User talk:Thatcher/Archive25

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill
Just trying to wrap my head around the "block with no discussion first" idea. Do I understand correctly that you would have blocked, without warning and without discussion, User:Rebecca for this comment, made a couple of days ago, if you had noticed it at the time? (and if so, please, please, please don't go block her now) Surely there's a difference between "unhelpful conduct that needs to be discouraged", and "dangerous conduct that requires an immediate block with no discussion first"?

Personally, I can't comprehend the level of anger and rudeness on the arbitration talk page in question, in response to a decision that really makes perfect sense to me; I assume there are political things going on that I'm not familiar with. But there's a lot of bile there, from a lot of people. To cut one person out of the herd and block him with no warning, pour encourager les autres, seems a little unfair and hasty. If that was the goal, a warning first on that page that enough is enough would have been good (didn't see one, but I'll look again).

I know, there's only half an hour left, and it's none of my business, but I thought you'd like some uninvolved feedback. Inexplicably, and perhaps unintentionally, in his unblock decline Daniel Case more or less suggested an ANI thread when the block expires, and I have no real desire to participate there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, where to begin...
 * On one hand, I sometimes make hasty decisions. This is why I will never run for Arbcom, among other things.  On the other hand, anyone who does not know that "You are incompetent and should be shot" is inappropriate in a professional setting, even if it is rhetorical excess, was probably never properly socialized, or has spent too much time watching Southpark.  What is the purpose of a warning?  For a new editor, it lets them know what the standards of behavior are in this big new project they've joined.  But for an experienced editor, a warning says, at best, "I know and you know you shouldn't say that, but this time someone who cares enough to actually do something about it is watching".  On wikipedia you win debates by having the facts, or the better and more cogent argument on your side, not by shouting or insulting people or using rhetorical excess to shock your readers.  Newbies don't know that but someone with 49,000 edits surely does.
 * Wikipedia is not Usenet, 4chan or the comments section at Free Republic. It is, at least in theory, a collaborative encyclopedia, and like all collaborative projects, demands mutual respect and courtesy from its collaborators, even when they disagree.  This is why such things as the Eastern European mailing list is so destructive (something underappreciated by Arbcom, I fear) -- the participants treated Wikipedia as a contest and their fellow editors as game pieces to be manipulated.  Or consider the semi-annual Giano block war.  Whatever Giano does to incite a block is insignificant compared to the destruction of respect and goodwill among his defenders and the attackers of his defenders.  No one is allowed to make an innocent mistake, everything is either immoral, unethical, incompetent, or deliberately corrupt.
 * I'm also not interested in a debate on the subject. "anyone that incompetent should be shot" is inappropriate, period, end of story, no debate allowed as far as I'm concerned.  Admit it and take it back, or admit it and stand by it, but don't tell me it's not rude, crude, and an unacceptable way to treat volunteers who care as much about the project and have as many (or more) hours and edits invested as you.
 * Was it against common practice to block without a warning? Sure, I'll cop to that.  But, really, requiring that experienced editors be given warnings gives them a free pass to say unacceptable things, that they know are unacceptable, as long as they don't do it too often.
 * So, fine. Bad block, I'm an incompetent admin.  Line me up against the wall with the rest of Arbcom. Thatcher 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the in depth reply. I see you don't want to talk about this anymore, so I'll say one more thing and then drop it. I tried to make it as clear as possible above that I'm not looking for your head on a platter; I gave you the "mutual respect and courtesy" you say above is needed for a productive discussion. I don't think it's fair to imply that I think you're incompetent, or should be lined up against a wall, or that I agree with those howling about the various bad things they think ArbCom has done.  None of those assumptions are accurate, and that is not why I brought this up. It makes it hard to have a productive conversation when mutual respect and courtesy still results in "I'm also not interested in a debate on the subject". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I'm not interested in a debate on whether "anyone that incompetent should be shot" is inappropriate.  I am willing to discuss whether someone should blocked for saying such a thing, or whether there are alternate courses of action that should be followed.  Furthermore, I acknowledge that blocking without a warning is outside of common practice.  I do believe that the common practice of giving warnings gives experienced editors a free pass to say things they know they shouldn't say, and I wish the situation were otherwise. Thatcher 22:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned because process was not followed per se; IAR has it's place, as long as it improves things. I'm concerned that it was an overreaction, which made things worse. A group of people are howling about people in positions of... authority, for lack of a more accurate word... bending the rules when it suits them and ignoring the hoi polloi.  One of them goes too far.  The reaction is to bend the rules and block one of the hoi polloi. Solidifying, even more, their generally incorrect (IMHO) worldview.  If you ever said anything in anger, I expect you would appreciate someone telling you it went too far, and giving you a chance to change it.  I think DuncanHill deserved that chance.  Not a free pass to insult, but a chance to de-escalate.   I also ask, somewhat rhetorically, whether you, FisherQueen, Dan Case, Jehochman, or AGK (admins who I've seen support this block) would have been blocked without warning themselves for saying something similar in anger. As you say above, I don't want to debate this one particular point, because I know in my heart what the answer is.
