open cases as well. Prodego talk 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI, there is no need to add a category to find the unsubst'd pages, just look in What links here. (I was the one who substituted the templates). Prodego talk 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


It won't look like a typo if you actually use the template. --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what they wanted? They had <includeonly><includeonly></includeonly></includeonly>, so I thought that's what they wanted. I'll go ahead and rv my edit, and we'll see. --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could use {{subst:Checksubst|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} (which I just created) and put it on the top of Template:Rfcua, so if rfcua is not substed, it only displays a warning to subst. --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU Clerks discussion page

I moved most of the discussion to the talk page, so the main Clerks' Noticeboard can have the requests from checkusers rather than boatloads of discussion. Its a boldness, and I hope it makes things easier for us. If the watchlists don't work out, it the talk may have to be moved to yet a different page, but for now I think it looks pretty good. Kevin_b_er 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I see...actually I just forgot to tell the script to subst the lower one, as a type :). I just fixed that.Voice-of-All 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I've never filed a RFCU before, and since you seem familiar with the process, is there anything I should've done differently? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's just fine; thanks for fixing it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. To whose attention should I call the situation? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I had notified Morwen of the RFC when I noticed it on the list earlier today, since she had been given no notice by the parties who filed it. After I dropped him a note on his talk page, the mediator on the dispute has decided to suspend mediation pending the results of the RFCU. At this point, I think everybody that should be told, has been. You may also want to note that one anonymous Pac Bell IP has signed onto the RFC as an endorser, and another has left comments. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU Clerk

Hi, I'd be interested in becomming a clerk for the Check User. I contacted Essjay and he said to get in contact with you. What is the next step, shall I add myself to the list of clerks? --Wisden17 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

The IP address was a separate address but when I put it in I kept getting a ,message signed by Neurpoean saying "No fishing allowed" thanks. It was intended as a separate thing - the anon IP address has been fuelling an RFI against me... and only a few people would know all the info they have provided. Neuroepan is, I ebelieve, probably linked to [1]. Robertsteadman 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Have managed to re-add the anon IP. Robertsteadman 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

israelbeach usercheck

Thanks for pointing out my error in the request for israelbeach. I am new to wiki and was not sure how the whole process worked. what is unclear is whether you fixed it for me, or I still have to do something here?

Hpaami 16:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names

You seem to misunderstand what the debate is about. No one is trying to delete redirects from operation names to the neutral article titles or delete operation names where several of them where used in just one conflict. The whole discussion is about conflicts being named under their propaganda name versus a neutral descriptive or common one, e.g. United States invasion of Panama instead of "Operation Just Cause", which would not be neutral and most people would not even know what this is about. This does not only hold for article titles but also for text in articles, e.g. it makes more sense to write "This tank was used in the battle of xyz" then "in operation sounds-great-but-no-idea-what-it-means". Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Añoranza 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I imperfectly recalled the complaints made on ANI about you removing the operation names not just from article titles but from other articles referring to the operation. My feeling is this is sometimes, but not always, appropriate. For example, with respect to General Schwartzkopf, [2] the Iraq war is a very broad term covering events from 2003-2006 and is ongoing, while his role as a military advisor may in fact be more limited to the events of Operation Iraqi Freedom (depending in part on how the military defines the term and whether that "operation" is considered ongoing or if newer phases have other operational names). On the other hand, there is no particular reason why the article on Get Fuzzy needs to use the operation name [3]. Thatcher131 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot quite follow you calling me overly aggressive after I already told you kindly at your talk page that there was a misunderstanding and after you saw that in the specific article you are referring to I neither tried to change the title nor changed any links to it. All I did was starting a discussion, and while others wikistalk me and call me names you call me aggressive, I find that rude. Añoranza 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I see that you've posted on the Dionyseus arbitration page. I apologize if you feel like I used your name for support improperly. I'd be happy to remove it from my list of users supporting inclusion (and you may feel free to keep your post on there). I would, of course, prefer to keep you on the list. I did note your stipulations for agreeing to including the cheating allegations. If you skim through the sources that I've provided, I think most if not all would satisfy your requirements. Although Chess Today is an online newsletter, I think it would probably be the most reliable source for you to consider. Note the list of subscribers. [[4]] Libraries provide internet access, after all. Of course, if you feel like I'm misrepresenting your POV, I would gladly remove you from my bullet point.Danny Pi 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hustla

I corrected my mistake at the same time as you posted! Anyway I have created the case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aish Warya & I think the second Bonafide.hustla case should be copied (not cut) here as it has a relevance to both users. Will you do it or should I? Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, don't mean to nitpick here but I had a small query. Just saw you archive Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus which Mackensen gave an "inconclusive" about three days ago. Any reason to archive it a day earlier than usual? Cheers --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Because all the parties were obviously aware of the outcome and they were started to troll on the CU page. Thatcher131 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My dogs

Too busy working to play with my lovely dogs. Zapatancas made the request, I am just responding to him so it doesnt look like I am solely at fault. Personally I want nothing to do with the arbcom. Anyway have a nice weekend, SqueakBox 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Ray of Sunshine

For making me smile when I see you pop up on my Watchlist, diligently cleaning up cases. Keep up the good work. Essjay (TalkConnect) 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly wasn't intending to get one myself, but much appreciated, Thatcher131 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to added my thanks as well — doing mundane work should be appreciated more than it is. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Thatcher, You've got mail! --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Following up

Greetings Thatcher131, just wanted to follow up and inform you that from what I can tell User:Porky Pig (aka User:SirIsaacBrock) has a history of sockpuppetry whereby he's used one sock after another in disruptive ways and been able for some time to avoid the scrutiny that having such histories of disruption follow him would allow for. I realize that you may still think that an ArbCom case is needed to properly address this but I thought you should be aware of these likely other mitigating factors. Cheers. (Netscott) 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know there are only two ways to permanently ban a user. Via ArbCom, and via "community ban" -- essentially, one admin blocks and no other admin is willing to unblock. That may have happened in this case (although it may be too early to tell), in which case I'm fine with it. My initial point was, there is no policy reason why he can't abandon one account and start another, and no policy to force him to disclose his prior account. Of course, if someone is blocked and tries to come back as someone new, but can't help but fall back into the behavior that got him blocked in the first place, he's going to get blocked again. Thatcher131 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Given User:RadioKirk's final message of confidence on the ANI report I suspect the block'll stand. If it doesn't stand then I'll probably expand the scope of the thing to include the othere numerous sockpuppets this user apparently has been using in abusive and disruptive ways. Cheers. (Netscott) 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

Her diaries are slowly being uploaded here as they are retrieved and transcribed [5] Thanks for your interest Wjhonson 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved party comment

