User talk:David Gerard/archive 2

1 Jan 2005 - 31 Mar 2005

ArbCom: Lir

I have made tens of thousands of useful contributions; your lame comment that you could never see me making one, shows that you have not made the slightest effort to research the case in which you are involved. You should be ashamed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lobbying

Of the Proposals to expand CSD the one I care most about is Prop V, which would allow the speedy deletion of copyvios. I feel strongly that this will significantly decrease the workload on editors while having few negative repercussions. The current copyvio process, while long and cumbersome, adds little in terms of verification. I see no evidence that anyone double checks the pages listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Moreover since everything that would be deleted already exists elsewhere on the Internet the potential for harm is limited. - SimonP 04:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving WP:AN

Smokes, I went to add a comment in response to that comment that User:Tony Sidaway added this morning on the Mbecker thing, and the section was already gone! I don't think we need to be quite so aggressive about archiving stuff as that! I'd done a whole bunch of things last night (I generally do it late at night US time, because response time is better then), and left the ones you moved out (Alberuni, Sollog, Mbecker, etc) because people were still commenting on them. Noel (talk) 19:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I was overly conscious of the page's size - David Gerard 13:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC/Mbecker

You have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker (71 deleted edits) as an “improperly filed RFC over 48 hours old” while there was an ongoing discussion. If that RFC is invalid, then it might have to be removed from the listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but maybe the discussion itself could be preserved for historical record and future reference, and to let people who are still reading it finish, also in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce. I will undelete that page, adding a notice that it has been deleted and why. Rafał Pocztarski 23:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have undeleted it [1], added a notice and notified Michael Becker. Please let me know if that was a mistake and I will delete it, or please just delete it yourself if you prefer and I will not undelete it again. Rafał Pocztarski 23:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC procedure states that the page should be deleted if it failed certification, otherwise it is kept. It is not correct to keep the page if it was not certified properly. That being said, there may be room for debate was to whether the certification is valid or not, but do not retain the page only as a "historical record and future reference" or to keep the discussion around. These are not valid reasons. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks. I have un-undeleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker [2]. I’m sorry about the confusion. Rafał Pocztarski 00:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No worries :-) - David Gerard 19:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: new arbitrators on old cases

Is there a discussion somewhere covering the appropriateness of the new arbitrators voting on old RfAs? I haven't been able to find anything definitive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yours is the first intimation of such I've seen. Part of our expected job was to help with the backlog. (And by crikey it's a lot of homework. Expect the Proposed Decisions to be in flux while we all find our feet.) The only thing we have to work out is what constitutes a 'simple majority' on cases overlapping both terms of office - David Gerard 23:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: CheeseDreams

I understand your view on CheeseDreams but I do think it's possible to see her as a new editor who was overwhelmed by the hostility her views received. Do you not think it is possible that she might work better with other editors if a/ she was given a second chance, on parole if this is thought necessary and b/ the other editors are requested to give her that second chance in good faith?

While you might conceive of CD's punishment as giving her a "timeout", it's a very long timeout and I think you might recognise that it gives the appearance of an establishment punishing a dissident -- albeit a rather errant one. I agree that CD ought to take a break from the Christianity articles. I've urged her to more than once, as I have the other editors involved, who have not been kind to CD at all, but are not being punished. Couldn't you have encouraged her to take a break, rather than force her to? You are after all arbiters, not necessarily magistrates!

If you and the rest of the panel are able to reconsider and give her a second chance, and she abuses it, well, enough's enough. She will have been firmly cautioned and to ignore that would be folly. In the case of Lir, as an instance of that, although I feel he has been a little harshly treated, he can't say he didn't know what was coming. I think CD probably felt she was acting in the same manner as other editors (or rather better than some -- Rienzo comes to mind), and has been singled out because of the perception that she is a troublemaker (of course, she has made trouble, so it's not entirely a misperception).Dr Zen 05:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. All ArbCom decisions are open to change, following illustrative good behaviour (or a direct appeal to Jimbo).

But one essential point to keep in mind is that Wikipedia isn't an experiment in Internet community democracy — it's a project to write an encyclopedia. Visible fairness of process is essential to not pissing off the volunteers (I have many years' experience in managing volunteers; you'll get ten times the work from a volunteer that you'd get from any paid employee, but they must feel good about the enterprise), but disruptive behaviour causes serious problems with the volunteer work environment. That's why I'm so down on personal abuse, for example — one stroppy arsehole can make a quiet, friendly editor quit an article and never come back. The stroppy editor wins but the project loses.

I do acknowledge that you feel CD's temporary injunction was excessive, and I do promise to think at length on the matter for future decisions. I've pointed the other arbiters at this discussion, fwiw - David Gerard 13:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: Ciz

I have concerns over the ArbCom proposed decisions for Ciz. I'd appreciate being sure that the /Talk page comment has been thoughtfully reviewed before any decision is finalised. Many thanks. FT2 04:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've brought this to the arbcom's attention. This case has tricky bits indeed - David Gerard 12:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus sockpuppets

Cantus is evidently evading his block using the account User:TimComm. Gzornenplatz 04:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Check Special:Ipblocklist - he went wild with sockpuppets. I'm just cleaning up the damage now. I'm about to post something on WP:AN (when the wiki's working again) - if you see any other obvious candidates, mention them there

CheeseDreams

Thanks David, I appreciate this. Could you also define what is meant by "articles" as this is a point of confusion. Incidently, still working at that diagram: I only just reinstalled my Linux system last night. Will try again soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the template issue ... for these purposes, I myself would think templates obviously counted, but we don't have an actual decision to this effect. But either way, the use of such a template in such an article would involve editing the article. If one were to consider a given template problematic, TFD would be where to take it - David Gerard 00:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn

Cleon Teunissen 20:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gerard,

I added a comment on the discussion page of the article on the book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Did you write the article?

As you can tell, I'm a big big fan of Thomas Kuhn. Surprisingly, I rather disagree with the way you represented the content of SSR. It seems we are looking at the book from very different perspectives.

Here's how I would have written the article.

[snipped, moved to Talk:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]

I didn't write the article, just tidied it up after some others. Large chunks of it were in Kuhn's own entry. I haven't actually read the book!

I've shifted your suggested alternate text to the book's article's talk page for all to consider - David Gerard 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is not vandalism to edit a page. It's not even vandalism to revert. Don't threaten me. It's an ugly abuse of your powers. Dr Zen 05:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is when you are going against talk page consensus with a daily revert on Clitoris. If you can't get your way, you don't get to be disruptive for it - David Gerard 05:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Vandalism and could not find such definition for vandalism. The edits in question in fact clearly fall under what vandalism is not (see "Bullying or stubbornness"). Cool Hand Luke 11:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, it isn't "vandalism". My apologies to Dr Zen - David Gerard 13:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried though that yet another admin, and an arbitrator at that, finds edits that do not follow the majority view are "vandalism". It's all very well quoting policy at one another, but as Judge Fred says on the mailing list, you'll go down anyway even if you haven't broken the law, so long as the admins think you're a bad user. He's not alone in thinking that admins should act and wait for their peers to confirm that they did the right thing either. There is no consensus on the talk page, David. There's a majority view that disregards the minority view. I don't think Wikipedia should be a place where that is enshrined. I think that it was built on the principle that all views are fairly represented, not that the bias of the majority should prevail.

As it happens, I share the majority view. But I recall a very useful piece of advice that is buried somewhere in our policy: try to write (and think) from the other side.Dr Zen 02:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: Ollieplatt

I did no such thing, certainly not intentionally. I am editing the page, is that the cause? Ollieplatt 10:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You removed a vote. - David Gerard 10:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes but it wasn't intentional, I clicked edit the page, I typed in some changes and then saved them. I did not purposefully remove a vote, I assure you. And your inference that I did without asking me is not appreciated. I think you should consider carefully whether you are a neutral party. Ollieplatt 10:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

David, please don't remove comments from my talk page. I accept that it's a wiki, and I'm happy for it to be edited, but I am simply going to revert straight removal of comments. For a guy who has been throwing around accusations of vandalism, you seem keen to do the odd bit of bold editing yourself.Dr Zen 02:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edit was reverted as an edit by banned user Lir from his IP. You are of course free to restore it yourself - David Gerard 18:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The hurt, the pain

David, I'm interested to read (here) that it hurts you to say The Thousand Yahren War should be kept. Would you care to elaborate in a comment on the former page? Meanwhile, you might ponder Wile E. Heresiarch's comment: The Thousand Yahren War was the name of the conflict between human beings and an army of evil cyborgs intent upon flooding Wikipedia with subtrivial fancruft. -- Hoary 04:07, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

It hurts because it's fancruft; that it's fancruft is not in any way a reason to delete. WIKIPEDIA: YOUR NUMBAH ONE POKÉMON RESOURCE!!1!1!"!!1! - David Gerard 17:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. ¡¡¡Wackypedia is kewl with me too!!! -- Hoary 14:32, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I refer you to my Arbitration request that relates to you. Ollieplatt 13:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: Everyking

David, have you read my statements on the talk page? Please consider them. If I am unconditionally limited to one edit per 24 hours, I will not remain a Wikipedian. Everyking 01:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's one edit per Ashlee-related article per 24 hours, not one edit total - David Gerard 01:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Why can't you just limit my ability to revert, or make partial reverts, or make any kind of edit if another person has expressed disagreement with it? Please, please don't prohibit me from making normal, uncontroversial edits. I am a person with a certain level of dignity; I could not bear to have something like that imposed against me. Wikipedia is incredibly important to me, but I can't accept that. I just don't think I could bear the shame of it. Everyking 01:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wording "edit of any sort" was specifically to avoid "yes it is/no it isn't" debates on whether a given edit counts as a revert or partial revert or whatever. Note that you can still edit frequently on talk pages, explaining your edits or proposed edits and convincing others. - David Gerard 08:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I have pledged to avoid controversial editing. That means swearing off partial reverts as well as full reverts entirely. You don't even need to limit me to one per day, because I won't use any at all, except against blatant vandalism. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to edit normally if nobody has any problem with those edits. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, I have been involved in some fierce arguments and yes, I have not always behaved as maturely and rationally as I should have. But I also wrote those articles and did lots of research. Just because my behavior hasn't always been ideal doesn't mean the work was bad, so I shouldn't be restricted from it, provided I avoid controversy in doing so. Everyking 08:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: 168.209 - Why are you so heavy-handed in arbcom

I have just read your contribution in the arbitration complaint against me by OneGuy. One question, however. Why are you so heavy-handed against what is otherwise a very minimal violation that only took place many months ago? I must admit that I'm a bit intimidated writing this after I saw your picture on your user page - you look very angry!!! Please keep in mind that us wiki users are real people with feelings. By doing an overkill such as this you are only enraging people and are probably creating vandals out to get revenge. Naturally I'm not one of them, but you should think twice before going overboard on your punishment to what is otherwise mild infrigement. Also, why is it that you choice to ignore all of OneGuy's violations? Constant Islamic Apologist POV pushing, violation of 3RR and so on? Did you bother doing any research before you voted for such harsh measures? Did you perhaps think that maybe OneGuy is simply using you as a tool to punish someone who dares expose the dark side of Islam rather than all the whitewash the other apologists post?

I hope I didn't make you any more angry. 168.209.97.42 10:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (note: IP of an ISP proxy server)

But but but User:Alberuni told me I was a tool of the Zionist conspiracy ... - David Gerard 10:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are now simply avoiding the issue at hand and haven't answered any of my questions and concerns. Why do you harp on me for being anti-Islamic (which I am not - I was simply trying to give both sides of the subjects) and yet you completely ignore OneGuy's extreme Islamic Apoligistic POV pushing and constant revert wars - almost all of which he ended up losing after others got involved. Is that the way the sysadmins and arbcom members work here? I can only imagine that either you have not done your job as a arbcom member by doing even a little research before offering your arbcom "services" or you are here only to help wikipedia to be a Islamic recruitment website. The fact that you have come down with such an extreme remedy to an otherwise trivial violation leads me to believe it's the latter of the two. 168.209.97.34 06:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you don't think your personal attacks constituted doing anything wrong at all - David Gerard 10:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten what you have voted for in the arbitration. I am refering to section 3 -

"-lothario- is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week."