 * Communication via words is better than communication via block button, at least until words don't work. You didn't try words first.  The message an instablock sends is "I can block you and you can't block me", and I'm sure hardened his attitude even more. I know it incrementally moved me to be slightly more sympathetic to their point, however ridiculously expressed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we get to shoot you? I really hope you'll run for ArbCom.  A little most hastiness in their workings would be a fine thing, and you can't make a decision until everybody else votes.  The potential for damage from hastiness is mitigated. I personally would would have redacted the comment to read "so incompetent they should be [tickled until they pee themselves]."  Jehochman Talk 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not run. Thatcher 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's those pictures from the clerks office party two years ago, isn't it. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your block popped up on my watchlist. I like Duncan; but my reaction was still "Good block." Oh, and Floquenbeam: it would be unwise to try and compare comments made in the context of a poor appointment to an online subcommittee with ones made in the context of a gang rape case. AGK 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand they are not exactly the same issue. But it would also be unwise to completely neglect the similarities as well. Do you see no value in pointing out the disparate reactions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebecca was out of line. If we are going to discuss her behavior, could we invite her here to comment? Or maybe it would be better to let the issue pass.  I am not sure. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebecca was already discussed at WQA and her talk page; my intention here is not to discuss her behavior, or seek anything further in her case, but to compare the disparate reactions. If my choice is between pestering her further, and dropping it, I'd choose dropping it. If a third option is available (i.e. mentioning that incident as a comparison, without having to make a big deal out of it) then I'd prefer that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a crap shoot. Sometimes a stern administrator like Thatcher pops up and places a sanction. Sometimes you get a creampuff like me who lets the user off with a warning.  There is room for individual administrator discretion. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have hardly ever watched Southpark, and I request that you withdraw your defamatory comment about my mother's parenting skills. I don't give a damn how rude you are about me, but to attack a pensioner who never edits Wikipedia just because you don't like her son's choice of words is below contempt. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Utterly absurd, not to mention hypocritical of you to even suggest that my comment is out of bounds but your comment is not (not to mention requesting oversight. I shall not comment but may I laugh?).  Nevertheless, consider it done, as I am basically a nice guy even toward very silly people. Thatcher 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
I believe sufficient time has lapsed and my editing policy has been modified sufficiently since this block to merit a removal. If you agree I will proceed to WP:AE but I would like your opinion first. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42#Xenovatis--Anothroskon (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Added one more account to an SPI case you've recently worked on
If the time has come to checkuser Flegelpuss, I updated the Scibaby SPI report by adding, who is still editing quite actively on physics articles, from a non-standard viewpoint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful
I appreciate your work on SPI, and I can understand your main point on AN/I. I agree that there may be some circling of the wagons going on. We have been dealing with on the order of 600 abusive socks from just one master by now - the supply never ends, and editors catch enormous amounts of flak when there even minimal collateral damage. I don't see a good way out of this unless more editors are willing to step into this field and help defend the integrity of Wikipedia. Anyways, what brought me here is another aspect. You wrote: ''Wikipedia clearly has a "House POV" on climate articles--this is in part a natural consequence of the demand for reliable third party sources, which means that Wikipedia will always lag behind breaking news and shifts in scientific paradigms. (If Wikipedia had existed in 1975, it would have defended global cooling and the ending of the current interglacial period, and anthropogenic global warming would have been fringe.)''