Sorry, I screwed up there. --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My deletion of Shem booth

hi there Thatcher. Due to the fact that nobody notified of the commentary at WP:ANI on my deletion of this article, I managed to miss the post as the headline didn't mention me specifically - I was unable to respond to the claims of the user before it went dead. There is a long response I posted to the user in question on my own page - but in short, the claim to notability that was present in his autobio was that he was a PhD student. AFAIK, I have seen random PhD students speedily deleted before and so, I wrote that comment in the deletion summary to make clearer the a7 reasoning. As for his claims that I had many angry messages about my deletions, well that is true, but they were about expired prods and a repost of Kai Wong, so I had to reiterate that I have not being roguely deleting stuff, just in case me might have misled anyone. Thankyou, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I never thought it was a "rogue" deletion (or even a rouge deletion"; Once Hit Bull figured out what the article was about it seems to have been dropped; even Shem has disappeared. Nothing more than the usual angry vanity author. Thatcher131 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser proof

The last 4 edits of this checkuser is probably the only hard on-wiki evidence that a checkuser was involved. NoSeptember 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ping

Any chance that Comanche cph is also a SuperDeng sock, or is that a fishing expedition that caught the wrong fish? Thatcher131 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where anyone has made the connection between the two; can you point me to it? Essjay (Talk) 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsorted results misc conversation

A couple of things of which should help clear things up:

  • I wasn't sure by what you ment by your comment on my talk page about a box or something.
  • Point of the unsorted is to get people who don't want to make exact formatting to put results there, and we clerks can sort them into Case subpages.
    • Checkuser's word is gold, though limited cases of it not being trusted like the recent bit with Jayig and Homey, but that was fixed rather quickly.
    • Everyone else provides diffs because non-checkusers don't always seem to be trusted and/or believed on claims of sockpuppetry.
    • Goal is to gather more data from checkusers, since, if we look, RFCU is getting cited everywhere, including arbcom cases and AN(/I). Make it easy for checkusers who don't want to do all the formatting to just go and say "Yeah I looked at blah and bleh the other day and they're most definately sockpuppets of eachother." right on that page. It can then be utilized.
  • Have you collected anything for the bunch of socks tagged by dmcdevit and cyde? If not, I'll be troving those soon.
  • Up for debate as to wether or not sockpuppet farms by chronic sockpuppeters should be bothered with. And I mean accounts where there's 50 accounts created in a row by someone until they give up or someone checkusers a bunch of them and blocks the IP. (I've seen Essay and Mackensen do that). Those are almost pointless unless its an actual editor they can be tied to. Kevin_b_er 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin_b_er 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, what I meant about an archive was something like {{archivebox}}, to place completed results, but I changed my mind and I think we can just blank the page when a result posted there has been converted to /Case. I think cases of CU being other handled in other places should be done on a case by case basis (hah). I think the Blu Aardvark socks should definitely be converted and labeled, because he is a long-term disruptive user and it would be a good idea to list his confirmed socks someplace besides the ANI archive. Since it was apparently Mackensen, but there is no record of him saying so on the wiki (probably IRC) I would like to gather the socks on a page and then ask Mackensen to sign it, just so there's no wikilawyering about it later. You're welcome to do it any time or I'll do it when I next have some free time. We should probably also do one for Conrad Devonshire, assuming Essjay isn't so pissed off by the lack of response at ANI that he's washed his hands of it. As well any other sockpuppets disclosed in arbitration cases.

I would probably not want to track down the anonymous sock farms. The value of public checkuser results is to have backup when we accuse someone who has a public reputation and persona (and to have a record of negative or abusive requests), and to have a record if a bad user tries to come in some form, either as a sock with a clean record, or by claiming to be "reformed." I agree with you there's not much point in doing all the sock farms. Thatcher131 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I took care of Blu Aardvark. Thatcher131 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser for DrL?

We just had an edit conflict: I was adding important new information to the request just as you were replying. Hope you have time to take a second look and sorry I didn't add that information a few minutes earlier! ---CH 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RFCU header

No, you're right about the wording. While I mean what I said, that's probably not the most professional way to go about it. Your version stands. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You really didn't mean that your decisions are arbitrary and capricious, though, and anybody who pays attention knows that. You might have meant, "decisions are made on the basis of discretion, experience, policy, and other factors that may not be public knowledge. If they seem arbitrary and capricious to you, tough $#!7." But that's not entirely professional either :) Thatcher131 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets Opinion

My suspicians arose here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gangsters_In_Love. I suspect that JeffDeHart (talk · contribs) and JustinChimento (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Bign2003 (talk · contribs). Their only edits are to that AfD, and they all sign their signatures in an unusual and identical manner. Bign2003 had repeatedly recreated deleted content and argued repeatedly for this article, but then as soon as he stopped, these two accounts showed up the same day and made long posts about how it should be kept. I have littel experience in spotting sockpuppets, you seem to know your stuff, maybe you could give me an objective third party opinion.--Crossmr 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the delay, much drama etc. I think your case would probably be declined, on the grounds that it is a) obvious, and b) short-term. The socks participating in the AfD were obvious and properly ignored by the closing admin. And this only happened in one AfD. If these three accounts start acting together in a disruptive way on other articles and over a longer period of time, so that it looks like a pattern and not a one time thing, you would probably have enough reason to get a check and block. Thatcher131 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Its not something I wanted to outright accuse anyone over as I'm inexperienced with it so I thought it best to seek advice. Time is relevant, your reponse was plenty quick.--Crossmr 05:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I've temporarily suspended active checking (see here). I hope we'll be back to normal within a few days. Thanks for all your hard work, especially the last few days. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well, when one guy pees in the pool, it wrecks the day for everyone. I will watch further developments with interest. Thatcher131 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; as I've said before, if you pee in my sandbox, don't be suprised when I take my toys and go home, I'm not required to play in the "rain." Essjay (Talk) 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


This really is a new issue. This was never addressed by ArbCom before. Perhaps you could improve it for me? Thanks. LowDensityUser 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I looked over the case briefly. It looks like PoolGuy was trying to protect an article, and to service that goal, GoldToe sent out a really large number of messages asking for support. That caused a checkuser to be run, GoldToe got blocked, and things escalated from there. The issue of whether the talk page spamming was sufficient disruption to permit a checkuser to be run is a non-starter, because editing wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and there is no Exclusionary rule here.

I think you should focus on what you want and what is most likely to be achievable. Do you want someone to rule that the checkuser was out of bounds? Ain't going to happen. No one on Arbcom is going to vote that Hall Monitor shouldn't have checked you after you sent out all those messages, and after 7 of them voted the other way. Do you want GoldToe unblocked on principle? Isn't going to happen, for the same reason. Multiple accounts are ok, sometimes, but you're not going to get 7 arbitrators to say "we're sorry, those talk page messages really weren't so disruptive after all." If you're not willing to live with the arbitration committee's restriction to one account (that is, you are unwilling to respect the decision even though you disagree with it) then there really isn't anything to talk about since you will continue to insist you are right and GoldToe never should have been checked, and by continuing to complain at MedCab, ANI, RFAR, etc, you will reinforce community perception that you are no longer interested in editing articles but just want to be disruptive.