Why does OneGuy not have the same restriction despite the fact he has violated the NPOV policy 10 times more than myself? Also, I did not make personal attacks. He once drove me to the point of frustration after his extreme whitewash of Islam and I did vandalise his User page (many, many months ago). I have done nothing of the kind since then. If this is so severe, why am I being singled out when I see many, many other people doing it and still doing it? Shall I start an arbitration request each time I see it? I can do it and overwelm you if you would like. My major complaint is not that I did not do anything wrong - I did. My complaint is that you are overlooking OneGuys extreme POV pushing and revert wars. Do wiki rules not apply to him?

Although I guess I must thank you for at least partially replying. Maveric149 simply reverts my questions on his userpage without even bothering to reply. 168.209.97.34 11:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably because arbiters' talk pages aren't the place for discussing cases in progress. Remember that you can always appeal directly to Jimbo - David Gerard 09:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever tell you about the week on Wikipedia in which I was accused of being an Ultra-Orthodox Jew, a Reform Jew, and an atheist, by three different editors? I felt that at least that week I must have been making NPOV edits. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good advice, but...

Did you see the results of your plea to stop reverting? You'll find it here: Talk:Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flight_of_1948#3RR_block. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A somewhat stroppy discussion on the talk page is better than a revert war on the article and 3RR blocks! And at least it's getting somewhere rather than nowhere. Perhaps a note that the flight was still in progress at the time of the report? Wearing my not so knowledgeable on the topic editor hat, that strikes me as relevant - David Gerard 17:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I was more referring to the point that 5 hours after you unblocked him, and pleaded that there be no more reverts, he reverted. In any event, I've now dated the claim, which seems to satisfy the needs of most of the people on the page. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David, Palestine-info has done that complex revert thing on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 again. What exactly did he agree to in that ICQ chat? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing. But I clarified that partial reverts and reverts to different versions are reverts and gave the links. I thought he'd behave. *sigh* - David Gerard 23:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it did some good; he didn't try complex reverts this time, he just did plain old reverts. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, kid! I can see you with the mop and the keys

I think you should be nominated for admin. How are you with this idea? - David Gerard 14:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I've only been editing for about three months, and after years of Usenet and forum pugilism I still think I have rough edges that need to be smoothed down. Keep a weather eye open and see what you think in a month or so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked and you're not at 3 months until the start of February - David Gerard 17:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding: This policy is a license to abuse by idiots and cranks

What will happen is that every detail of science with sufficient crankery will abuse this article (Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science)) to push their grossly minority POV, even if you try to limit its scope as you have - David Gerard 01:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think this? The article was created in response to the NPOV problems encountered in articles relating to Creationism. Do you disagree with the suggested guidelines? What do you think might be misinterpreted?

How about having a section describing how wikipedia:Notability applies to topics in science? I would think that once an article comparing viewpoints has passed the test of notability (unlikely for most minority positions) that we need guidelines as to how NPOV applies in such cases. Barnaby dawson 15:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science)]

wikien-l

Dear David, as an administrator of the mailing list, can you remove my email from there? Or if not, can you tell me how can i do it? [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Email me at dgerard at gmail dot com and I'll look for your address and remove it directly. There's also a form at the bottom of http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Umlaut, the movie

David, I know you wrote most of the Heavy metal umlaut article, so I think you will find this very amusing. CC'd from my post to goings on - Infoworld blogger Jon Udell creates Heavy Metal Umlaut, the movie (8 megabyte flash movie) based on the evolution of Wikipedia's article on Heavy metal umlaut, which is a featured article. →Raul654 23:40, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord! *choke* http://rocknerd.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/30/0152259 - David Gerard 02:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I'm sorry, but I was unaware that the information on electoral districts needed references. What makes you think that it is needed? Earl Andrew 03:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because everything should by default (even if refs are nothing like as common as they should be), and it's good practice in general, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources. Imagine someone putting in bogus information - a checkable, verifiable reference is a vital tool - David Gerard 03:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a good idea- but it is very tedious. Plus, I do not have a reputation of putting bogus information out there ;-). Any wikipedia who is familiar with the topic knows the "source" anyways, and that's all that matters. Earl Andrew 03:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I mean if someone else comes along later. People have been known to hit 'edit this page' ;-) - David Gerard 03:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blue Jean (song)

Hi, I saw you put the {{unreferenced}} on the article and added the websites I used on my research, including the David Bowie article. Are the links I put a good reference? Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 17:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stubs & {{unreferenced}}

David, I noticed you added this tag to a stub article I fleshed out a bit, & it got me wondering: obviously stubs need references -- as well as a lot more information. Wouldn't it then be overkill to mark stubs with {{unreferenced}}? -- llywrch 19:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm judging it a stub at a time. (What I actually did was go to Special:Newpages, so as to catch the eye of new editors as they add stuff.) As someone pointed out on wikien-l, stubs need references more than they need new content (though they need both). I'll see if people start adding references or {{unreferenced}} :-) Call it an experiment for the moment - David Gerard 19:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then, I'll delete the tag from Blue Jean (song). I've added references. --Neigel von Teighen 19:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Precisely! :-) - David Gerard 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the article I was writing about, Nausea (Book), when I was done with it little there that I believe would benefit from adding cites. Specifically, I adapted one sentence from Sartre, added some info from the title page of my copy of Nausea, & a line that was a judgement call (I expect someone who likes Sartre to either justify it or delete that judgement -- I enjoy Camus's novels more than Sartre's & really no interest or opinion about the work).

Novels & literature in general is a tricky subject: is there a point to supply a reference for a summary of the plot if the original work is available in English? Obviously critical judgements on the work itself should be cited (e.g., instead of writing "this book has made some readers ill", it should be "Foobert Sturgeon said of Nausea 'it made me sick.'") -- llywrch 17:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

On the same subject, you added {{unreferenced}} to the Global union federation (semi-)stub I just added. In general, I do feel it has a very valid point. In this particular case, however, most of what is said is taken from the web site Global Unions, which is mentioned in the article. Other bits and pieces are taken from the individual federations' home pages, which are directly linked from the article. I'm not sure what is the best thing to do here, as adding a separate Sources section would mean duplicate mentions of the same external web pages. What is your opinion on this? / Alarm 21:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Is it a list article? Take it off if you feel it really doesn't need 'em. I've just been doing newpages very fast - David Gerard 21:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that I'm really not sure if it needs them or not. It is not really a list article, although it contains a list. It's just that the sources are all mentioned in the article, although it is not specifically stated that they are sources, and I would like to hear your opinion on whether that is sufficient or not. Maybe something covering such cases could be worked into the Cite sources text. Alarm 21:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, you've added {{unreferenced}} to Studio Foglio when it contains a link to SF's official website that has an About page, FAQ, etc. I think there is certainly a place for this sort of template, but perhaps your templating spree is a little over-zealous :) But as you say, it's just an experiment for the moment, that's cool. (Also, I noticed you've been adding the template to some pages that are crying out for more suitable templates, e.g, The Ellen DeGeneres Show) - mordemur 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake! - David Gerard 22:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boogie woogie (dance)

Do you think you could help me understand what this templates for deletion-thing in the article is about? I followed the link and expected to find some votes about the page in question, but found nothing. Habj 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:TFD - concerning Template:unreferenced - David Gerard 22:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Habj 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blockquote tag

You removed the <blockquote> tag from The Eye of Argon stating:

wiki formatting instead of HTML

There is a big difference, as you can probably see from the wikitext for this message, in that (a) <blockquote> can be used in-line; (b) it affects the right margin also; and (c) it allows the use of CSS styles. If these facilities could be added to Wikitext I would support replacing the raw <blockquote> tag as appropriate, but that has not yet happened. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 10:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I thought the ":" actually applied blockquote. Wonder what it actually does then. I changed it because that's the way it's done in pretty much the entire rest of Wikipedia. Like using and ' instead of i and b - David Gerard 12:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the HTML source some time. It actually implements ":" indenting using <dl> and <dd> tags. In other words it's a "; :" definition list without the ";" bits. Talk about a bodge-up (but hey, it works, and it's valid XHTML :-). What really grates is that the indenting for ":", "*" and "#" lists isn't the same, so heterogenous lists don't line up. --Phil | Talk 13:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom: OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At your request, I have asked OneGuy on his talk page not to rise to your bigoted baiting. HTH! - David Gerard 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: 168.209

David Gerard's unprofessional behavior and personal attacks

While my experience with the likes of you have led me to expect nothing more than what you have just done, I still must admit that I find your behavior totally uncalled for and unprofessional. I don't know what your problem is (be it a bad hair day???) but whatever it is I ask that you not take your frustrations out on me. I was simply asking for help stopping personal attacks and you punish the victim. Did you even bother reading the discussion on the talk page or did you, as usual, make a split second decision to jump on the side of the Islamic Apologist and hope for Allah's blessings? You are the bigot, Sir. You refuse to listen to both sides of an issue and have your mind made up right from the start.

As usual, you will not reply to my concerns but will just come back with a sarcastic one-line retort. 168.209.97.34 08:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion comments

Good afternoon. In a recent VfD discussion, you wrote "Obvious keep (as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy), bogus nomination". I respect your right to vote to keep or delete on any given nomination but I would like to ask your help in raising the level of civility in the VfD discussions. As a member of the Arbitration Committee, new users look to you for the example of the tone of debate which is appropriate to Wikipedia. The community obviously still has not reached a stable standard on the appropriateness of certain topics for Wikipedia. I suspect it will be a long time before we do. While we continue to debate the issue, it is far too easy for tempers to run high. I note that most of the comments in that particular thread attempted to stay fact-based and rational. Please assume good faith. It is entirely possible to interpret the deletion policy and the facts of this case as supporting a delete vote.

I'm still trying to raise my own level of civility and precision in language. Thank you for listening to my rant. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I think a nomination is utterly worthless, I'm going to say so. There are far too many thoroughly inappropriate nominations on VFD as is - David Gerard 22:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I see no lack of civility whatever, so I'm a bit surprised by Rossami's (polite) request.

On the other hand, I'm also surprised by your comment that this was a bogus nomination. You refer to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and sure enough this seems to say nothing about the question of notability. It's very clear, and very inclusive, strongly suggesting that Jenkins should be in.

The only obscurity within it is the reference to pages with "No potential to become encyclopedic". I followed that link. Within the latter article, we read that "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", which I'd have guessed would say something about what is and isn't significant. While it doesn't do so directly, it does say that "you are free to write articles about notable people who have died" (emphasis in the original). To me, this implies -- on pragmatic, though of course not logical grounds -- that you're not welcome to write about non-notable people who've died.

So how about non-notable people who haven't died? Are they all fair game? If so, I could write articles about my barber, my wife's hairdresser, the man who sold her her most recent kimono, the woman who's having two older kimonos resized for her, the man who's fixing my ancient camera, the guy in the office on my left, the one in the office on my right, etc. etc. In fact anybody could write about anybody (other than him/herself), potentially resulting in billions of articles. I guess that there is a requirement for notability -- and certainly I don't recall anybody (other than the occasional troll) arguing against the notion of a criterion of notability.

So is Jenkins notable? I haven't been persuaded that he's notable, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Meanwhile, I can't see what's "bogus", "utterly worthless", or "thoroughly inappropriate" about this nomination.