. I find that a remarkably uninformed and unconsidered statement. First, as you will find in our own article on global cooling and the linked reliable sources (at least one of which has been written by a competent Wikipedian), in 1975 global cooling was not considered a serious threat in the scientific literature, but a remote speculation, and a strong majority of scientists already predicted that warming as the result of the enhanced greenhouse effect was much more likely. A Newsweek article does not scientific opinion make. This is a standard talking point of deniers. That you repeat it shows that they do a good job in confusing the issue. Please don't fall for this. Secondly, your statement can be interpreted - whether intentional or not - as if we were currently experiencing "shifts in scientific paradigms" on climate change. We are not, or if we are, it is due a couple of recent scary papers showing that we are at or above the IPCC upper boundaries for several indicators (sea ice, CO2 emissions), not due to some stolen and misrepresented emails. Finally, yes, all of Wikipedia has a "house POV", usually called "the Neutral Point of View". There are few fields in which the scientific community has gone to such great lengths as in climate change to summarize and neutrally present a field. The result are the IPCC reports - widely praised even by the few rational sceptics (Christy, Lindzen, Pielke). They are not "one side of the debate", they are the scientific mainstream. The extremists believe The Day After Tomorrow is a documentary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"A few of his emails"
Having reviewed the archive, I'd like you to check to see if a "few" of WMC's emails are in it. I don't believe that statement is accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My recollection is there are 4 or 5 emails he was copied on, and one or two responses from him. He is also named as one of the coordinators of the Real Climate web site, something that is apparently common knowledge but that I did not know about him until the other day.  Keeping in mind that the conflict of interest policy does not ban editors from editing, but advises caution and asks conflicted editors to defer to community opinion when there is a dispute, do you honestly think WMC does not have a conflict of interest on this issue? Thatcher 13:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your recollection is wrong. I understand that you misunderstand the difference between science and advocacy - it's ok, it obvious that many who are on the right side of science do also - but the fact of the matter is that while he has a COI on global warming controversy, he has no COI on global warming. Do all reasonably biologists have a COI on evolution? Do all physicists have a COI on gravity? Do all mainstream economists have a COI on marginal utility? There's a controversy from a tiny minority of professionals and a large and vocal minority of the public on each of those. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More later, perhaps. I have to run now. Thatcher 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does he have a conflict of interest on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident?  It was Bigred58's assertion of this on the talk page, and its removal by other editors and subsequent sockpuppet allegations against Bigred58, that started this all.
 * 2) it obvious that many who are on the right side of science do also Given that the email archive shows collusion to prevent skeptics from publishing in peer-reviewed journals and to hide data from other researchers who want to verify the results and methods, I'd call this the understatement of the year.
 * 3) Do all reasonably biologists have a COI on evolution?  Now that's an interesting question and the answer is more complicated than you assume.  I once knew a research biologist named Barry Hall, who had published showing that certain favorable mutations in E coli occurred more frequently than could be explained by random chance, as demanded by current evolutionary theory.  It was a long time ago, and I can't really explain his work in detail, and I don't even know how the story turned out, but it was certainly provocative and controversial at the time (google: Barry Hall directed evolution). Certainly he would have a conflict of interest editing articles on bacterial evolution, because his reputation and funding depended on his research and how it was perceived by others.  Similarly, I have several pending grant applications on a particular research topic and it would definitely be a conflict of interest if I were to edit within that topic in such a way as to make my own grant proposals seem more important, novel, or relevant.  Let's say for now that it is certainly possible for scientists to have a conflict of interest especially where professional reputations and research funding are concerned.