If, on the other hand, you want to edit, you'll need to swallow your indignation and hurt feelings and politely ask for one of your accounts to be unblocked, with a hearty apology along with it. PoolGuy and all the other accounts are blocked because you are pushing this issue and being disruptive about it. If you make some sort of apology and are willing to drop the issue, you will probably get a second chance. Almost anybody can get a second chance it seems. But that means posting an apology at RFAR, not a request to reopen the case. It might be enough to say, "I'm sorry, I was really angry, I wanted to make a point, but now I would rather just edit and if I drop the subject will you please unblock the one account I want" Or, you can quietly create a new account and start over from scratch, and if you drop the GoldToe issue and just work on articles, no one will even know it is you. But again, this solution requires that you drop your hurt feelings, maybe swallow your pride a bit.

Again, I think you need to decide what you really want. If having the principle acknowledged is more important than being an editor in good standing, then I can't see any way to achieve it. If you want to resume editing, do you want it badly enough to accept Arbcoms limt of one account only, even if you disagree with the ruling? Thatcher131 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and although it was Arbcom that limited you to one account, it was the "community" that banned you. Arbcom can unban you but it would be faster to have the community do it, if you can convince it. You would post your apology and your request to WP:ANI (if you are willing to take that route). Thatcher131 06:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW in reference to Homey's comment

Is it proper for SlimVirgin to tell me not to edit articles as a sign of good faith? It seems weird. --Ben Houston 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, the last thing I want to do is get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on wikipedia. In general, I would say that the best approach to a controversial article is to go slow, stick to the best sources, and be respectful of everyone's point of view. I would not think that total abstention would be required of anyone. Perhaps some of your edits concerned her, in which case it would be better to dialog with her as to why they concerned her. That seems like a better way to build up mutual good faith and trust than simply taking a unilateral break. Good luck. Thatcher131 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for verifying that Meat Loaf album cover. Could I impose on you to either leave a message on AN/I or to similarly review/revert the other images he has tagged. I am reluctant to do it myself because it's going to turn into an edit war. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alex Kelly

Please see the previous edits we cant claim {promo} because we cant source an offical site thus i changed it to fair use in. If you could revert it please as i cannot. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Thatcher, I've sent you an email about an archiving problem. Bucketsofg 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Scroll down…

doh! there it is. thanks.Bucketsofg 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


She wont be back. Rrock 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Would you take a look at User:Essjay/Sandbox/5 and User:Essjay/Sandbox/5/Archive/1; I set it to archive anything over a day old, so that it would produce a large result that could easily be checked. See if you notice any mistakes, especially with === sections. If not, I can have it set up to do the real ANI within minutes. By the way, what schedule should I put it on? Everything older than a day? Two days? Essjay (Talk) 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this

I kindly thank you. I was starting to get paranoid about this, as I really was unsure why this was coming up only as soon as I was nom'ed. Again thank you, and if there is anything I can help you with in the future, its not problem, just ask. But that guys message was sinister enough though. :) SynergeticMaggot 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have asked Mackensen for clarification before posting to the RFA. That's my fault. I remembered the case but his response seemed cryptic to me. Fortunately he was online and I think the oppose vote was only up for 40 minutes or so. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SynergeticMaggot was innocent. I requested the checkuser because something weird was going on. The checkuser was a sort of blanket request to look at everybody, not just him. This should not be a factor in his RfA. I'm back to my wikibreak; send me an e-mail if you need further details. --A. B. 21:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
When I read Mackensen's findings I wasn't sure if it was a specific exoneration of SM and 999. He has clarified that it was and I removed my oppose vote. I don't know SM well enough to cast a vote in favor, although I will probably go through his contribs to see if I can support; I owe him that much I think. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You owe me nothing. I'm just relieved to see this whole check user thing is over :) SynergeticMaggot 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm. Weird. Anyways thanks for noticing and correcting this mistake! Intangible 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Thatcher131: I had a question. What do I need to know that checkuser has confirmed what I suspected? I have already left a message for an administrator who is familiar with the issue and I was wondering if there was anything else I should do. I read earlier that a sockpuppet template can be added to the confirmed sock's user page? Is that correct? Thanks for any advice on the matter. Tortfeasor 05:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, generally the sockpuppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely and the main account (here, 3 different main accounts) would get anything from a stern warning to a long block, depending on how many times this had happened and how their behavior was in general. You'll need an admin to throw the blocks, of course. You could post a request at the administrator's noticeboard if the admin you contacted isn't around. There are a variety of sockpuppet templates for both suspected and confirmed sockpuppets which are listed at WP:Templates; the one I would use is {{Sockpuppetcheckuser|username|Checkuser}} because it automatically generates a link to the checkuser page as evidence; however that template also states the account is indef blocked so its not a good tag to use until an admin actually blocks the account. Good luck. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. ViridaeTalk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

extremely heated RfC, possible personal attacks by subject

Would you mind taking a look at this RfC? The talk page is getting absurdly heated, with the subject of the RfC and an admin apparently trying to discredit what appears to be a valid Outside View by painting the poster--in the words of the subject of the RfC--as "gutter trash". The RFC subject is also throwing wild accusations of sockpuppetry at everyone in support of the RfC to discredit them, I suppose. rootology (T) 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WordBomb sockpuppet request for checkuser

I see this was moved to the talk page. However, since these edits were by the confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user, shouldn't they just be deleted entirely? --Mantanmoreland 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Voice of All (another clerk) has deleted the entire request. He may not have realized I created the talk page so tap him and I'm sure he'll delete it too. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Negative on the comment about myself.

Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Whatever. I don't care one way or another, but I find it highly unlikely that someone with less than 100 edits and a very narrow content interest would be interested in joining MedCab, and your first edit to Talk:Aspergers shows prior knowledge of the case. Maybe you edited for a long time as an anon IP, or maybe you have created a second account to segregate certain activities. It doesn't bother me because its acceptable per policy, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Accepted apology

I'm glad that you accepted my apology. Mistakes are the most valuable learning experiences. --AaronS 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think this should be filed under "move along, nothing more to see" Thatcher131 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I wish that option were available. =) --AaronS 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My arbitration case

I stopped doing these things about a week ago, please read these comments:


I have it under control what will jappen if I get banned —Minun SpidermanReview Me 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply wanted to point out to the bot people a fact regarding your application that they wouldn't be aware of unless they were regular readers of WP:RFAR. Generally, I believe editors have to be around to control their bots in case of problems. However, I have no say over bot policy (or arbitration cases for that matter). Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Okay, it seems we have everything ready now; it's archiving to the right target, and it will autoincrement based on page size, rather than a timeframe. I've set it to automatically increment when the archive reaches 300KB, as that seemed to be an average when I checked (quickly). Essjay (Talk) 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty spiffy. 125 is 271K now so at midnight tonight it will add to 125 and then midnight Saturday should switch to 126. I'll keep an eye but maybe we've finally got it sussed. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that should be the schedule. This is new code, so there may be kinks; I've got to merge the other applications over as well. Essjay (Talk) 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong vandal's manifesto

I am the supposed vandal in the Ryulong incident. This was about a simple edit

conflict where Ryulong refused to cite a source for

an outrageous INCEST quote that turned out to be false, so Ryulong provided a new INCEST quote with a source which

susequently, also turned out to be false and the source reflected no bearing on the quote. The page has now been corrected in

opposition of Ryulong and he doesn't like it.

You, the bureaucrats are receiving this plea from Ryulong and his friends including the pretend conversation above, because

Ryulong is up for RFA right now and he is 43/22/6 and they don't like it. They are worried that people will see these


Ryulong reverted my comments multiple times and then

when I tried to bring it up on the Jeremy Clarkson discussion page, he

deleted my comments seven times, later claiming that it was because they contained personal attacks on him.

The discussion TOPIC and context did not ever mention his name or contain any personal attack.

Ryulong clearly lies when he says: "And I did not delete it seven times. And even in each time it was a rant against me"

Above, Ryulong claims that I am 'dangerous'. The notion is sillier than the phoney incest quotes that he tried to uphold so fervently.

I realise that this is not the place for such discussion, but that's why Ryulong and his friends are here.

I will stop using the sock puppets and go quitely back to my proper account.

He is an 18yr old bully up for admin. I think he's been thrashed enough.

Thanks for reading.


Your edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archive124

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archive124 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the above page be deleted? NoSeptember 12:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Essjaybot was using the wrong target at first. If you're an admin you can delete it. Otherwise I'll tag it for CSD I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it. when are you going to become an admin? NoSeptember 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(Long answer) Well, I'm not a vandal patroller, and I haven't made any significant main space edits in 2 months. (For various reasons, including limited time) My view of AfD lately is that I might get by as a vandal fighter with few article edits, or as a good article editor with not much vandal fighting, but lacking both would be a problem. There are some times when having the sysop functions would be very useful, but mostly I get by. Also, my username is really stupid from the pov of being anonymous, changing it is pointless from all the talk pages I've signed, and I'm not going to start over from scratch, so that's something else I have to decide if I want to deal with. (Short answer) RFA=meat grinder, Sysop=troll bait. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of people recognize your efforts at checkuser and ANI, you may do better than you think. You even made it to this list, which is a very good sign. NoSeptember 13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep it in mind. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Thatcher, I recall that you did some good detective work identifying anonymizers possibly used by HOTR. I believe he has also used (talk · contribs), but I don't know how to check whether it's a proxy. Do you know how to find this out? Some details here and here. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't give me too much credit on the anonymizer, I mostly got lucky. The IP you're asking about is an ISP called CenturyTel. I tried putting in a phone number from Canada (a Pizza Hut in Kingston, to be precise) and it said service was not available. Reverse DNS says the server is in Gig Harbor, Washington, although that is not always reliable. I think you've either got two stalkers, or Homey has a helper in the US. (I also wonder about the anonymizer, since it is a US company; whether it could be accessed from Canada or not--technologically of course it could, but I don't know if there are any cross-border governmental restrictions) It could also be a zombie PC of some kind running a backdoor proxy server, either purposely set up for Homey or he found a compromised PC. I'm having trouble finding a port scanner for the Mac, so you might try asking Tawker or the other approved members of the WP:OPP, who should have access to the best tools. I'm sorry I can't help more. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that information, Thatcher. I appreciate it. It's possible, of course, that it's not him, but there was something about the tone and the timing ... :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Why did you delete the whole lot and replace it with a request? Might just want to restart an entire new request instead.--Andeh 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I advised you twice to format your request with the proper template and diffs to the most damaging comments; instead you held a discussion with Ryulong, which, in my experience, the checkusers are guaranteed to walk past without a second glance. The checkusers are certainly not going to go out of their way to find the evidence you want them to see. To keep the page clean and simple I moved the discussion to the talk page and added a brief request for reconsideration with the {{checkip}} template, diffs to his comments, and a brief description of why the request might be serious enough for a recheck. I didn't add all the IPs since, as has been pointed out, they're all NTL and it looks like the vandal has figured out how to access a large number of NTL IP addresses. This problem may in fact be uncheckable. If we're in luck, he was less careful when posting as Repmart or the first Cousin vandal account. I can not say whether the checkusers will reconsider the request or not. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruft Alert

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

RCU clerk note

Hey there. Sorry about putting that clerk note on the VaughnWatch RCU. Not having participated with an RCU before, I was thinking that it was a mechanism to leave an additional note for the clerk. I definitely did not mean to imply that I was a clerk or that I have a desire to be one. I am most definitely not interested in being an RCU clerk at this time. -- JamesTeterenko 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My arbitration case

I really have stopped —Minun SpidermanReview Me 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe you, but it would have been wiser to stop back in June when the case was filed. Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

thank for your thoughts

on the Connor Barrett debacle. I was on my way to post some of Barrett's poetry when I discovered that the article was gone. I am familiar with wikipedia's policies on copyrighted materials and am alway cautious. However in this case I have permission from Barretts widow to use his poetry and pictures of his work published in his book. I am currently trying to find out about copyrights of some books publiushed in the 3rd Reich and am finding that slow going. But i digress. Barrett's St Anthony panel [which I can scan and email you if you wish [eeklon at] ] is found . . .hard to say. The book is Sculpture of Birmingham , the page is "Victory Close, Edgbaston" and the caption reads "Over the entrance to the Porter's lodge and the entrances to the blocks of flats." There are 15 keystones there and it would be great if some British wikipedian were to get pictures of them. Carptrash 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no idea on Third Reich photos. What a thought. There must be some place on wikipedia to ask for people to take photos for you; it's got everything else! Thatcher131 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for interesting, but it's only that I'm a bit slow with technical issues like checkuser. Non everything should be OK. Cheers,--Aldux 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I hope you realise that I consider the archive to contain slander and will raise this issue again. The archive will not remain "as is". Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't think archives should be changed; they're a record of what was said, not what you wish was said. I won't revert any more; I'll leave it to the others involved with you on that debate. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth

He did not "comment" using the IP at the poll: he voted, twice, once using his User acct, and once logged-out. How is this "minor and not worth anyone getting in an uproar over". I certainly do not consider such behaviour to be minor. --Mais oui! 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request is likely to be declined as obvious and as not enough of a problem to warrant "outing" his IP involuntarily (because based on your evidence you could ignore the second opinion in the poll). See guidelines 2 and 3 on the CU page. That leaves you pissed off and him feeling like he got away with something. So I decided to try and talk to him nicely to let him know he is being watched and to give him a chance to withdraw gracefully. Certain people, the harder you push, the harder they push back. As far as calling it minor, it really is, compared to the truly disruptive cases. I realize it is important to you, but at this point the poll is either 2 to 2 or 2 to 1, so the issue isn't going to go anywhere. Try filing a Request for Comment WP:RFC or a request for third opinion WP:3O on the article to get more outside eyes looking at the issue. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that recently, when I asked Jayjg on his talk page (rather than at WP:RFCU to look into some suspected sockpuppetry of Giovanni33, and he replied on his own talk page (and at mine), saying that Professor33 was likely a sockpuppet of Giovanni33, and that NeoOne was undoubtedly a sockpuppet of Professor33. You moved it into the special Giovanni33 subpage of the RFCUs.

Tonight, Jayjg posted to ANI[7] and to my talk page[8] that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are now all confirmed sockpuppets of Giovanni33. Perhaps that information should be added to the Giovanni33 sockpuppet page. Keep up the good work. Cheers. AnnH 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will add it. Thanks for pointing that out. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the links. I hate all this on-wiki discussion about things off-wiki. If it's private, it should stay that way. The words "minors", "police", and "foundation complaints" sound very serious, and I'm annoyed that these words are involved with all this back-door discussion while leaving most relevant and informative details out. I hope reading these links will give me more insight into what's happening. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at what's going on in the talk page, it seems Moe Epsilon might actually be doing Nathan a disservice. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I was adding those links to the archived page because I just wanted to collect a large list of links to be blacklisted (since the page is being vandalised by zombie PC's with a large list of rotating advertisements) so I could just bring them all out to be blacklisted at once instead of doing it one by one. I was just using that page to keep track of them as they came out since it seemed a fit place to keep them. SirGrant 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd give you a barnstar for the Voight-Kampff comment, but...

Barnstar of extremely surprising silliness, for this edit -- nae'blis 05:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

IT WAS EATEN BY A BEAR! Cheers, anyway... that was dead funny. -- nae'blis 05:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He used socks as CheckUser will reveal.--Latinitas 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not an excuse. If sockpuppetry is proved that means you both violated 3RR; it does not excuse you. The changes were not obvious vandalism, but a content dispute. Work it out on the talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be an admin?

I've come a cross a number of your comments in various places and have been uniformly impressed ([9],[10], etc.). While I haven't conducted a thorough review of your contributions, I suspect you'd make an excellent administrator. Would you be interested in having me review you against my standards in anticipation of me nominating you for adminship? --Durin 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly appreciate your assessment. You may wish to consider the comments I made to No September just a few sections above. My biggest concern is that I haven't contributed a lot of content lately, although in the past I have worked on orphan and dead-end articles and the merge backlog. I do think that helping to make wikipedia a nice place to hang out is useful (or else all the article writers would leave) but that's not always viewed well at RFA and I have no intention of putting myself through the meat grinder twice (once for all the marbles). For handling of controversy you might check out Al Seckel, particularly the talk archives. I've previously been active at AfD but the politics and sheer ridiculousness of some of the behavior there made me decide to spend my time elsewhere. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, give me a few days. It takes some hours to do the review, and I rarely have whole hours to use. --Durin 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Cliche alert ... I thought he already was one. I'll be glad to second a nomination when you're ready. I see you on virtually all the admin-related pages doing admin-type things, generally keeping things organized and injecting needed doses of good sense. Whether you decide to seek a formal mop or not, keep up the good job. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*joins bandwagon* I'd third. ;) I already thought you were one! :O Highway Return to Oz... 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Comments you pointed to me above. Yes, is a bit of a meat grinder. But, if I nom you, it will have a thorough nomination statement and things should go smoothly. No guarantees of course. Yes, being a sysop can be a bit of a troll bait. In many respects it's a thankless job. But, it's an important step to take. I'm still working on your review. Being reluctant to be an admin is to some people (myself included) a good sign. But, I also want to be sure you're not too reluctant :) You do want to be an administrator, yes? --Durin 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good to see this going forward. Durin, sorry for stealing a bit of the surprise of the offer a few days ago, but you know people are watching ;). NoSeptember 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah :) I'm sure some people are watching that page if only because enough people have been nommed off of it without my being involved. I think it's pretty clear from all of his contributions that Thatcher131 should be an admin. Some reluctance is a good sign, but I don't want to drag someone kicking and screaming into RfA :) --Durin 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries there, I'm definitely interested. I just don't plan on going through RFA twice, so if there are any doubts or potholes in the way I would rather wait a little longer and get it done right the first time. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I can certainly understand that. While hopefully not coming off as immodest, I think you're in good hands. There's only a small handful of users that going into tremendous depth in evaluating a candidate towards nomination. There's quite a number that go into some depth, but I think there's just three of us that examine everything in as much as we can. If there's any potholes to be found, I think I have a fair shot of finding it. If you're aware of any, let me know. We can discuss what it is, its relevancy, etc. --Durin 12:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, I've seen you doing administratorish things and was also wondering if you already were one. :) Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:09Z

  • I just want to add my name to the chorus of voices saying that you should allow yourself to be proposed for adminship. Bucketsofg 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. At this point I'm waiting for Durin's assessment, meanwhile tiling my kitchen :-/ Thatcher131 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As do I! Everywhere admin-related I go I see your name... may as well make it official ^_^ --james(talk) 09:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA

Hi Thatcher,

On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted oppose based on his apparent lack of experience ("no edits to the administrative noticeboard or intervention against vandalism, and fewer than 10 edits to AfD"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. You have opposed based on inexperience, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. Thatcher, I know you want what's best for Wikipedia. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed from oppose to neutral for the reasons I discuss there. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I did notice. Thank you for looking more closely into the situation, and reconsidering your opinion. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On MyWikiBiz

Unless people get a dictum from Jimbo otherwise, I believe we're still open to judge/suggest for ourselves (and Arbcom for itself, although perhaps Arbcom, because of its relation to Jimbo, should check with him first if established policy suggests so). I personally would not have hesitated to block MyWikiBiz if I had seen their continued activity before the Arbcom case was presented (although I might've also dropped a note to Jimbo at the same time). --Improv 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt and Ramona

Perhaps you're right; I don't know much about precedence for radio personalities. Though I think that they should have their own articles, or the article should be entitled the name of their show. I deleted it because they sounded non-notable and it was written from a very strong point of view. Let me know if you'd like it restored, though. --Fang Aili talk 19:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


No, there needs to be something around here where you can very simply solve serious issues like this with problematic users. I have been going every whichway to get this man from editing this page incorrectly and no one has done anything about the situation. I came here with an intent to have fun and make edits, not to deal with problematic users and go through all these steps that lead to no where. Tonetare 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Marion Cohen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marion Cohen, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I'm relisting this on procedural grounds as the original AfD was closed early. Espresso Addict 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert

How am I supposed to correct lies about me by Arbitrators then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiv (talkcontribs) PS don't call me an Anon. I'm a non-logged in Adullamite Wikipedian.