(If you think that his merits a reply, please reply here rather than on my talk page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 07:11, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

He's a politician who's achieved media notoriety. I see most commenters on the VFD page agree as well. Your comparisons to dead hairdressers are ridiculously bogus - David Gerard 09:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Live hairdressers, but I take your point. OK, so we do agree that notability is an issue. Where we differ, I think, is over the criterion for notoriety. I could be missing something, but to me his notoriety is very run-of-the-mill. Twits make homophobic (sexist, xenophobic, etc.) statements; these are then overheard by people for whom they weren't intended; the twits then claim to have been misunderstood. Sadly, this is standard (moronic) political practice. What degree of notoriety has this won him? Britain's best online newspaper is surely The Guardian; its archive has nothing for John Paul Jenkins and also seems to have nothing on any relevant John Jenkins. I could be missing something, but to me he seems an insignificant twit, and the VfD nomination doesn't seem inappropriate. Further, there's something distasteful about his inclusion: "Letting out homophobic comments can make you notable!" (Hmm, if John Hampsey had moaned about "fags" rather than written a book, would he be more noteworthy?) -- Hoary 10:20, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

You are conflating reasons not to bother creating an article and reasons to delete one that's already there. These are entirely different things; considering you have reasons for the first do not constitute a reason to go through the wiki scouring it of matching examples - David Gerard 13:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that squares with what I read in [Wikipedia:Importance]. But the latter page would seem to protect pages already created about, say, singers who've verifiably issued just one single. (This incidentally, was achieved just last week by my wife's hairdresser's son. Really!) And such articles wouldn't survive VfD. I believe that to be notable, a singer has to put out a full-length CD (or do something similarly prominent). It's not so easy to rate the notability of politicians or homophobes, but I presume there's some requirement of notability. Notoriety? But Jenkins doesn't rate a mention at bbc.co.uk either. -- Hoary 02:53, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC) ..... PS Hmm, yes he does rate a mention at bbc.co.uk. All right then, he's got national recognition as a twit! -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance failed on this point already, of course. And if you read that page, you will see Jimbo's own careful explanations of how the "verifiability" requirement actually works, and how it filters out deliberately ridiculous "what about my dead hairdresser?" objections - David Gerard 10:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Live hairdressers, dammit! That's an interesting link. I think that the Great Helmsman and yourself value verifiability. What constitutes verification? The hairdressers don't seem to have websites, but the sushi shop around the corner does: here. It could be an elaborate fake, of course, but if so it's backed up by this and other pages. Does that make it verifiable? Sushi shops aside, I imagine that most kindergartens in wired up countries will soon have their own websites; do they thereby become verifiable? I'm still lost. Also, what happened to the argument on Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance -- was there any conclusion? -- Hoary 10:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Clarification: I was reacting specifically to the choice of the words "bogus nomination" as the inflammatory language. I interpreted it as a judgmental statement with strong implications that the nominator acted in bad faith. I believe those kinds of sanctions should be reserved for the truly egregious abuses of the VfD page. The very fact that several others agreed with the delete decision (even though the majority did not) is evidence to me that it was a reasonable point of interpretation of the policy statement. The discussion above is further evidence that even people who have studied the issue closely can continue to disagree - and that they can do so politely. While that nomination is likely to fail, I see no evidence that the nominator deserved sanction.

To a lesser degree, I react to the use of phrases like "obvious keep" when "keep" is sufficient to make the point.

I do consider the use of strong language a sanction. Coming from an administrator (and more, a member of the Arbitration Committee), they amount to a verbal reprimand whether or not you are acting in that capacity at the time.

Okay. I'll get off my soap box now. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk)

Bogus as in "grossly invalid; shows no evidence of having read the deletion policy." "Obvious keep" as in "nomination that would require ridiculous and overenthusiastic stretching of the deletion policy." A crap nomination remains a crap nomination and I'm going to continue calling them out as being such - David Gerard 22:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello David. Its seems that my request for arbitration is rejecting because i dont tried to solve this dispute before my request. Could You tell me please which steps should i take now? Should i ask for help on Requests for mediation or Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance?--Emax 00:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution sets out the steps of how to resolve things, assuming good faith as far as possible. In most cases, things taken straight to the arbitration committee get rejected for not having shown efforts to resolve earlier. Seeking mediation might be a useful step in getting the actual issue sorted out, though the mediation committee is having problems at the moment (several of the members joined the Arbitration Committee at the start of the year).

The main thing, though, is to actually try to resolve the problems before they get as far as the AC. Assuming good faith from someone that you see as acting like a completely obnoxious idiot is difficult - though it can be easier if you remember they probably see you just the same way - and frustrating if it turns out that they really are, deep down, an obnoxious idiot. But editors are going to conflict, and learning conflict resolution with people you'd rather just went away is part of life on Wikipedia ;-) - David Gerard 01:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you. Arrogant and not neutral people, who considering other people as idiots, should not - in my opinion - acting as mediators or arbitrators. I also belive that a lot people considering adults who are playing mediators or arbitrators on websites as completely obnoxious idiots. However, I will look up how neutral the mediators are. Thanks ;)--Emax 02:28, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

That thought shows commendable good faith, but any conflict that escalates as far as the AC pretty much contains remarkable idiocy by definition. Look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and think out how much stupidity has to be present for this to happen - David Gerard 12:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

Heya, congrats on getting X Window System featured! --fvw* 20:27, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Now I have to get a featured article in a third WP:FA category, then I'll be on par with Raul and Mav ;-) I wonder if XFree86.org will ever forgive the feature; presumably Wikipedia is now part of the Linux/Cygwin conspiracy as well - David Gerard 12:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zdenek Grygera (and presumably others)

I notice that you have put an unsourced template on the top of this article - the reason for this, at least from my point of view, is that when I do get to templating all of these players out (this includes all of the players from the 2004 European Football Championship - I will then go and add further information on them. I reassure you that this is being dealt with. (And besides, a lot of the time I'm working on separate principles - the first being that a Wikipedian has come directly from the Czech Republic at the 2004 European Football Championship page, the second being that the same user has searched for Grygera's name.

Inexcusable, I know. I'll get to fixing them all together, rather than each one as it appears. It's a workload I can handle better than otherwise leaving it to the individual case. Bobo192 12:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No worries :-) I'm holding off on putting the template anywhere else while it's on WP:TFD. Better wordings for it are of course welcome - David Gerard 15:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, of course, if I find some kind of universal "better wording" which would work in the same circumstance, I will use it and copy it through. Thank you. Bobo192 16:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Herschell and sockpuppets

User:SlimVirgin has evidence of the behaviour I referred to. You should ask her for links. AndyL 04:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks :-) - David Gerard 01:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I made a note some time ago of the links to the HK/WH syntax corrections, and now can't find them again, which is why I haven't included them in my evidence. I'll have another look for them. However, though I agree they'd be helpful in illustrating a pattern of collusion, they wouldn't be conclusive of sockpuppetry, because he/she/they would be able to argue that they'd simply spotted an error made by a friend, and had corrected it. SlimVirgin 01:44, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's probably not critical, but if you do find them they'd be nice - David Gerard 02:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It certainly adds weight to the argument. It's highly unusual, even for friends, to copy edit each others talk entries. While not absolutely conclusive, I think the balance of probability when such an action occurs several times is that they are the same person. AndyL 02:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But it hasn't occurred at all. These accusations are simply malicious. --HK 15:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be why I asked for edits in evidence - David Gerard 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the accusations are malicious is immaterial. The question is are they true?AndyL 13:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

deletion of redirect (in preparation for a move) request

hi david, i wonder if you could delete the redirect currently at bush regeneration, so I can move Bush Regeneration to that location? thanks. clarkk 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can't be deleted - its history goes before Dec 2004, so it's in a pile of articles which can't be deleted until the developers are ABSOLUTELY SURE of the integrity of the database after deletion. I'm not sure what to suggest here - David Gerard 13:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not just move it off elsewhere? --fvw* 19:48, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Success! Moved to Bush regeneration DELETE. Now listing that for deletion when we can delete old stuff again - David Gerard 21:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Ooooh, good one. Now why didn't I think of that! :-) Noel (talk) 12:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: LaRouche Deux

I have prepared and posted a complaint in the LaRouce case at this page, which has had a response from the other party. Has the ArbCom seen it? Is there a different page that I should post it to? An immediate decision isn't required, but I want to make sure that the complaint is filed properly, or at least noted. -Willmcw 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've emailed the AC calling their attention to it - David Gerard 00:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. -Willmcw 01:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, if you have a minute, an anon IP has added a silly comment to Lyndon LaRouche. Would you mind reverting? I'm not meant to touch it. Best, SlimVirgin 02:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. Geni has done it. SlimVirgin 02:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

paniq on VfD

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R

Housecleaning

To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell ^(talk) (sleuth) 20:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Links vs. redirects

Hi,

I noticed one of your recent edits to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 19, 2005 (the Xenu page), and it reminded me of something about Wikipedia I've been wondering for a while. Your summary was "Make links not redirects", and you made several piped links, for example, "nuclear weapons|hydrogen bomb". It's always seemed to me like this makes the links much more confusing. The author wasn't trying to link to an article about nuclear weapons, he was trying to link to an article about hydrogen bombs. There isn't currently an article called "hydrogen bomb", which is why there's a redirect, but there's no innate reason why there shouldn't be such an article. It seems like piped links really make the semantic content a lot harder to get. If someone makes the "hydrogen bomb" article, they'll have to search through all of the links to "nuclear weapon" to find "mistaken" links. The piped link reflects the *current* structure of *Wikipedia*, rather than the structure of the knowledge involved. Is there an advantage to having piped links instead of redirects? Is there a policy page on this? (I couldn't find any policy or style guides about piped links).

I'm sorry to pounce on you for this ^_^...I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, but I can't find where. I was hoping you might know something about it.

-- Creidieki 00:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're entirely right on this one. I just made them piped links 'cos I have a habit of removing redirects, but this class of redirect (specific case redirecting to the general summary) should probably stay for the exact reason you describe. Thank you, I shall alter my general practice!

I'm not sure if there's a guideline about piped links and the specific-redirecting-to-general thing. If there isn't, it might be worth a note - David Gerard 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NationalEnquirerCruft

Hi David. We briefly locked horns a few paragraphs above, amicably I hope. I tend to feel a gut disagreement with a lot of your decisions, but even when your argument doesn't win me around it tends to help me straighten out my own ideas. (And your tendency to plainspokenness doesn't offend.) So here's one quandary (or not) that you might like to contemplate.

I happened to come across Pamela Rogers Turner -- a name that was new to me -- in my perusal of new pages yesterday. It's a moderately carefully written article about somebody who seems utterly unnoteworthy aside from the fact that she was arrested three days ago and "charged with fifteen counts of of sexual battery by an authoritive figure and thirteen counts of statutory rape. Rogers Turner had allegedly been having sex with a thirteen year old student" of hers.

This is marvelous tabloid fodder, of course, but it would say little to me even if the allegations were proved in court. I also believe in the principle of innocence until proof of guilt, and tend to think that idle talk about allegations are potentially libelous unless they can be shown to be in the public interest -- but I suppose such notions are now hopelessly passé in the World's Superpower.

The article burbles along in wink-wink nudge-nudge style till it reaches "It is not known whether the Rogers Turner case will become as famous as [some other female teacher who porked an underage male student], who got constant press attention after being arrested, but many American media experts certainly expect that to happen." Profoundly depressing, if true -- haven't "media experts" got better things to talk about? I only hope that these aren't experts but mere rentaquote talking heads.