 * By the way, he is the recipient of 3 emails, the sender of one, and mentioned in a fifth. Thatcher 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care if he has a conflict of interest on an article of interest only to a few mouth-breathers. I care that you stop insinuating that he has a conflict of interest with respect to global warming, that his email (SINGULAR) in the leaked emails shows any malfeasance on his part, and that there's any valid dissent amongst reliable sources with respect to global warming, regardless of 3 malfactors in one leaked email file trying to shut up loud ignoramuses. Barry Hall does not contest that evolution exists - in fact, his experiments were the first to demonstrate it experimentally. I can, in fact, explain his work in detail, and I can also explain why whatever mouthbreather told you it proved irriducable complexity was wrong - but honestly, at this point, you've thrown out enough anti-scientific canards that it dosen't appear worth discussing it with you at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you choose to insult and belittle me on my own talk page. I'll just close this by saying that I know Barry Hall's research was controversial at the time because I was there, and I know he had trouble get published and funded.  I'm happy his work has withstood the test of time and you'll just have to forgive me for spending the last 20 years specializing on my own research instead of his. Thatcher 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin issues
You have recently made questionable blocks of editors. Please investigate your own behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.198.123 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So how goes the self-investigation? Asked yourself any searching questions yet? ;) WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI
Regarding my SPI report, you asked me for accounts to check against but the report is closed and about to archive so mentioning here. I've thought about it... of everyone I keep coming back to User:Nocrowx and User:Headlikeawhole. User:Ikip and I certainly had some... interesting moments at NEWT but I was hesitant to name him/her here. There was another IP I had a dispute with over classifying my warnings on his talk page as vandalism: User:68.68.87.154, and there was of course the User:Mn kjnb vandal socks that were attacking my userpage. These are the only ones I can think of. If none of them match up I guess it will just have to remain inconclusive. Thanks for your help! &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, feel free to report further IP threats to Dominic or myself. It may be that with additional edits, we can track someone down. Thatcher 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ruby slippers-cropped.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Ruby slippers-cropped.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hung
Sure, you can only be hung once, but normally it lasts throughout your life you tend to be a lot popular. Hanged, on the other hand, definitely tends to ruin things. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicLegg
I got two users, User:Alice Mudgarden and User:Frvernchanezzz, who both say they're two separate people, despite your finding that they're both confirmed to have been used by the same person (even though it was inconclusive as to whether they were used by CosmicLegg). Can you please double-check that one to make sure I didn't misread or misblock? Thank you, MuZemike 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same IP and computer, also, unless they are using the roommate defense  in which case then obviously they are different people, right?  No one would lie about having a roommate. Thatcher 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So cynical, so arrogant, and so sure of yourself. Here's another error you've made - in your second userbox, you've placed the word "possibly" where it should not be. Cheers. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm running a check for another reason, and see two accounts sharing a computer, with different topic interests and generally good behavior, I usually won't say anything at all. When two accounts are previously flagged as suspicious, and edit the same articles in the same manner, and they turn out to be using the same computer, then the odds of them being unrelated drops dramatically.  The sockpuppet policy allows us to consider editors who act the same and contribute from the same computer to be the same person, because it is impossible to prove otherwise. Thatcher 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brexx
Would you mind weighing in at Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx? I ran a check on the accounts listed there, but I'm not 100% sure of the results, and we're a bit confused on the result of the last check you ran. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
The silliness has resumed. Following up from SPI section above. Latest comment from my friend is. Geolocates to Maryland, just like 69.243.46.77 does. The other ISP 65.204.30.126 geolocates to Fairfax, Virginia. All three are from the general Washington DC/Baltimore area. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They quickly followed up the addition to my talk page with this edit on he talk page of someone I helped to improve their first article. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it is User:0Bammer/User:Headlikeawhole. Looks like he made the following edit to his 0Bammer userpage and forgot to log in . Again Comcast, again Geolocates to the East Coast, this time in Pennsylvania. What do you think? &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like you may be busy in RL. I've found a ton more 0Bammer socks (or rather 0Bammer is the sock since these accounts are older) and filed an SPI about this. If you come back, feel free to have a look at SPI. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 0Bammer and all the other accounts are all much too old to check. The difficulty is that Comcast in the DC area has at least 1 million IP addresses.  If your friend resets his modem after making a post, he will get a new IP from that pool, and there is no way to track him uniquely across those IPs unless we get lucky and he makes a mistake of some kind.  Your friend could be 0Bammer, or any one of potentially thousands of editors from the DC area who use Comcast.  The best thing to do is revert and ignore it, maybe have the IP blocked for 24 hours, but understand that most users on a cable ISP can get a new IP by unplugging their modem for 5 minutes. Thatcher 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the accounts are too old, but this is why I filed a request "without" Checkuser. It's a behavior investigation and the behavior seems pretty blatant to me, at least regarding the older accounts and the older 0Bammer IP. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Gnomatic
Mind taking a look at this unblock request? I've only done a few Scibaby checks, but this isn't matching up with what I've seen. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the unblock. If I call another one wrong on SB let me know since I need to apologise and learn. I have done twenty or so Scibaby blocks, and unblocked one after and email exchange with the account. As an edit pattern this editor still looks dubious to me; few edits to seed the account in october, dozen on the Laffer curve for distraction then in with a vengence joining edit wars etc claiming WP:CENCORSHIP and other serious bits of policy. --BozMo talk 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for handling this, which I know must have been tedious. I must say, it's extremely disconcerting to have the maximum sanction applied for adding a POV template. If there are any further discussions required about the concerns raised above, over how wikipedia blocking policy was applied in this case, or anything else related then I am happy to have them.Gnomatic (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gnomatic, To be clear it wasn't a sanction for a template, just mistaken identity. I left an apology on your page. Scibaby has had a lot of socks confirmed and is creating them at a considerable rate. Past edits of his include trying to POV tag Global Warming and the talk page archive has plenty of his socks agreeing with each other about it. --BozMo talk 12:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted, thanks. Gnomatic (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Address
I don't know what's at that address but I changed it to an address that dosen't uniquely map to a place. Assuming it's not the right address, we don't want to send crazy stalkers to someone elses house. If it is the right address, Hey Now. Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made that up on the spur of the moment. Freaky. Thatcher 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider it anecdotal proof you are right about oversighting first and fixing on the backend, honestly. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that address does not seem to be real, although 340 is a kitchen and bath store and what looks like a dance studio.