I didn't want to assume you were Dbiv; someone might have been impersonating you to get you in trouble. If you want to add a comment or dispute what Dmcdevit said, add it separately. Just don't change what he wrote. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for opening the case. I have unprotected User talk:Hardvice and User talk:Weevlos to enable you to post the notice. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, you may want to review your notification edits, they did not all come out right. (example). NoSeptember 13:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. There's two templates, for parties and commenters, and it looks like I forgot to put the case name in when I used the commenters template (the parties came out OK, and I fixed the rest. Thanks!!!!! Thatcher131 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I've never done one before--do all the outside statements get put in? rootology (T) 16:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement by involved parties are on the main page, the statements by uninvolved parties are on the main talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Anyone can add evidence to the evidence page. I will say your evidence presentation is about the longest I've ever seen. You might look at ways of trimming it. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

RfCuC waiting list

RfCuC my that's a mouthful :P Tell me: do you know roughly what the waiting list (time) is on the RfCu Clerks? thanks :) --Deon555talkReview 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson

I'd like to restore the IP addresses to the checkuser request. While Wikipedia is unable to act on such information, the results could be presented to AOL in a formal request for administrative action on their end. I'll wait for the conclusion of a Wikipedia investigation before initiating anything with a service provider. Considering the very long time frame involved (two years!), that sort of request would be merited if these suspicions prove to be well founded. The pattern of abusive behavior is very consistent.

Stalking behavior of any sort is a matter I take very seriously. While I consider the prospect unlikely, there is at least a thought at the back of my head that a person who has already gone this far might find me in real life. The best way to minimize that possibility is to investigate thoroughly and swiftly. Durova 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the value of the checkuser tool. But I'm on my way out for the day; I'll get back to you tonight. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA and RFAr clerk

Hello Thatcher131 :-) You are a wonderful editor. Will you agree to put yourself up for RFA soon? Glad to see you helping with RFAr too. Hope Arb comm makes it official. Thatcher131's #1 fan club member, FloNight 23:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Durin was looking into nominating me; he seems to be a particularly strong nominator. I'll wait a bit longer before poking him again. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur with FloNight. Newyorkbrad 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for starting up WP:CHILD. --Yamla 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely something that needs some careful thought at the very least. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Request information

Why'd you move my usercheck on IP to the Striver request? The two are totally separate. The IP would make a puppeteer of Publicola, or Pepsidrinka most likely.

Please revert your changes unless you have knowledge that Striver is using

Am I in error? Please explain.--Scribner 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You filed a report that Starcare was a sockpuppet of Striver, and a report that Starcare was a sockpuppet of an IP. Obviously both can't be true unless the IP is also Striver so I merged them. You also did not list Publicola as a suspected puppet or master using the template, so I guess I'm unclear on exactly what you think is going on and why you filed two separate requests both naming Starcare. Feel free to revert and correct as needed. However, listing Starcare in two separate requests will probably look like a fishing expedition to the checkusers. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You are in error, please revert.--Scribner 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I will revert the changes but do not be surprised if both requests are summarily declined once the checkusers get a look at them. If you don't have strong evidence tying Starcare to one other account and instead are trying to find out in general who Starcare is the request will be declined. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you wasting my time? Per Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe, User talk:Starcare and User talk:Publicola, Starcare and Publicola are both suspected sockpuppets of Striver. There is no reason not to combine the cases. Since the IP reverted changes to Publicola's talk page, its fair game as well. If there is something else going on here, you better open up about it. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicola is a sock puppet of Pepsidrinka, fact. That is new knowledge. Please revert to my original request. Thanks.--Scribner 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert without a better explanation. If Publicola is a sock of Pepsidrinka, then why do you also list Starcare and the IP address? Thatcher131 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read this:

IP reverted Publicola's puppet tag. Publicola reverted Starcare's tag. Both involved with this edit war, and mediation interesting to note both show interest in battery powered vehicles (IP #1),(IP #2) and here for Starcare. Probably more if needed.--Scribner 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP is likely Publicola's or Pepsidrinka's...--Scribner 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, per your judgement. Publicola is not a sock puppet of Striver. Publicola is a sock puppet of Pepisdrinka. This is my first checkuser and I found new information. I feel as though you may have contaminated my request.--Scribner 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please understand I don't know anything about these disputes except in the links that you provided. I still don't see why you are listing Starcare with both cases. You need to decide what you want. If you want to check Starcare against Striver, then revert the Striver case. If you want to check Publicola against Pepsidrinka, you should create a new case for that. If you want to confirm that a certain IP address is used by Publicola and/or Pepsidrinka, you should include the IP address with that case listing. However, IP addresses are very rarely confirmed publically, so if you list a case with just one user and one IP it will almost certainly be declined, and if you list a case with Publicola, Pepsidrinka and the IP, it will probably be answered yes or no on the named users and no comment on the IP. (You might also consider altering your statements in the mediation case and user talk:Publicola.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the strongest evidence:‎

IP reverted Publicola's puppet tag. Publicola reverted Starcare's tag. Both involved with this edit war, and mediation interesting to note both show interest in battery powered vehicles (IP #1),(IP #2) and here for Starcare. Probably more if needed.--Scribner 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I regret that you combined the two reports. I feel as though you contaminated my reports. Pepsidrinka is an admin with sock puppet named Publicola, fact...Yes the IP is the key, but it needs to be checked against Publicola and Pepsidrinka. I found new information. Why combine the two?--Scribner 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to revert on the mediation page, Publicola IS an admitted sock puppet. Unreal--Scribner 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my last edit and then I'm going to bed. I think I am beginning to understand the dispute but I still don't see why you formatted your requests as you did. I am trying to help, but this situation is complex and I can predict with 99% certainty that without a better explanation than you originally provided, the Publicola check would be declined. (I've read about 400 checkuser cases so I'm not entirely a noob at this.) I'm also not entirely sure that you're understanding my comments. Let's take this one step at a time:

  1. Publicola is an admitted sockpuppet of someone created for the purpose of testing a theory, "multiple point of view." You think the main account is Pepsidrinka, who is an admin.
  2. Publicola, Starcare, and Striver are on the same side of a dispute over Shock and awe that is in mediation (and you are on the other side).
  3. Publicola has reverted sockpuppet tags on Starcare's user and user talk page.
  4. You have accused Starcare of being Striver's sockpuppet.
  5. You believe is Publicola's IP address.