Anyway, d'you know what the Official Line (if any) is on the wikipediaworthiness of jus' plain folks who've been accused of statutory rape, etc.? My own gut inclination is to zap the thing -- but I hope I'm not just becoming prudish in my old age. -- Hoary 04:59, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Tricky one. It's definitely not one to just zap - it doesn't fit the speedy def. It's written a bit tabloid, but it's got refs. I'd VFD it promptly, though - it certainly strikes me as something that belongs deleted, but it should probably be checked against the deletion criteria just to hammer the point home - David Gerard 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check there. I've VfD'd it. We'll see. -- Hoary 02:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

ArbCom: LaRouche

David, the arbcom is currently voting on whether to block Herschel for a period for disruption. They are voting against this on the basis of a comment by Fred Bauder that "basically he edits in two areas, La Rouche related articles and in classical music. The edits in classical music are generally unobjectionable. I see no reason to ban him when he is making useful contributions. 15:17, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)"

But what Fred says is factually incorrect. Herschel has made almost no edits that are not related to LaRouche in some way, either directly by copying material from LaRouche publications, or indirectly by inserting LaRouche ideas elsewhere. It is also not at all true that Herschel only edits in two areas: LaRouche and music. He has edited a wide variety of articles, including causing a lot of trouble on the pages of Australian politicians, which is currently awaiting mediation. The arbcom should not be voting on the basis of false information presented by Fred Bauder with no evidence. An objection to this has also been posted by Willmcw on the Talk page, but I don't think the arbcom is reading the Talk page, and we're not allowed to post on the proposed decision page. What should we do? SlimVirgin 02:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of pages Herschel has edited: User:Willmcw/sandbox2. As you can see, the non-LaRouche pages are not mostly classical music, as Fred Bauder claims; and most of his edits on these pages have been attempts to insert LaRouche unreferenced claims or POV. SlimVirgin 02:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've pinged the arbcom to check all LaRouche arbitration pages again - David Gerard 11:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, David. SlimVirgin 10:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Typo on protected page

There's a typo on the main page (independent -> idependent on the 'new articles' section, the article linked to is okay, but the snippet on the main page isn't). Being a normal user I can't do anything about it, but I'm guessing that as a mod you can. Ciao! sheridan 10:03, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it already :-) - David Gerard 12:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

<censored by the writer>

My apologies

To David Gerard, I made an idiot out of myself. Waerth 22:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing in Japan?

What is going on at the ja:Wikipedia that has upset Waerth so much he is quitting the Dutch Wikipedia? I can't find a trace of the discussion yet. Could you your highness administrator and holy mediator sort this out yourself, or do you need assistance? Gebruiker:Dedalus 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He demanded [3] (not asked) on foundation-l that his ISP's proxy server not be banned from ja:. It turns out his ISP's proxy is mandatory for all users (presumably transparent proxying) but is an open proxy - which en:, and presumably ja:, block indefinitely at the first sign of abuse. I tried to explain what was going on and why he should probably ask his ISP to run their proxy as something other than an open sewer [4] [5] and he responded with abuse [6] [7]. I assume he isn't in the mood to listen - David Gerard 20:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, thanks for the reply. My apologies for the way I adressed you in the first place. There seems to be a problem with adressing Thai in Thailand by Walter working at his ISP to address 'a problem' - some cultural barrier to communicate a problem, it is to embarrassing. Maybe Walter will cool down in a few days. Change the settings of his browser wouldn't fix it, would it? Gebruiker:Dedalus 21:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not if the ISP is doing transparent proxying, i.e. forcing all port 80 traffic through their proxy no matter what. I see from the list that he's now advocating the technical solution: MediaWiki bug 550, which is to make such blocks only apply to anonymous users. People seem to like the feature, so probably the best thing to get it moving forward at this stage is for someone to code it - David Gerard 21:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi David,

Jimbo suggested that you have written something on peer review that would be worth looking at. I'm writing a set of formal specifications for a grant application and would like to use the existing material as a basis to work with. Could you point me to the right place? Thanks!--Eloquence* 02:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I put some notes and ideas on my 1.0 ramblings page, User:David Gerard/1.0, which Jimbo liked a bit. As I've noted on wikien-l and wikitech-l, he suggests (and I think it's a brilliant idea) that we set up a simple rating system on a larger wikipedia (e.g. en:) and just gather data for a month or whatever. Then release the data for people to see if it makes any useful sense. Magnus Manske wrote some very beta rating code, but he says it'll take a bit of beating before being ready for a production system. If I could program, I'd be onto it so fast ... - David Gerard 12:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation?

Hi, would you mind giving your opinion about whether or not the inciddent listed under the User:Chamaeleon section on WP:AN/3RR is actually a 3RR violation or not? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. But it's complex enough that, as you see, it could be hard to make such a block stick - David Gerard 23:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's quite tiresome. He scoffs at Wikipedia policy, including 3RR, and then edits in a complex way that make his reverts hard to see. But thanks for looking into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you used to devour encyclopaedias as a kid?

In response to your question, yes. The best one was called the Wikipedia (yes this is true and possible, think about it if you don't understand)

I think I get it, yes ;-) Though you'll be one fat kid if you eat this weight of words ... - David Gerard 23:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New user

David, this may be nothing, but just to gave you the heads up. A new user User:Eggplantwizard (see User talk:EggplantWizard) has made a contribution to Talk:LaRouche Movement, a new article just posted by Willmcw, saying the content is a bit one-sided. I'm wondering whether this is Herschelkrustofsky's latest incarnation. S/he signed up today, Feb 17, and has made a number of seemingly random edits. Contribs here [8] S/he already knows how to revert, has managed to find VfD, Vandalism in progress, wrote in an edit summary "rephrased for NPOV", which was a favorite Herschel edit summary, and added the cleanup tag to an article, which displays a lot of knowledge for a new user. I'll keep an eye on it, but wanted to let you know of the possibility. Best, SlimVirgin 23:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula

Hi, I believe you may have deleted User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula incorrectly. The content which you deleted was completely different from the content which was deleted via VfD. Please look into this. -anthony

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 03:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Far-right Trolling

David we have 2 or three persistant nazi-sympathising trollers over on Anarchism talk page - ya know sam spade etc. Constantly off subject, abusive and ignorant of what goes on the article AND discussion page. Do you agree .... Is there anything we can do? Cheers >> max rspct 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably not in any summary fashion. If it's really getting nowhere, you may suggest working through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best thing to do is see if you can get someone to mediate, to see if it can all be resolved without tears. Working effectively on Wikipedia can require more patience and assumption of good faith than many people realise ... I don't think Sam Spade can really be called a "troll" - see if you can assume good faith, hard as it probably seems right now - David Gerard 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation? But he has had this with so many other users. Not a troll? Well he's trolling and significantly uncollaborative... I don't think he should be barred but he is one of User:DNAgod's cohorts. max rspct 17:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ISBN and captions

You might note that you cannot put ISBN in an image caption without disrupting it [9]. Well, you can with nowiki but that defeats the point.--Audiovideo 23:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, bugger! Sorry about that. I will hit preview. I will hit preview. I will hit preview. (× 100) - David Gerard 00:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dubious?"

Hello David,

The page Seasons & a Muse, Inc. (see the Wikipedia page) has been tagged "of dubious importance" by a volunteer "Uncle G." The tag, which has sat without evidence of address, for four days, seems insulting. Seeing the other listings in the "dubious" category, Uncle G has done Seasons & a Muse a great disservice.

On the subject of the tag, I reviewed the "Uncle G" talk page, subject "cleanup-importance." "Template:Explain significance" is far better. It is kinder and avoids the air of superiority of the former identifier.

How long does someone have to experience this offense? Please assist.

The tag is not policy but pretends to be - delete at will - David Gerard 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification

Hi David, since you were one of the arbitrators who accepted the Everyking case I am letting you know that I have requested a clarification on the ruling on the talk page for that arbitration, since it may not be on your watchlist. The link is: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested. Thanks, silsor 10:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Looking now - David Gerard 12:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

You are very kind!

"Dubious"?

Thank you very much David! We have one additional request, since the "User Contributions" is a special page, which only a "Meta" can revise or alter. We kindly request removal of the User Talk from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.126.173.124. The ISP location listed is a shared network. All User Talk postings relate to Uncle G's "dubious" tag, which, of course, you've shown to be quite bogus, and are therefore best wiped out of WikiExistence. Please assist! Thank you once again!

Update: our entire network, which is identified as shared by many, just received a very long "private" email response from "Antaeus Feldspar." He failed to address, nay truly acknowledge, the issues, which had been carefully deleted in User Talk. "Mr. Feldspar" must have sought history on the Contributions page. Yet another reason to remove all traces of the matter entirely. Mr. "Feldspar" mentioned something about "garbage bins," our founder and "one of your pubs." Our company and founder do not want this in our history. Perhaps it was a mistake to get involved in Wikipedia and our contributions ought to be eliminated altogether. Most disconcerting how some conduct themselves. Interesting that those who create anonymous namesakes often cause the most woe.

VFD

Hello. I've noticed that you're requesting that I as a user be deleted? May I ask what on earth brings you to say that? Just because you disagree with me on some issues doesn't mean that I don't deserve a voice here. I've been working very hard over the past weeks to classify every single article on the dead end pages list, and while most of those go in appropriate stub categories, several of them were nominated for VfD. Note that the vast majority of my submissions to VfD does get deleted because people agree with me. I'm all for civil debate, but asking for censorship of those who oppose you goes against the very core of Wikipedia. Radiant! 10:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Delete nominator" is a common response on VFD when a nominator appears to have gone batshit with a large number of bogus (non-policy) nominations. It would help if your nominations showed any sign of you having read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, like you're supposed to justify your nominations with according to the prominent large-font messages on WP:VFD. VFD is for nominations that match the policy - not just any article you happen to feel like nominating.

• • Well, I may 'appear to have gone batshit' to you, but if you had checked the past couple of deletion pages you would have seen that for most things I nominate, I do so with good reason, and that most of them get substantial support and do end up deleted. I have, of course, read the policy, as I have shown by citing the exact policy numbers to you when you asked. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it runs counter to policy.

I note also you placed this at the top of this page, ignoring the text immediately below asking you to add new things at the bottom. Well done - David Gerard 13:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if you can't tell the words "censored" and "censured" apart, you should seriously consider whether you know the language well enough to be suggesting which articles should be deleted - David Gerard 00:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We both know you were trying to get me to shut up, and that constitutes a form of censorship. You can't seriously mean that people should pass a language test, or SAT or IQ test, before allowing to contribute or vote. Radiant! 10:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

FIGHT THE POWER!!!1!1! No, I was trying to get you to put on nominations that actually match Wikipedia:Deletion policy. "Well, I think it should be deleted" isn't listed there either. And "censor" and "censure" don't mean anything like the same thing - David Gerard 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Okay. Look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. In the header 'Problems that may require deletion', find the very first criterium, which is 'Is not suitable for Wikipedia'. That line redirects to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. This page has a number of consensual suggestions of what may or may not be appropriate in WP. In particular, read the section 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base'. That should reveal the basis for whatever nomination you felt was inappropriate.
• Also, you should really read up on Wikiquette, Civility and Assume good faith, because your recent behavior evidences none of the three. I have never been less than polite with you, yet you persist in making childish personal attacks on me and other people who happen not to share your particular POV. Radiant! 22:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

music markup

Hello david. Hope you do not mind me coming like this and messing up your talk page. We started a nice discussion on how to make our encyclopedia more musical and we reached some good conclusions. But there are only humble users voting there. I would love is we could get some power users/ administrators to hang a little about the page meta:Talk:Music markup so as to make it more... probable? to happen. Thanks a lot --21:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Power user? Oh, you mean Wikiholic! ;-) I have no idea if I can provide meaningful input, but flattery will get you as far as me looking at least ... - David Gerard 22:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1.0 appreciation

David, your 1.0 proposal is the best I have seen. It is in fact the only one I have seen that doesn't make me sick because of anti-success implications. How current are you and is it? In a word, where is the latest discussion happening now? Tom Haws 18:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Good question! Um ... a lot on wikien-l (the English Wikipedia mailing list). I've also been gathering relevant pages into Category:Wikipedia 1.0. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team appears to be where the interested bunch hang out.