 * Not every request for suppression should be, or is, acted on blindly, but a review of the oversight mailing list for the past few months would pick up a number of cases where the first responder thought the request was questionable and suppressed it but asked for review. The things that make this situation different are 1) it was on ANI, 2) it involved Giano, and 3) it involved a steward.  These factors made the situation more complicated and the proper resolution more difficult, but the underlying methodology is sound, I believe. Thatcher 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Duuuude!
You need to lighten up. If I am mistaken, explain it calmly. Also listen, because there might be nuggets of wisdom in my criticisms. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a nice guy and I'm sure you mean well, but declaring how oversighters should do their jobs and calling anyone who doesn't do it your way "clueless" and unfit for the task is totally inappropriate, especially from someone who has offered to take a supervisory and disciplinary role over those very people. Thatcher 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone means well, even our worst POV warriors. Maybe I didn't express my point well; I wasn't looking to start a war.  The simple idea is that there should be minimal sanity checking before a request is performed.  Such as type the disputed phrase into the wiki search box (or Google) and see what pops up.  This will identify any cultural references.  As I said to Risker, if I say to you "Thanks, Abe Lincoln" after you say something particularly honest, we don't want that to be Oversighted by a steward from Bangladesh who's never heard of Abraham Lincoln.
 * A better audit report would have said "Sorry, we acted like the Keystone Kops. This was a comedy of errors, and we'll be smarter next time; however, there was no bad faith or malicious intent by any involved party."  Jehochman Talk 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka
Hi, Thatcher, happy holidays. Since you've watched the cases on this persistent troll for a long time (over two years), could you look into this new SPI case mainly against ? Their edit summaries/writing style|interests/disruptive patterns are all identical, and I think I've given too much opportunities to the sockpuppeter for a long time even though I've sensed that 青鬼よし is Azukimonaka ever since he registered his "new account". Moreover, according to the expose by 青鬼よし, himself, their email address is also identical, and they operated a blog dedicated to harass me, wikistalked my edits, and canvass other Japanese socks/editors to encourage to meatpuppet. If you're bored with the holiday weekends, would you care to look into the case? Also I'm wondering why this request is not automatically shown up yet. --Caspian blue 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: the latest scibaby SPI
You noted that this ",, and are sockpuppets of each other but not of Scibaby." but did not block? And what do we call this new sockmaster? The patterns of editing are the same as Scibaby (in fact exactly the same), and they seem to be hard to distinguish... So this sockmaster will probably turn up again - and new SPI cases will probably have to take this one into account?

So my question is basically: Where do we go from here? Do we refer back to the Dec 20 Scibaby investigation? do we tag the socks? Should earlier socks be checked against this new one? etc etc.