Given these apparent facts, I make the following comments and recommendations.

  1. Pepsidrinka has not edited or taken any admin actions regarding the articles edited by Publicola or Starcare. Therefore, even if your accusation is correct, no policy violation has occurred and there is no justification for a checkuser request comparing Pepsidrinka and Publicola. Deal with Publicola as Publicola and stop worrying about the main account.
  2. Based on wikipedia's privacy policy and the checkuser policy, you have no good reason to ask for a comparison against the IP address. Even if Pepsidrinka and Publicola were engaged in a policy violation and were proven to be the same person, the IP address would not be disclosed or confirmed.
  3. You have a reasonable case to request a comparison between Starcare and Striver.

I am reverting the Striver case to your first version that requests a check between Striver and Starcare only. I recommend that you drop the Publicola/IP matter entirely. If you feel you must have an official answer regarding Publicola and Pepsidrinka, file a separate request listing just those two users and leave out the IP address. The checkuser tool will reveal to the person performing the check all IPs recently used by each editor, and the checkusers are very experienced at interpreting the results. Checks frequently reveal sockpuppets not listed in the original request, based on this evidence, so if there is a further connection between Starcare and Publicola it will also reveal itself when the check is run. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted my request. Do you have that authority?--Scribner 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ still exists, it is a redirect to the Striver case. You can revert it to a prior version. I simply removed it from the listing on the RFCU page. Once you have modified the request, you can relist it. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't remove or merge or alter my request for Usercheck, thanks.--Scribner 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, based on this discussion I think your IP check is deliberately misleading. You really want to check Publicola and Pepsidrinka, but you only list Starcare. We'll see what Mackensen thinks about it next time he shows up. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just leave my requests alone, ok? Thanks.--Scribner 06:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, Thatcher, but the discussion above and elsewhere on this issue is confusing. Has a request to determine if Striver is Starcare's puppetmaster been rejected? (That Starcare is a sockpuppet of someon or other seems extraordinarily likely given his contribution history.) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The same evening of the main discussion, after I went to bed, Scribner himself withdrew the request to compare Starcare and Striver, so it was deleted without ever being run. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Thank you very much for voting on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address the concerns raised by the opposing !voters before running again. Your comments were particularly helpful, and I intend to keep them in mind as much as possible in my future activities. Of course, if you'd like to leave any further feedback or suggestions, I'd be very glad to hear them at my talk page. Thanks again!

-- RandyWang (chat/patch) 13:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SoftPale (talk · contribs)

SoftPale (talk · contribs) has one edit...[11] [12]. I blocked this person when they were using their other account, namely SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) after they showed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite and posted this personal attack...having not made a single edit in the six months prior to that edit. This editor only had 15 edits total prior to the posting at that Rfc and now posting as SoftPale (talk · contribs) has stated, " I also from emailing the arbitrators, that they are completely biased in favor of administrators. Only one even answered and that person was fully biased against me because I am a lurker here, refusing to put my statement here." which I take to mean that they haven't been unblocked after emailing arbcom [13]. Please remove their comments from my arbcom until someone from the arbitration committee unblocks them. Additionally, as a indefinitely banned editor, I believe even emails from User:Blu Aardvark are not permitted since he is no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia.--MONGO 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you also posted this on the RFAR talk page, I replied there. I appreciate your concern regarding BA's e-mail to me and rest assured I do not plan on replying from a traceable address. FloNight is a newly minted arbitration clerk and if you feel I've made any serious mistakes you could ask her to take over watching the pages. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have conplete confidence in your abilities...I was merely addressing some issues that you may not have fully aware of.--MONGO 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep it coming. I would rather be told I was wrong than to have everyone think it behind my back. This is certainly a new level of learning experience though. :) Thatcher131 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One way I handle submissions by banned editors and the like is to forward them directly to the arbitrators. This avoids the banned editor abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of grandstanding. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you send separate e-mails or do you have write access to the arbcom mailing list? Thatcher131 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up on the AE file, by one of Leyasu's socks... I've put my reply to it there with appropriate diffs. The IPs mentioned are not mine, as I don't edit while logged out... and if you check with the "WHOIS" link, two of the IPs are on completely different services from different areas anyway. (both of which seem to be Canadian and I do not reside there). - Deathrocker 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding user Tonydcp Arbitration request on Kosovo

User:Tonycdp was simply not fully aware of the regulations surrounding arbitration [14]. I have informed him [15] and he agreed to follow the rules [16]. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. He can put his rebuttal in the appropriate place. There's nothing further to pursue. I do think that dropping fact tags on someone's case presentation (which is naturally self-supporting opinion) is a harbinger of things to come. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, its a harbinger of things that are already going on on the pages mentioned in that RfA, so to speak :). But you are right he that he shouldn't have done that. Ironically, he is one of the more cooperative editors involved in the dispute, that is the reason I wanted you not to judge him too much for this action. He still is a quite unexperienced Wikipedian. But thanks for keeping an eye on the edits at the RfA, it will indeed be necessary to keep a close watch on this one, for as long as it lasts. Happy editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the deletions, and for explaining the process to me. I'd rather leave all of it blank. And thanks for adding the speedy tag. Best, --AaronS 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I whacked it and closed the mfd. Replying here since I assume AaronS wants to have his talk page blanked. Syrthiss 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, he left a retirement message and that's that I guess. Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Meta:Right_to_vanish says it can be done. (See 3.) David Sneek 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I have now done that correctly. Best, Kukini 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as no helpful vandal tagger recreates the page again :) Thatcher131 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

I seek advice

Because my comments seem to me to be over-reacted to. If you were willing to read the talk here and tell me if I'm being inappropriate, I would appreciate it. In any event, thank you. Terryeo 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Terryeo 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox's issue

It's clear I was right when I said that you weren't going to read my defense. How I have to tell you that in SqueakBox's user page there is an insult against me, that SqueakBox was blocked for it and that because Guettarda's biased intervention (protecting the page and all that) this problem is growing every day? WP:NPA forbids insults. I only want that insult to disappear. Am I asking so much? Hagiographer 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I was just thinking the MONGO RfC should be archived and reading up on the process when I noticed you already took care of it. Thanks. --CBD 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping

I wasn't totally sure how to fix the various incarnations of PowerPoint. i had originally thought to create a dab page but TrackerTV already had made "Power point" and reading the WP guide to dabs led me to beleive that he had done it correctly. I've moved your double redirect fixes to have almost everything go to the dab page save for Power Points which now has been merged (although needing A LOT of cleanup). you can check here[18] to see if the redirects are appropriate. I also understand we have a lot of pokemon enthusiats who thing that every minute apsect of the games, manga, and anime needs its own article, and the PCP tries its hardest to keep the articles in perspective to their actual notability. the "pokécruft" you referred to was in the process of being merged and does not reflect the level of writing that the PCP strives to maintain in each of its articles. thanks again -Zappernapper 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "pokecruft" in the edit summary was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek; I don't mind keeping the articles. My goal was to have all versions of PowerPoint (singular) going to Microsoft PowerPoint and all versions of Power points (plural) going to Power points. I'll look in on things in a few days. If you don't think this is a good scheme, let me know. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I replied to you

here. You raise good points and I felt it right to reply in a like tone. Terryeo 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph's AN/I Incident

If you're able to get on IRC tonight, I'd like to discuss this incident. You're quite correct in your comment that this is a complex case. --Torinir 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never been an IRC person. (And tonight, even my broadband is down, I'm on a backup dialup connection). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's OK bro. I assume you're up to date on the whole affair? --Torinir 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for intruding here (this userpage is watchlisted because I once posted to it), but given the sensitive nature of the issues involved (and see my comments in the WP:ANI thread), you both might want to continue your discussion via e-mail rather than on-wiki. Just a thought FWIW. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I was hoping for IRC contact, but hey. --Torinir 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd rather not get involved at all. I'm not up to date and have no wish to be so. I don't fault anyone for trying in good faith to solve this mess but I think the chance of any wikipedian being able to get all the facts from both sides and find the "truth" is very small and the chance of being able to do anything about it even smaller. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker/Leyasu request for clarification

At the request of an arbitrator I'm clearing away some requests for clarification, one of which was your query about Deathrocker's reverting of Leyasu. I've removed the section from Requests for arbitration and added it to the talk page of the Leyasu and Deathrocker arbitrations.

For the arbitration comittee. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Timing for going up for RfA

I'm nearly complete with my evaluation. I'd like to go live with this on Friday. Will you be available for the time period of the RfA from that point forward for seven days to answer any questions that may arise? --Durin 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll be away Sat-Sun the 23rd-24th so it would be best to have it completed before I go. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, works for me. We'll plan on going live with it Friday then. Any particular time of day (UTC) that's best for you? I can have this ready to go on Thursday evening, giving you time to answer questions, etc. --Durin 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm on the U.S. East coast, so I'm awake until 04:00 UTC Friday morning (my Thursday night); then I have about 30 minutes around 11:00 at breakfast, then I'm at work until 22:00 (I can edit briefly, as now). So I guess it depends on when you think there will be a lot of action and how long a question can sit before I get to it. Do you want to recommend something based on that? Thatcher131 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same time zone, so let's talk EST :) So your primary availability is in the evenings then? If so, then I'd recommend I get the RfA to you on Thursday evening, and we launch Friday evening, sometime after you get back from work. How does that sound? --Durin 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Thatcher131 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, glad to see this conversation. About time. JoshuaZ 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:CHILD

I know you'd like your proposal to be given equal consideration, but replacing the one most people are talking about with it gives the impression that you're trying to make it seem as if your proposal is the better-known WP:CHILD rather than an alternative to it.

In any case, I've reverted it back to the last prior version, and in future please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. CameoAppearance 07:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I wrote both proposals to start with, and the reason I wrote WP:CHILD2 was based on the direction of the discussion at the first proposal. Since User:Radiant! unilaterally blanked WP:CHILD2 and redirected it, he/she effectively killed it before it ever got fair consideration. Thatcher131 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to disturb but I am unable to ascertain the outcome of this users CU request? Was it conclusive as I would really like to remove this troll from our midst, thanks - Glen 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a disturbtion at all. The case is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee. It looks like Aeon tried to get Mackensen to check all the contibutors to the MFD at about the same time you added Lorrainer, and Mackensen dismissed it as a fishing expedition. (Mackensen will generally look at specific requests within reason but asking for a check on an entire MfD without even specifying which accounts were suspect was never going to cut it.) If you don't have enough evidence on behavior to block Lorrainer, you can make a new request on the page listing just Lorrainer and Dr Chatterjee as the main account; or listing by name other accounts you are suspicious of. Thatcher131 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitration hearing evidence for Thatcher

This is being submitted anonymously to protect the identity of my username--too much retaliation going around these days for voicing any opinions contrary to certain mind sets. Please add this as corrolary evidence to the MONGO ArbCom as the active clerk working the case. All the arguments about the ED article being deleted for "non-notability" were/are a sham--see all the news sources, including broadcast & print media, all covering the site, which is *very* notable. It's alexa rank has bounced from 15,000 to 1,500 this past month, up and down. Which goes back again to the arguments on there--if there is a new official policy that any hyper-critical sites cannot be linked out to or have articles, they need to honestly stop pussy footing about it and using passive aggressive language. The article should not have been deleted, as there is *NO* policy, rule, or reasoning to delete articles about sites that are critical about Wikipedia/ians. Again... Wikitruth. Thanks for your consideration.

Requesting that as this is ARBITRATION COMMITTEE EVIDENCE, no one but Thatcher is allowed to edit these comments. His decision whether or not to submit this evidence.

June 2005:

January 2006:

September 2006:

TV news coverage

  • MSNBC TV - MSNBC, the major and leading cable news network, reported on ED and its role in the RFJason Craigslist Experiment, including screen shots of the website and the URL, and specifically talking ABOUT the site by name repeatedly. Google Video mirror, and YouTube mirror.

International news coverage

  • The Ottawa Sun referenced ED, quoting our take on the evolution of the Emo scene.
  • The Toronto Sun also reported on our coverage of that music scene, in a much more expanded article.
  • Spiegal, a major German news source, reported on ED and Jason Fortuny.
  • La Press Affairs, a leading Francophone news source, also covered ED and Fortuny.

Major blogosphere


I appreciate your confidence in me. I think this evidence has very little to do with the ongoing arbitration case. Regardless of whether the deletion of the ED article was "right" is some abstract sense, the problem is the conduct of the parties during and after the AfD debate.

What you have done here is to begin to make a reasonable case for the recreation of an ED article. I still think one important factor is lacking--independent verifiable info about ED that does not come from its own web site. Who founded it? What are their goals? Who runs it? Who pays for the bandwidth? When an independent article comes out from somewhere addressing these issues, more editors will switch sides on the topic. Thatcher131 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That backslasher proxy

I blocked them based on your report, and their contributions after the rfc pages were all spamming crap. I also deleted the empty rfc created by them. Cheers. Syrthiss 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)