I've just started installing MediaWiki on my PC. Because if I want that rating feature in, it looks like I'm going to have to write it! - David Gerard 11:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good for you. And thanks for the response. I will read up a bit and direct more people that way. I do have to ask, though, if you aren't a little dismayed by a lot of what is being proposed by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team? I have had a hard time getting up the will to join, and hoping they didn't represent the state of the discussion due to fundamental flaws in understanding what you very well pinpoint as dilettantism. Understanding dilettantism is key, and I hope to be contributing with you to this effort in the future. I posted my infant and ill-developed proposal (should you find the will to review it) at my front user page. I do, however, realize that "you can't win if you don't play", so I will by your example cheerfully join the Editorial team. Tom Haws 20:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board

I have noticed your thoughtful contributions to VfD (both ways!). Could I trouble you to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board. I am not lobbying for your vote either way, but no-one seems to be looking at this one (perhaps because it is a long article, and fairly technical), and I do believe it is worthy of some serious consideration. Thanks. HowardB 13:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a keep IMO, and I've said why - David Gerard 13:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification

Thanks for the clarification. We should know where we stand with respect to Everyking. I have mixed feelings about it, but having seen repeated testing of the boundaries by Everyking I think it's probably for the best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of boundary testing, it looks like he's asking at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested if he can revert anonymous editors. --Calton 08:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I have notieced that your RVs and edit summaries are violating the non-guideline:WP:POINT. Please stop them immediately! -- John Gohde 05:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dare I ask how? Snowspinner 06:19, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I too eagerly await details! - David Gerard 12:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just like you think. Because I said so. :WP:POINT is also clearly of no importance since it is not even a guideline.

"This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and does not carry provisions for enforcement, many Wikipedians agree with its recommendations and it has been endorsed in several cases by the Arbitration Committee. The hope by supporters is to obtain consensus and add it to the guidelines."WP:POINT (emphasis on does not, and NO I clearly do NOT) -- John Gohde 06:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever to me, I'm afraid. Also, the bit about no enforcement is not quite accurate - although it contains no direct provisions for enforcement, the AC has penalised people for breaking it egregiously. (Updated.)

It's a policy that does actually have a specific meaning - if you're going to go around to people's user pages claiming they've violated, you should be able to substantiate the assertion - David Gerard 09:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Snowspinner's latest comments on his talk page regarding natural health. Snowspinner objects because it is not an infobox, but rather an attempt to make AM categories shinier and more special than everybody else's. Please explain how the particular infobox in question remotely does that, whatever that is supposed to be. -- John Gohde 14:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question I asked was for details to substantiate your claim that "I have notieced that your RVs and edit summaries are violating the non-guideline:WP:POINT. Please stop them immediately!" - do you have any such substantiation? - David Gerard 15:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no problem but only after you first explain how template:CamMenu was spamming and attempted to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes? -- John Gohde 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From his user page, it appears that this chap is Mr-Natural-Health. The purpose of the above nonsense is becoming clearer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compared to the behaviour of such recent arbitration subjects as Herschelkrustofsky or Robert the Bruce, John Gohde is just fine. He works very hard indeed at writing material he's a subject matter expert on to fill in Wikipedia's coverage nicely. However, he really doesn't get this "no article ownership" or "play well with others" thing at all. In my non-arbitrating and strictly as any old Wikipedian opinion - David Gerard 23:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking Ambi

Unblocking a fellow arbitrator is unsavory, especially considering you also failed to unblock the other "combatant". The revert war was clear, and deliberate, and you are devaluing the 3RR enforcement rule by unblocking. -- Netoholic @ 22:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

As discussed on IRC, I've unblocked the other guy too. Sorry, you're right, I should have at the time.

Although I like 3RR a lot, I don't tend to be a complete hardarse about the 24 hours and will almost always unblock if someone will admit they messed up - David Gerard 22:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Donkey punch

Hi David, can you explain why you chose to do a revert to the donkey punch article? Thanks,--Nectarflowed 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

• VfD: Canyon Crest Academy
• VfD: Devonport High School for boys
• VfD: Eyuboglu high school
• VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School
• VfD: Maha Jana High School
• VfD: Robert Frost Middle School
• VfD: Wood Green School

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

And thank you! - David Gerard 13:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD: what constitutes "independent verification"?

Hello. I see your comments on Doug McIntyre (Los Angeles radio personality) on the VfD page. You say that third party verification is the standard for keeping such an article. I'm trying to better undersand these guidelines--if you have a moment, can you elaborate a bit on what form that sort of verification might take, and what, exactly needs to be verified? I don't care particularly about McIntyre--I'm curious to understand the wikipedia standards for inclusion or disqualification of an article. Thanks. BTfromLA 03:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Notable" isn't actually in the deletion criteria, though many on VFD act like it is. Wikipedia:Verifiability gives the why and how of verifiability. Basically, something checkable. A station page is a start, other media coverage helps, etc. Something listed as in Wikipedia:Cite sources.

This is in an ideal world. I don't consider the lack of such necessarily a reason to delete an article. But third-party evidence that it's not just an ad or a vanity listing certainly helps the case for keeping it.

Remember that it's pretty much allowable to question any assertion in an article and ask for a reference. I've learnt not to write even a three-para starter article without giving references, even when writing something I know well off the top of my head ;-) - David Gerard 13:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. Strange indeed that "notability" isn't officially a criterion, given the emphasis placed on it in the VfD area. BTfromLA 19:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD's on Lists of things

I'm a little puzzled by your votes to keep articles on assorted lists of things (schools etc.). Perhaps this is just a consequence of WP policy on such matters. It does seem odd to have articles on these lists, which in many cases no one will maintain. Generally your votes seem sensible, so I would like to know what your reasoning is. Thanks! CSTAR 16:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete them - it's useful information to someone. We have lots of list articles, many of which have the same maintenance consideration - they will be maintained as people are interested. The pages have a date at the bottom, so it'll clearly be the list as of that date.

People on VFD ask "where do you draw the line?" a lot on marginal things. Policy currently puts a line at verifiability, and I maintain that's a quite sufficient line - if someone reading the article can verify it, that's good enough - David Gerard 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alejandra Lopez

Hi, please have a look at the VfD for Alejandra Lopez. Your vote and comment seem to be duplicated, making it appear that you voted twice. I'd fix it for you, but I'm of the belief that it's bad form to edit the votes of others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

My case pending in ArbCom

Hi David,

Please, visit Baku Ibne, et al. talkpage, where I give update on recent attacks and also ask for ArbCom members to be more active in their investigation of my complaint. I've posted similar brief notification messages to Grunt, Rebecca and Epopt. Hope to hear from you all. --Tabib 16:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be giving it a thorough review this evening - David Gerard 19:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, I've already wrote to Epopt, Fred, Ambi and Grunt similar messages. I ask you all to read Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Rovoam_exposes_his_real_face._What_next_for_Tabib.3F before making any decision. I would appreciate any comments on my message. Thanks. --Tabib 15:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing investigation on this one for the ArbCom as well - sock puppet checks and so on. I'll try to find time this afternoon or evening to add what I have. I expect none of it will surprise you. There are also consequences of it to be dealt with that I won't mention on the wiki as yet - David Gerard 16:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Recycling Troll

David, To avoid any further issues with the blocking of this user, could you post information on his user page as to his actual identity and how his identity was determined? -Rholton 18:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It was his extensive postings to wikien-l using stock 142 phrases that swayed it for me. Either he's 142 or he's doing his damnedest to impersonate 142. Either way he's indefinitely blockable. That and the 142-like edit pattern, the blatant and admitted stalking and the username with "troll" in (another 142 trademark) - David Gerard 19:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, your recent edit to WP:AN looks like it got truncated somehow - did we get some sort of wierd database glitch, or what? Noel (talk) 20:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mistyping on my part. I've also added the 142-like traits listed above - David Gerard 20:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there David - I unblocked this user because the blocking policy was not followed, and no evidence seems to have been presented. I've copied it here so that you have it for future reference, Thanks, Mark Richards 21:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[snipped helpful spam]

Michael Snow has stated on WP:AN/I that I was wrong about The Recycling Troll being 142. I have accepted his expert opinion on the matter - David Gerard 00:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case concerning your ban of User:The Recycling Troll

This is to let you know that I submitted a request for arbitration concerning your ban of RT. --BM 00:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you have. I have duly recused - David Gerard 00:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio listed on IFD (again)

You interested in putting your money where your mouth is? User:198 has listed the autofellatio image on IFD, claiming it's unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't put it any better than "Keep. WP:POINT" - David Gerard 14:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VFD into a list of day links

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Have you even looked at User:AllyUnion/VFD List? -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is what's at the official deletions page, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and the shortcut, WP:VFD. At present that's a page heading towards 1.5 megabytes just of HTML, which causes sizable usability problems when that's the default. I was letting you know for the purpose of not fouling up the bot - but the default page as is is getting beyond being humanly usable - David Gerard 20:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't help it when you average 75 nominations per day. An alternative solution would be to have a 2 or 3 day listing that's updated by the bot. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on your page

Hi David, just wanted to notify you of unpleasant edits to your user page, it seems that it's that Osmanoglu guy. The vandal's blocked now, but might of course return under a new name. Take care, Kosebamse 15:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, when you're in a current arbitration case it's always a great idea to piss off the arbitrators. Thanks :-) - David Gerard 15:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your erroneous comment in vandalism page

Dear David,

You have posted an erroneous comment about banned vandal User:Tony_Sidaways, whom you falsely described as "Azerbaijan nationalist vandal" in Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Tony_Sidaways. I ask you to either remove or put strike marks on these false comments, because this person is definitely not an Azeri nationalist, otherwise, why would he persecute and attack me for so long period? Also, you probably already have seen evidence provided by User:Dbachmann, which suggests that this is most probably a Kurdish nationalist originally from Turkey and currently residing in Germany. Please, see, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al./Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Dbachmann. I very much hope that you will either remove or will put a strike marks on your erroneous comments. Thanks. --Tabib 15:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that - amended. I knew it was to do with the present case before arbitration, which I have to run a huge sockpuppet check (matching names to IPs and IPs to names) on today ... - David Gerard 16:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spammer

I wasn't sure what to do about this chap, 165.123.146.216. I'll probably leave it now because he appears to have stopped. His edits this morning were all to add links to a particular external website, mostly to articles only tenuously related to that site (for instance, it's about a planned global circumnavigation by a hydrogen fuel-cell powered boat, but he added it to sailing and hydrogen car). A spammer, clearly, but not obviously a bot per se. Probably just a person spamming links. I would probably have blocked him this morning if I'd been sure that the blocking policy permitted it. Would that have been the right thing to do? His edits were reverted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

24 hour blocks for anon spammers is just fine - David Gerard 13:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BT suck, etc

NTL also suck, I am told, but I've seldom had any problems with their cable modem service. You get what amounts to a static IP (mine hasn't changed in two years) and an assymetric system with fast download speeds and approx. ISDN upload speeds. I don't know how they compare on price, but I use their cable TV and phone service, too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NTL could beat BT for bad customer service. Apparently we can only get analogue cable telly from them, which apparently doesn't include broadband (though someone two streets over has them). We'll be going with Eclipse, who were very good until I got BT Openwound through work ... grah. - David Gerard 16:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, OK

Are you just on an IRC break, or does your working Internet not support IRC? :) Snowspinner 23:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It got to be too much of a PITA with a dialup that drops out every two hours (no, really). Besides, IRC is the herpes of Wikipedia - David Gerard 23:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but we'll have to kick you out of the cabal if you don't poke your head in occasionally. :) Snowspinner 23:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying this interesting activity called "editing articles." It's really amazingly compelling. Almost addictive ;-) I do have email (dgerard at gmail dot com) for serious Illuminati business (you can tell it's secure for that sort of thing because it's on Gmail) - David Gerard 00:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tabib

Tabib was being sorely provoked by an apparent nutter here

Amen. Or possibly at least two nutters. Very bizarre. Tabib hasn't been an angel but he seems to have made an effort to deal with this through the right channels. Many would have just given up on Wikipedia.