Anyways for now Merry Christmas. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, as a checkuser I do not carry out blocks based on my findings. (There are some exceptions; for example in the same check there were a large number of Scibaby socks including several that were not listed in the report.  The checkuser interface allows direct blocking, and it was easier to do that than to copy-paste all the new user names.)  You can find an SPI clerk or uninvolved administrator to review the accounts and determine whether whether they should all be blocked or whether there is the possibility that talking to the user might lead to rehabilitation.  I think it is important to realize that Climategate is bringing a lot of new editors who don't understand our policies and practices--unlike Scibaby who knows them and chooses to ignore and flaunt them--and not every skeptical editor can or should be blocked as a Scibaby sockpuppet. Thatcher 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, Scibaby uses one of two different internet providers from a particular city, and with a particular user agent. I rechecked and it turns out that they are on one of his ISPs but from a different city, it could be that the geolocation is faulty so I've added a note that it is possible.  For me, checkuser is a technical exercise.  There are any number of ways that accounts can be technically unrelated and yet be the same person, such accounts can still be confirmed based on behavioral evidence, which is one of the reasons to have clerks and other uninvolved admins reviewing sockpuppet investigations. Thatcher 13:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that not a sceptical editors are scibaby :) And that we should be careful at the moment because of an influx of new editors. As i described in my email to you, there are several different patterns that i use to determine whether an editor is scibaby or not, and i hope that these are satisfying as to the fact that i'm not trying to "fish" or do a "witch-hunt", as GoRight presumed on the SPI thread. Thanks for your diligence in handling this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Use some nowse
There are people who really endanger the Project - and others who defend it in non-standard ways. A man of your calibre should be able to tell the difference. You could always mail people if you think they're slipping from one mode into another. 86.159.240.147 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What one person considers "non-standard defense" another person might consider disruption. I am not interested in reviewing your contributions in detail to make that determination, nor do I think it is ever a good idea for one person alone to make such judgements.  Hence the need to approach the community, or MEDCOM, or MEDCAB, or Arbcom.  I will note that none of the accounts you listed as cheats and tag-teamers are related to any other account, so you might consider that if a lot of accounts oppose your edits, maybe there really is a consensus against them. Thatcher 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick examination of the edits of User:No More Mr Nice Guy makes it very obvious that the account was created to obstruct at least three long-term productive efforts. And that it's a return account of some kind. Those three editors, also being obstructed by some of the other names I've given you, are amongst the last knowledgeable editors on the topic still left since Nishidani and the others were forced out by outrageous partisanship.
 * So what are you doing chasing me, who is generally editing productively (when I'm not calling out cheats), while allowing the atrocious behaviour by others, who are most certainly damaging articles? 86.159.240.147 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations
Thatcher, not sure we ave ever had opportunity to cross wikipaths before, if not, hello. Rather obviously, considering the allegations, I've been keeping an eye on the cycling IP makingthe very loud accusations around the place. I saw your responses and I wondered whether I misread or was a checkuser performed to confirm there was no link between me and Justin and Redcoat? If so, can we quote you on that if the chap returns to the articles where one of us edits? I am trying to stop the editor rather than content based attacks in the Gibraltar pages, and being able to refute his claims would be useful. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no technical similarities between the IPs you are using. While some kinds of advanced gamesmanship can never truly be ruled out, the evidence indicates the accounts are unrelated. Thatcher 12:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
See User talk:AG191D and comment if appropriate. –xenotalk 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that unblock request sounds like classic Dereks1x. MastCell Talk 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with the Dereks1x case. Feel free to decline the unblock request, I wasn't planning on acting on it one way or the other, just in here dropping a note. –xenotalk 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thatcher 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck's block
Can you comment here, please? -- Sander Säde 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thatcher 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
An IP address brought you up on seemingly spurious grounds here. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Verjakette
Hi. Could you please check if the account of is  evading his ban? His recent CU confirmed socks are, and , and most recent suspected socks are  and. He also used in the past the IPs and. Thanks. Grand master  08:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am troubled by this, the least he could have done is to warn me that he's placing my head on a cutter. I comment on something in one discussion page without editing a single article and I am suspected to be someone who I am not. Even if I was that person, for god sake I commented in a talkpage, should he not answer me based on the merit of my replies rather than start digging and suspecting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Template:Digwuren enforcement
Hello Thatcher. You're the most recent person to update the text of this template, so I assume you may have an opinion about how it should be worded. At present it says:"Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here."My problem is that I want to give Digwuren warnings to people (to get their attention) but don't want to log them on the Arbcom case page every time I do so, and I don't want to issue a restriction unless they get into further trouble. The template exceeds its mandate, and the actual decision doesn't include that last line.

DIGWUREN only says that sanctions have to be logged, not warnings. OK with you if I edit the template to remove the phrase "and logged here" from the text of the warning? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)