Why was this thread locked?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I see this thread has been locked by a moderator but I'll argue it is necessary to leave it open.

1miau - the sad reality

It's not a thread started by me btw.

To summarize for those who aren't aware, 1miau is a well-known forum user who announced his death and disappeared from the forum. After some time, he reappeared, and in this thread, he led many to suspect that the person behind the account isn't the original user.

Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance

The user locked the thread when people started saying he should sign a message to prove it was him.

Then there's this thread that was started by a troll, and since it's self-moderated, I don't think it's a reliable place to discuss the topic.

1miau

There is also this thread that touches on the subject but focuses on something else:

Jeremypwr - Self-scratching.

So, I think jeremypwr's thread should be unlocked so that we can have a non self-moderated thread, not created by a troll to discuss on the subject. I've just reported it to be unlocked.

An account with that kind of reputation that has quite likely changed hands deserves a thread like this.

[JeromeTash]

Mods probably locked it because there was another thread talking about the same personality. Unfortunately it's self-moderated; that's why I personally did not bother replying. The OP of the open thread has a history of deleting all the replies in the thread regardless of the input.

If the mods do not unlock the thread, maybe someone else can create a new thread while emphasising that it's unmoderated. The 1miau account should have been locked like what was done to Laudas as soon as he announced his exit.

[Kazkaz27]

Apparently, buying or selling an account isn’t against the rules. That’s another area that should change. That said, there’s little point in attacking members with unsubstantiated accusations or highlighting something that isn’t regulated or prohibited by the actual rules. My position is simple: we should push for a clear rule change first. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time—despite the broader implications.

[Nathrixxx]

Initially when I heard about the incident of the death, I thought it was the pet (cat) that kicked the bucket, but I was so surprised as at then to realize that even the user in control of the account still go offline because of that same reason also something else different, but I want to believe that a dead person cannot have the privilege of coming to announce his obituary himself except other members does, but either ways, I think it is better that we assume he was once inactive and now became active back to the forum regardless of what may transpired.

[Cricktor]

I didn't like the way 1miau announced to leave the forum. It likely was misinterpreted by quite some as if the account's owner/person died. Even OP here speaks of death of 1miau's owner as I read it. You don't play jokes with (your) death!

This was his initial announcement:

Unfortunately, I have to announce 1miau is dead.  It already died few days ago but don't be sorry. 1miau had a good time here on the Forum and Bitcointalk will stay to be relevant even without 1miau.  

If he meant that his account died, then it should've been expressed with less ambiguity and more dignity.

He concluded his thread with this clarification before he closed the topic by himself:

It's true, I'm leaving the forum on my terms to protect the person behind 1miau. I won't be able to be active in discussions and I can't read your PMs to me. Don't be sorry, Bitcointalk has to offer so much even without 1miau.  

I'll lock this topic now.

With that I never thought of the death of the person behind the account 1miau.

Additionally, if you announced your leaving the forum in such a pompous way, you shouldn't consider to come back AND continue with your original account. But maybe that's just me to see it so strictly, possibly by being a bit annoyed by the circumstances and the "unnecessary drama" in November 2025.

Anyway, if people doubt the account's ownership, the easiest and correct way would be to sign a Bitcoin message.

[tbct_mt2]

I didn't like the way 1miau announced to leave the forum. It likely was misinterpreted by quite some as if the account's owner/person died. Even OP here speaks of death of 1miau's owner as I read it. You don't play jokes with (your) death!

This was his initial announcement:

Unfortunately, I have to announce 1miau is dead.  It already died few days ago but don't be sorry. 1miau had a good time here on the Forum and Bitcointalk will stay to be relevant even without 1miau.  

If he meant that his account died, then it should've been expressed with less ambiguity and more dignity.

It's 1miau's choice and people can have different writing style and announcement style. Even you dislike this announcement style, you can not do anything and this announcement is about 1miau him/ herself and is not harmful for anyone else.

About account termination announcement, I think Lauda made a good one even Lauda had a lot of drama with her time in the forum.
Goodbye, world!

[hilariousandco]

Are you sure jeremypwr didn't lock it?

[SilverCryptoBullet]

Are you sure jeremypwr didn't lock it?

No one can be sure than jeremypwr but the SMF patch shows the topic locked by a moderator. Assuming that the SMF patch worked well and there was no report on is inaccurate information on who locked threads so far, it seems people thinking the person locked the thread is actually moderator.

Could you share why you thought it was not locked by a moderator?

Determining a topic's lock-type (SMF patch)

[hilariousandco]

I just thought he may have but it seems there's a report on it for being a duplicate.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Are you sure jeremypwr didn't lock it?

I just thought he may have but it seems there's a report on it for being a duplicate.

I understand moderators' job is somewhat difficult but if someone reports a thread as a duplicate, it would be worth considering whether the one deemed the 'original' was a self-moderated thread created by a known troll with a history of arbitrarily deleting posts.

Anyway, I see there is a shitshow about 1miau on the Reputation section now.

[Xal0lex]

I just thought he may have but it seems there's a report on it for being a duplicate.

I understand moderators' job is someone difficult but if someone reports a thread as a duplicate, it would be worth considering whether the one deemed the 'original' was a self-moderated thread created by a known troll with a history of arbitrarily deleting posts.

Anyway, I see there is a shitshow about 1miau on the Reputation section now.

The thing is, jeremypwr's topic is also self-moderated (you were mistaken in your first post), and having two self-moderated topics is essentially a duplicate. We could argue that this is unfair if jeremypwr's topic weren't self-moderated.

[Btcdeybodi]

I just thought he may have but it seems there's a report on it for being a duplicate.

I understand moderators' job is someone difficult but if someone reports a thread as a duplicate, it would be worth considering whether the one deemed the 'original' was a self-moderated thread created by a known troll with a history of arbitrarily deleting posts.

Anyway, I see there is a shitshow about 1miau on the Reputation section now.

The thing is, jeremypwr's topic is also self-moderated (you were mistaken in your first post), and having two self-moderated topics is essentially a duplicate. We could argue that this is unfair if jeremypwr's topic weren't self-moderated.

I also feel that even if jeremypwr's topic wasn't self-moderated, it is still worth locking because both topics are still discussing about one person in common. It will be inappropriate to have two topics that is pointing at same person. Though i think that the troll @Excimer's topic should have been the locked topic instead of that of jeremywpr. But nevertheless, if a topic is locked while there is still need for continuous discussion, another user can still open a new topic to continue the discussion, i don't know if i'm wrong?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The thing is, jeremypwr's topic is also self-moderated (you were mistaken in your first post),

That's right, my bad.

Though i think that the troll @Excimer's topic should have been the locked topic instead of that of jeremywpr.

That’s what I thought, but I imagine that when moderators see a duplicate report, they simply lock or delete the one created later without taking any other factors into account. To determine whether Excimer is a troll, one would need to look at his trust page, but trust isn’t moderated.

But nevertheless, if a topic is locked while there is still need for continuous discussion, another user can still open a new topic to continue the discussion, i don't know if i'm wrong?

That’s actually why I opened this thread. When I saw the thread had been locked, I decided to open another one because I thought it was necessary to have a discussion on the topic in a thread that wasn’t being controlled by a troll. At first I thought it was the OP himself who had locked the thread. But when I checked and saw that it had been a moderator, I wasn’t going to open another thread that would probably have been reported as a duplicate and locked (or deleted) as well.