I've done my best to portray the severity of the attacks on Tabib, I don't know what more I could do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Query about reverting

David, I seem to recall seeing a page where editors who had decided to self-limit to fewer than the permitted reversions could sign up, and I also think I recall that your name was on it. I'd like to sign up to that myself if it's still in existence. Can you point me in the right direction? Also, thank you very much for your vote in my nomination, though this is not a proper thank you yet, as the election isn't over, and I feel I ought to thank people once it's closed. So I may be thanking you again tomorrow or the day after. ;-) SlimVirgin 16:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

WP:HEC - David Gerard 16:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! SlimVirgin 16:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Okay, here it is, the second thank you, the formal one. ;-) I do very much appreciate your support of my nomination and especially your kind comment, and I'll certainly do my best to live up to it. SlimVirgin 00:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I am being accused of being a sockpuppet. I am not one. Rather, I am simply choosing to never again log-in as Rex0714704. What can I do to quiet accusations of "sockpuppetry". Also, I suspect user JamesMLane is employing sockpuppets. How can I confirm this? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 04:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you acknowledge you used to edit as Rex071404, it's not "sockpuppetry", the essence of which is deception - as per Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Point out to your accusers you're not acting deceptively. A lot of people change name or stop using an old account name, sometimes acknowledge, sometimes not.

As for others employing sockpuppets, this takes fairly strong circumstantial evidence for a dev to even look at it (they're generally extremely busy on running the site, after all ;-) - typically only at the stage when a case is actually in arbitration or is causing major community problems - David Gerard 08:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saleel

I'd like to know why you voted to delete, rather than improve, Saleel. Can you tell me why exactly you don't think the Saleel network, which numbers in the thousands of members deserves even a mention? or is it that you dislike the layout, in which case I'd ask what do you believe could be done to improve it ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Because the version I voted from was way shorter and less clear than the current one - complete text was "Saleel Majeed (1982- ) was born in London, England, and is now in his final year of medical studies at St.George's Hospital Medical School in London. As a Muslim computer afficianado, Majeed has been the driving force behind a number of projects such as saleel.com and sunniforum.com." with no wikilinks - as you would have been able to see had you taken the time to match votes to versions before your comment here. Note that the VFD still lacks many support votes other than first edits, so is unlikely to be kept - if Saleel has affected the lives of so many so positively, there will be a lot of verifiable third-party references available, which should be put in the article then mentioned on the VFD. As is, it still reads like an ad - David Gerard 15:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Mr. Porter! VFD

Hi there--

Another user and I have done a rewrite of the Oh! Mr Porter! article in the hopes of making it worthy of keeping. I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the new article, and reconsider your vote to delete it . Thanks!

Best wishes, Jacobw 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote changed. Excellent work on the article! - David Gerard 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

(shift licensing to bottom). hmmmn. is your bottom *really* worth licensing? how much is it worth? ;-{ --Vamp:Willow 17:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Put it this way: I'm looking for a real job instead ... - David Gerard 17:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Thanks for the pointer - David Gerard 22:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irismeister sighting

Yesterday someone using an IP range belonging to wanadoo.fr started been putting highly politicised, very emotive pleas into the text of the Terri Schiavo article (82.124.140.225 (talk · contributions)). See the talk page for this user's manner of interacting with people. Obviously English isn't his first language and he has a bee in his bonnet about Americans and about Bomis. I told him he'd be blocked if he kept it up.

Today another IP in the same range did the same thing. (81.255.145.157 (talk · contributions)) but this time he also displayed a proprietorial interest in User:Irismeister page. I remembered something about Irismeister from the days of the Clitoris polls, so I checked some more. According to Irismeister's third arbcom ruling, he's supposed to be banned for twelve months. His userpage says he's based in France, and he seems to have similar preoccupations to those of our vandal, and the same HABIT of SHOUTING with caps to show that he's angry. Irismeister is back. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd say block as a returned sock and mention it on WP:AN/I. If it smells like Dr Waniek, I'd think it highly plausible. I do recall that was the range he was using to edit Romanian Orthodox Church from. I blocked the /16 (French IP range on en:) for a while with a note to email in case of collateral damage; not a peep - David Gerard 21:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for revert?

I was just browsing the page on Amherst, Massachusetts and I noticed that you reverted my edit. The edit added new statistics to the Demographics section based on statistics published by the town and sent to residents (yes, I live there). It wasn't sneaky vandalism. Is the Demographics section exclusively for those generated automatically or something? LizardWizard 08:49, Apr 2, 2005

Crikey, I don't even remember that one. I can only assume I hit the revert link in error. My sincere apologies! - David Gerard 11:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientology template

I hadn't realized the history, though I must say I don't follow the argument against having a "related" topics template in this case--I created it because I found myself wishing for one when navigating the articles. And the category listing is ill-organized and filled with links to marginal articles. I think the template is a good idea, in other words, and it seems to me like the downside of having it is rather slight, but I won't press it if the issue has been settled. Are you convinced that it was vetoed for good reason, and not because of a POV that wanted to minimize access to some of the critical articles? (I've run across editors that seem to be motivated by that POV.) BTfromLA 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: You reverted a bunch of additions to L. Ron Hubbard that I made last week as well as reverting the template. Did you have some objection to those? BTfromLA 18:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I just hit revert on the template. Sorry about that.

The template was removed by me after the category was created, so I don't think it was wanting to minimise access :-) Possibly we need more subcategories of Category:Scientology. A lot of navigation templates in general are a blight upon their articles.

Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it was a natural category and not really suitable for a navigational template - the articles don't go in any natural order. Just because I think it might be beneficial for people to read articles on a particular subject in a particular way doesn't mean it's appropriate to try to push that with a template. Possibly the List of articles about Scientology could be more structured a given way. But it strikes me as inappropriate to push a particular way of reading in an article.

If a particular type of article is particularly relevant in one article, I'd tend to think it probably belongs in a ==See also== or, better still, in a relevant paragraph in the article. - David Gerard 19:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I see the template functioning differently than you do. To me, it doesn't (or needn't) direct an order of reading, except insofar as the template includes "major" articles and omits others. What it can do is provide a clear, easily accessible outline of the related articles. I see from your link that it was designed to present a series, but it seems to have evolved into another, and I think valuable, function. (See, for example template:creationism). In the case of Scientology, I think a quick summary of related topics is very helpful, as there are many articles that people interested in the subject may want to explore, but which are not self-evident search topics (e.g., Scientology beliefs and practices, Scientology controversy, Religious Technology Center, Operation Clambake, Narconon... the list is long). Indeed, the Scientology operation itself is many-headed, and at times the organization has actively tried to blur the connections between executives, Hubbard, the Church, and the many affiliated groups. Why force readers discover these confusing connections only through links embedded in the article, when a useful outline can be made available on the same page as the article? As and far as I can tell there wasn't much of a consensus before the earlier template was blanked (one user who didn't object, nobody who actually agreed with you, far as I can see). Certainly there was no discussion before my version was blanked. I request that you reinstate the template and allow it to be considered by users on several of the key Scientology-related pages. I hope the fact that it popped up again spontaneously (i.e., I thought it was needed, not knowing of the prior history) might serve as evidence that it is premature to unilaterally delete it.BTfromLA 02:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite - it went through the TFD process in proper order (one of the early ones, may not be logged). Lots of people want templates that aren't necessarily a good idea, that's why we have a policy. If people want to search the topic we have a ... category - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I at least suggest that when templates that others may want to reinstate are voted deleted, that some sort of flag appears to that effect if someone tries to rewrite it. It was the first time I'd set up a template, and I wasted a good 90 minutes organizing that thing, only to have it blanked within hours. BTfromLA 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You got a point there. Hmm. - David Gerard 08:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing this. BTfromLA 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Poll:_Speedy_criterion:_.22non-notable.22

Hmmm. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That could be one of the worst ideas I've seen in a while - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sjoukje Drenth Bruintjes

• Delete not notable. I am Dutch and I know quite a lot about cults and NRMs and I had never hears of her. Andries 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded - David Gerard 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David, you're Dutch? Wow, you sure fooled me! I thought you were from the land down under, not the lowlands! :-) JRM 10:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

X Window System

I strenuously object to the way you butchered my enhancements to the X Window System. You weren't kidding when you recently asked for help with the page and said that contributions would be edited mercilessly. Why on earth would you remove mention of X supporting touchscreens, for instance? You owe us all an explanation, starting there. Your edit amounted to vandalism.

And why would you remove any mention that application specific GUI's can be built with X primitives, virtually forcing people to infer that the only kind of GUI's that can be built with X are desktops and Widget systems? That is just plain WRONG. Are you really that ignorant? You should get used to the idea that learning is a better way to spend your time than teaching with regard to this topic since you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the X Window System.

I make a very good living by developing X apps, selling X solutions worldwide and pushing the X Window System to its limits. I know damn well what it is and what it isn't, what it can do, and what it can't do. I resent your hatchet job on my work here in explaining what X is.

There are way too many people like you at Wikipedia who think that everything they don't understand or agree with is vandalism and that the only appropriate response that they need to exercise is to revert. Shame on you. GeneMosher 20:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response on Talk:X Window System - David Gerard 12:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced

During the TFD discussion (now at Template talk:Unreferenced), the usage of this template was strongly favored by the "Keep" voters only to be used on the talk page of the article. Please consider following that, since this looks extremely unprofessional otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

The discussion really doesn't seem to indicate that at all - David Gerard 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Apparent_vote_packing_on_WP:IFD

Wondered what you would make of this. Overt campaigning by targeted spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would note it on the vote. Vote-packing tends to be viewed in a very jaundiced way on VFD, for example - David Gerard 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Already did that.

I'm going to raise a discussion on the subject of talk page spamming (including extensive posting of identical "substantially identical" material in any talk space, not just user talk) on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). A hard limit of ten or so may be something that there would be general agreement on--that would enable an editor to raise an issue with his contacts or notify editors of a small set of articles, but would not permit flagrant use of talk pages for spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks on RFA

Thanks David; I appreciate the vote for my adminship. Oh, and I can completely relate to the "red-pencil hand twitch" as a lifelong editor myself. Happy editing! Antandrus 00:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

David,

Thanks for correcting my mistake. I could've sworn I read somewhere that his ban was by the ArbCom, but I knew in a vague way that Jimbo was the force behind it. Obviously what you say explains it much more clearly. I did think, however, that he had terms of parole or somesuch?

I've also already spoken to Danny; he has said he will "handle it", however there have been three problems that have been reported in as many weeks (the last, falsely, by Mike himself, where he accused another user of being a vandal without proof and then reverted his changes without explanation). I'm not so sure this experiment in rehabilitation isn't coming apart, especially given Mike's bullying behavior (he threatened an anon with being hounded out of Wikipedia by parties unknown, for example). I, however, have deferred to Danny, and therefore I'm only making enquiries and keeping up with the situation at this time, rather than taking any action. If nothing else it would be a shame if so many peoples' hard work and effort went to waste without completely exhausting all options.

Thanks again, and if you come across anything else pertinent, please let me know. Wally 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recusal reason?

You have asked me to recuse several times, but, despite me repeatedly pointing out you had provided no justification when you did so, you continued to ask providing no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. We are now down to just six arbs on the case, so I am definitely not going to recuse just for the asking (and never mind the horrible precedent that would set to be abused by some of our more creatively antisocial ArbCom defendants, as I'm sure you'll see if you look back through AC history). What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of your responses to my comments show that you're very terse with me. You tend to jump down on things I say, rarely giving me any comments in a neutral manner and never anything phrased in a positive way.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines [10] - March 4-6 - You sided with Snowspinner by reinstating a "Beyond policy" section. All of your reverts were to Snowspinners version, with no attempt at compromise. You misused admin rollback [11]. Your talk page contributions were not helpful. Not until I wrote a new version of it did the reverting stop.

Considering that you wrote an injunction which implies that I improperly revert Wikipedia: pages without using talk, your failure to set a good example is worrying. In this instance, I did everything right -- encouraging discussion on the talk page, gathering opinion, and forming an agreeable resolution. This is actually very common with my editing. As long as this issue is presented as evidence against me, you are involved and have a clear conflict of interest.

The whole issue with User:The Recycling Troll and the unblock you did for User:Ambi when I reported her for 3RR. I won't bother with diffs here, because the issue is that these are very recent events which I criticized your actions openly. It's too soon after, and there may still be some resentment there. Is it fair to me to take your word that there isn't, especially when you've proposed those baseless injunctions? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

None of these are sufficient as recusal reasons, particularly when we're down to just six on the case. And mostly they come down to "I disagreed with you so you must hate me so you should recuse," which is not a recusal reason.

You may also note that if a case goes below six arbitrators, Jimbo reserves the option to (a) unrecuse everyone (b) call in new arbitrators as he wishes, because under six is too few. Are you sure you want this to happen? - David Gerard 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make light of this. I am not saying that you just disagreed with me. I am saying that on one case, you were a direct party to at least one incident being called in question. You've also shown, by being dismissive of my requests to recuse and on other occasions, that you have too strong a desire to be part of this case and inflict punishment on me. I could also show that you have a strong friendly relationship with Snowspinner, another conflict of interest. As far as there being too few Arbitrators, you can ask Grunt to un-recuse (I don't really understand his reason), and we can wait until Theresa and/or Delirium comes back. Beyond that, I trust Jimbo. I don't see how you can expect that I will put aside my apprehension based on the quorom situation alone. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell

User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [12], just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [13] because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [14]. I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question re. Instantnood vote

David,

Evening. I just have a point for which I'd like to request clarification regarding your vote to accept the Instantnood case which I felt would be better handled here. You mentioned that the content issue wasn't really a factor to you and cited Principle 7 in the WHEELER decision. Nowhere have I seen Snowspinner mention concern for civility — merely a complaint about the alleged drawing-out of process and "immun[ity] to consensus" — and indeed, he specifically notes that there is no request for a ban or severe discipline on his or jguk's part, which makes me wonder how civility is an issue, especially given that no one once uses the word. To me it seems an issue of consensus and procedure. Could you help me understand your point-of-view a bit more cogently? Wally 21:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I stated in my acceptance, I found making thirty-five separate polls on one question indicated some severely problematic behaviour was happening at some stage - David Gerard 21:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

E-mail re: sockpuppet

Hi David, did you get my e-mail about a possible sockpuppet? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't get back to you on that one. I want to look, but I've asked the AC if they think I should yet. There's lots of politics associated with me using the tool at all, so I've been ridiculously cautious in even looking. See m:CheckUser for heated discussion. I find the situation very annoying and hope to be able to be more helpful in more cases - David Gerard 21:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

change to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

Hey, I thought we were discussing changes to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes on the talk page before changing the article. Hmm, should I revert your change because you weren't following the rules, or perhaps because it increases the net verbage in the article (apparently violating your own rules)? Nah, I'll just post a note here and let you know I'm actually kind of amused. -- Rick Block 04:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote pending

Can you please vote at Coolcat vs fadix at arbcom? Your vote is still pending. Cat ^chi? 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"proportional representation" clause of NPOV policy

Hi David. As you probably know the global warming related articles become from time to time an unpleasant battle ground. In this case we have a complete disagreement about the interpretation of the proportional representation clause of NPOV policy. As you are a member of the ArbCom you probably have a lot of experience with such cases and thus I would be happy to hear your opinion on the matter.

The discussion is mostly between Cortonin and me (Marco Krohn) at the moment, see Talk. Cortonin's edit in question is [15], with lots of additions of quotes of several experts and non-experts. [16] is the version of the article by Cortonin.

In this case I do not think that the conflict will last longer, even JonGwynne (who in general supports Cortonin) used Vsmith version for further edits instead of Cortonins, but nevertheless it would be interesting to hear an experts opinion on this specific part of NPOV. best regards from Hannover (Germany) -- mkrohn 09:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know! I'm not going to call myself an expert on NPOV ... I'd say in general it really has to come down to a case by case editorial decision sorted out between the editors. That's not something that can be achieved by application of a mathematical formulation.

As a non-expert reader on this particular subject, it looks reasonable to me to mention all POVs. They're certainly of interest

As an editor, I know that representing a given POV properly will sometimes require more space than may be strictly proportional. An article should be well-written, not just measured according to proportional amounts of space. (This is writing, not just documentation.)

Essentially, it's all an editorial decision and an exercise in working with people you may strongly disagree with.

A possibly useful exercise: do another temp version of the article, where each side tries writing a fair description of the other side's POV.

Thanks for your answer. I hope we solve the dispute quickly in the near future :-) best regards -- mkrohn 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the useful benefits of Wikipedia editing is gaining a strong ability to see the other side of a discussion ... - David Gerard 11:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template_talk:Cleanup-importance

Thought you might be interested. See also discussion on WP:AN/I concerning User:Grace Note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet theater

I've posted a summary of the current findings and some additional evidence at WP:ANI#User:Amerinese, User:DINGBAT et al.. I'm not sure if that's the best place to post it, because of its potential repercussions on the Instantnood et al. case. --MarkSweep 21:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely belongs in the Instantnood evidence, even if Instantnood isn't involved, because it's part of why it's such a contentious issue (and why voting is considered harmful in general). When you spot any more around this case, please let me know - David Gerard 00:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the report on AN/I from my section of the Instantnood et al. evidence page. Regarding other sockpuppets, I've outlined my conspiracy theory as part of my posting to AN/I. I'm fairly certain that User:BlueSunRed is another sockpuppet of User:DINGBAT. --MarkSweep 00:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the three known socks, I haven't gotten an email asking for the real one to be unblocked ... the user doesn't seem to have tried to edit again, at least not using an IP used by one of those names in the past week - David Gerard 00:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

Thanks for your reply on Incidents, I need to range block 85.206.193.X to 85.206.196.0, but I don't know how to make it that specific--nixie 02:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be two blocks: 85.206.193.0/24, 85.206.194.0/23. There should be a calculator for these things somewhere on the web ...

In this particular case, take care: a whois on 85.206.193.0 shows that the actual IP range is 85.206.192.0-85.206.207.255, or 85.206.192.0/21, which seems to be a Lithuanian Telecom range, and something about it makes me suspect it's dynamic - don't block unless you're around for a while afterwards to unblock in case of collateral damage David Gerard 08:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sick of the socks

Hi there! I'm somewhat disturbed by the tendency of some users to create socks to make a WP:point, or to insult others (e.g. User:Smell Etitis). I'm not sure if this is recent or not, but it seems on the increase. Since this seems likely to be done by established users, I thought it might help in such cases to get an IP check, and warn or temporarily block the original user for vandalism. I realize that's not currently policy, but would you think it a good idea if I created a discussion page to attempt to make it policy? If so, then I'd also like your opinion on a good way of wording it. Yours, Radiant_* 13:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

There's strong resistance to the idea of widespread checking (see m:CheckUser), and it really is an art, not a science - there isn't really a way to automate the procedure and get a meaningful result. I won't be pushing for it excessively strongly myself, but in the case you mention I can see it possibly being accepted to some degree - David Gerard 17:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In the hopes of it being accepted to some degree, I have created Wikipedia:Sock_puppet/Proposal. Radiant_* 14:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case against LevelCheck

Hi, regarding the arbcom case against LevelCheck: recently, he's returned to editing after a 9-day hiatus, and immediately commenced disrupting again (see List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"). In light of this, I hope the arbcom will take a look at my request for a temporary injunction. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I've just emailed the AC list to see if the idea will fly - David Gerard 07:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this?

15:41, 12 May 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:Maggie311" with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Sock puppet with same operator as GRider) (unsigned, written by 209.102.126.140)

Yep. I'm 99% sure who it is, and they appear to have been smart enough to cool it from acting in quite such a lame manner. I'll still be watching, however - David Gerard 10:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell - editing the "proposed decision" page

Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [17], diff [18], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, I can see no evidence of the rule you invoke, nothing that says "Only members of the ArbCom can propose a principle in an arbitration". This seems like a bad rule to me: It would be silly, if it existed. Why did you just not vote against my proposed principle? I note that the other issues I have raised in the place to which you have moved my proposed principle remain unanswered. In these circumstances, that you move my suggestion where you have, can have no other effect than to make me feel censored or at least unheard. That, surely, is not your intention? So: Replace my proposed principle and vote on it. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 19:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bit at the top of the page that says "Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on." Since that's obviously not clear, I'll modify the template accordingly. Proposals from others should go on the proposed decision talk page - David Gerard 19:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the wording had the meaning you insist upon then the writer could have phrased it better. It says nothing about who the author of the proposed wording is. And you "fix" to the wording remains imprecise. I have changed the page to reflect the meaning you want. In the interim I note my other point (above), that my proposals on the talk page are seemingly unheard, remains unanswered. Courtesy demands you at least say you are not going to address the issue. Paul Beardsell 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you have given for my (Paul Beardsell's [psb777's]) block is invalid. I was not warned not to edit the page. I said there was no rule. David edited the page presumably to make the ruling plain. He failed to do so. I made it plain in a simple edit. My entirely sensible edit was revoked returning the page to a state where the "rule" does not appear. It's very Catch 22. I cannot edit the page because of a non-existent rule. I put the rule on the page. I am blocked for editing a page for which there is no rule against editing where my edit is to make the rule plain! With or without warning it is just silly. But there was no warning of a block. All that was ever said was that the page would be protected. Paul Beardsell (psb777)

Considering the circumstances - that you edited the page directly, then I asked you nicely not to, then you claimed you had a right to, then I emphasised you didn't, then you did it again anyway - I think it's highly appropriate. I really don't see what part of "don't edit the decision page, edit the talk page" is unclear.

I've unblocked you now - please don't do it again. Talk, propose, etc., on the talk page. - David Gerard 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary unfairly misrepresents the situation.

• I added a proposed principle.
• You said there was a prohibition on me adding proposed principles.
• I said where?
• You and Ambi said it was plain.
• I said where is this made plain?
• You edited the page intending to prohibit ordinary users adding proposed principles.
• Your edit did not do so.
• I made an edit fixing your prohibition - I wrote what you meant.
• You blocked me falsely claiming I had been warned I would be blocked.
• I had not made an edit of the type you claim is prohibited - I had added the very prohibition you claim I ignored in making the edit!
• You reverted the page to it's imprecise version.

You should now do what you tried but failed to do: Make the prohibition plain. If no one responds to the issues I raise on the Talk page I will not use the Talk page. How can you reasonably expect me to do so? And I refer you to the "courtesy" issue, above. Paul Beardsell 22:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, your proposal has in fact been answered on the talk page. The answer so far is "No." Edit the decision page again and you'll be blocked again - David Gerard 22:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But if the policeman is unreasonable again then we will, err, err, see him be unreasonable again! I suppose an apology is out of the question? I am unsure what you have shown other than you will not be corrected by me. Have you made the prohibition plain yet? Are you saying Ambi speaks for you on the issue of the principle I propose? Paul Beardsell 22:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I'm considering requesting arbitration in the case of Mr Tan (talk • contribs). I've not really been involved in an arbitration (or mediation), and though I've read all the information about the process, I'm not sure that arbitration is in fact the appropriate step. I'd be very grateful if you could have a quick look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, and the main articles involved (Zanskar and Tsushima Islands), and tell me if there's any other less drastic route that I could go down. Many thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten you - will look when I have spare moments - David Gerard 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise my mistake. Don't worry about it... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trey Stone

I've got an interesting conundrum for you. You may have heard of a fellow called Trey Stone, who in the past has used sock puppets. Not so long ago someone brought an RfC on him citing his incivility, strong advocacy of an extreme rightwing, or rather anti-leftwing, political stance, and edit warring.

I got an email timed from him at 03:18 UTC this morning, 17 May, pointing out that expiry of his block is overdue. I think he's referring to this one:

• 12:47, 15 May 2005 BrokenSegue blocked "User:Trey Stone" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Contras)

Well according to Special:Ipblocklist there is no current block on his username.

But as it happens, there's a recent autoblock that looks very interesting:

• 03:00, 17 May 2005, Petaholmes blocked #22627 (expires 03:00, 18 May 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "KapilTagore". The reason given for KapilTagore's block is: "3RR violation".)

I don't know this user KappilTagore, but by coincidence someone put a note about an RfC on KapilTagore on my user talk page this morning at 00:27 UTC. The statement of dispute is as follows:

KapilTagore makes crude, vicious, and foul-mouthed personal attacks on other editors with whom he has disagreements. He trumpets his political beliefs across Talk pages and in edit summaries and engages in futile revert wars.

This sounds oddly familiar. They both seem to engage in ideological battles with Viajero and both edit Fidel Castro.

As contra-indication, Trey Stone claims to be a student at Occidental College (see his user page) and in a recent edit summary KapilTagore claims to live in Colombia [19]. Other than the Fidel Castro edits, their paths don't seem to cross much. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, their paths just crossed here: Regime~history, too. — Davenbelle 07:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

There's an AC case active on Trey and he's known for sockpuppetry, so I looked these two up. Trey is on DSL in the US and KapilTagore is indeed in Colombia. Unless there's something deeper going on. Does the writing style match? - David Gerard 11:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I dip my oar in this discussion? That the two are the same is an interesting conjecture which hadn't occurred to me. Linguistically, KapilTagore appears to have a native-speaker command of English, but he makes subtle idiomatic errors and does not seem to understand the force of vulgar language; his English, IMO, is that of someone who grew up speaking it, but has probably lived much/most of his life in a foreign country. These linguistic defects I don't detect in Trey Stone. That being said, I don't consider this definite evidence that the two aren't the same, but it would be sockpuppet artistry of the highest order if they were.

By way of clarification, may I also add my differences between these two users and myself is not so much on ideological grounds but simply on account of their atrocious, antisocial behaviour. Thanks, -- Viajero 12:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll not be surprised to learn that I've decided this was just an intriguing coincidence. Both happened to be blocked at roughly the same time, not that surprising given their behavior. I still don't understand why Trey was unable to edit after his block expired. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Trey Stone. Losers. Kapil 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him

In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion principles poll

Dear Mr. Gerard,

Would you please give your opinion on the Wikipedia:Deletion principles poll recently created by Neutrality? Since the recent drama on 'is WP:POINT policy' (for which I'm unfortunately responsible, and rest assured I won't be doing that again) it seems it may not be a good idea to get a Wikiwide poll on such questions as "all schools are notable, support/oppose/abstain". Several users have tried to address this with Neutrality, but xe has not responded. Since I do believe the discussion at Wikipedia:Schools is making progress towards a compromise, I'm afraid that a yes/no vote would once more factionalize the matter and impede progress. Or maybe I've completely misunderstood the matter. But either way I'd like to hear what you think of it.

Yours, Radiant_* 07:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! Radiant_* 10:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the sheer amount of people opposing Neutrality's poll (by your straw poll), I've put a polite request on his talk page to refrain from running it in the first place. I hope he decides to accept what seems to be a consensual opinion on the poll. Radiant_* 07:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

KaintheScion/ElKabong

Hello. Annon IP 129.7.35.176 keeps on deleting/altering your fact that those two above users are sockpuppets. Is there a way we can prevent the IP from doing that again? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ElKabong admitted in email that IP was him. Looking into it now - David Gerard 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-templates again

Just reposting since I didn't see a direct reply on the talk page:

You say the developers consider meta-templates to be a disaster. As part of the ArbCom there was supposed to be a "referral" of these issues to them. Are your comments related to that referral? Can you provide some evidence of their disapproval and the details of what is actually wrong? I haven't seen this clearly spelled out anywhere since the ArbCom. - Omegatron 15:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

See WP:RFAr clarification. Jamesday and Tim Starling have pointed out the problems with them at length - the Tim Starling one is on the current version of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, in the intro. Meta-templates where the templates inside don't change don't have the problem, of course, and that's why it says "avoid" rather than "verboten" - David Gerard 15:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing heavily edited pages

Just a note to remind you to please be careful editing heavily edited pages like WP:AN/3RR. This edit by you deleted the comments of another users. I find it's always best to go into the history and do a diff after I commit an edit, and make sure it did what I thought it did. Noel (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that! I think what happened was that I wrote my comment, then hit 'backspace' to correct myself ... so it saved my edit as relative to the version that I started with. I shall take much more care with that - David Gerard 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Albini

Good, brief, edit, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 13:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock characterization

David, I'm not following you — I mean, I think I do, but you seem to be on the wrong track. How am I characterizing your unblock as anything but a genuine move you thought was the correct one at the time. Without getting into Sam Spade's sincerety and doubts thereof: I see you hearing his explanation that he was working towards a comrpomise (by virtue of my compliment), which wasn't the case, but is totally understandable for you to think that it was. Is that not a fair characterization? At the event, I was just asking your opinion, in light of all the new information you were not privy to at the time of unblocking Sam Spade. And if you do think that 'certainly' was not sardonic, well then, I disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. It's relatively immaterial in so far that I don't see you actively opposing the re-block by unblocking again; thus, I take no issue with your actions. Note that English isn't my native tongue, I learned it about a decade or so ago, and I still have difficulties sometimes effectively nuancing my thoughts, so you have likely simply misread me. Best, El_C 14:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform

Dear Friend, please inform me where did I break 3RR rule? This is a mistake. I would like kindly to ask you unblock me. Best regards. Zivinbudas 00:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BeBop

BeBop is not a troll or vandal. BeBop sits on the speedy delete category and salvages articles (only about 20%, the rest really are crap). People with a deletionist agenda don't like that. As speedy delete is the death penalty for an article, BeBop errs on the side of keeping articles. Too many articles marked patent nonsense are NOT, specifically by the articles that defines patent nonsense.

The vote on RfA on Thryduff is valid. It is not a troll. If it is a sockpuppet, the owner of the sock isn't voting there.

Please re-instate BeBop. Shaking up the deletionists ire is not vandalism or trolling. Note Mel Ettis comments on the user page and comments on the RfA to LinuxBeak.

1. 64.62.161.12 03:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite all interested parties to look at this, this, this, and especially this before claiming that this user isn't a troll, and look at this and this before claiming that he isn't disruptive. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I changed all the temporary diff links in the comment above into permanent diff links. --cesarb 16:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thorpe called BeBop a vandal. Return the favor call him stupid. tit-tat.
2. Will Champion a member of the band Coldplay. Totally notable stub. That article needs de-POV, but it not speedy delete criteria.
3. Pointing out CesarB marks non-nonsense articles as nonsense, in his RfA a valid comment.
4. Made the same comment about Thryduulf that Everyking did in the oppose vote.
5. Read the talk page on the delete template. It overused by innocently ignorant users resulting in articles that should go to VfD being speedily deleted. Seeing how admins speedy delete tons of stuff without reading it, it valid to move that template to a non-speedy category. I not the first one to bring this up on that page.
6. Feydey took my genuine constructive criticism! What disruptive about that? I make technical mistake not knowing how to mark template in the edit. Mel Ettis fix, thank him.

What grudge you carry, LinuxBeak!

1. Vandal wasn't the correct term. However, by calling him "stupid" you are in turn inciting a fight. That's trolling.
2. Speedy deletion of an article that said, and I quote, "One of the fags in that shitty band Coldplay.", is totally acceptable. That's disruptive.
3. The article was nonsense. You also called him "stupid". That's trolling.
4. Quote: "Oppose. He is a brown noser. He'll get an admin because of it". That's trolling (not to mention childish).
5. And what gives you the right to change where the tag redirects to? That's disruptive.
6. The reason why you were telling him not to use the {{db}} tag is because you changed it to fit your agenda. That's disruptive.
7. And the new one: You're evading a ban! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. Poorly written articles, POV articles, silly articles, ARE NOT Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Shoehorn turned into a valid stub with 30 seconds effort, and someone else noticed it should be a redirect to an already written article.
2. Will Champion Valid stub. It's POV -- then de-POV it, which I did.
3. Everyking called him a brown-noser too. He's just more polite.
4. No, Feydey misused the tag by any definition. Not mine.
5. Go comment on the talk page of the delete template. Radiant, DropDeadGorgias, and others have all said it's being misused.
6. ban evading: so is your mom.

Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal

Hi there! There has been some recent discussion on whether people should be held accountable for the actions of their socks (i.e. if someone creates a vandalist sock, the sock is quickly blocked, but should the original user be admonished?). I've put up such a proposal for public discussion at this page, and got quite a lot of supporting comments (in fact, the only opposition seems to be from people who think it's a good idea but redundant with existing policy). Since you're one of the main sockcheckers on the 'pedia I'll leave further decision up to you, but consensus seems to be that you're well within your right to seek out the main account of an abusive sockpuppet, if needed, and deal with that person accordingly. Yours, Radiant_* 11:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

RFC for troll

David: Please visit this RFC page. I invite you to endorse it under Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, but please keep in mind WP:NPA, even for those who are thought to be trolling. --W(t) 06:05, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

85.206.192.0/22 range block ?

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, is there a technical way of blocking anonymous access only from an IP range, i.e. that would not affect non-anon users ? I know that even if it is possible, a desperate abuser could easily circumvent it with his sockpuppets. And this particular one here is desperate enough, I've been following him for over two months now and have seen dozens of various attempts to civilize him, all in vain. IP blocking is not effective as he is assigned a random address in the 85.206.192.0/22 range and apparently there is at least one other user using the same range (although not anonymously). Any idea how this should be dealt with (other than indefinitely protecting the pages in question) ? Lysy 05:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki bug 550 is about this one. A lot of people like it, though Brion Vibber has questioned its usefulness on wikitech-l. At this stage, the answer to the feature request is "so write it" - David Gerard 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus

Now that ths case is open, and because I know you're already aware of User:Pages, I'd like to ask you to perform some sockpuppet checks. This may take a while, but please check his main account, User:Pages, and any of the recent IP addresses he's been using, such as what I've mentioned before or in that 200.83.* range that NoPuzzleStranger reported . Hopefully you can find extra connections or maybe new socks we're not aware of.

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Somehow I get the feeling it'll be another sockpuppet theatre. I shall be getting to this one when I can, you can be sure - David Gerard 19:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the socks

Have a look at the recent history of User:Jiang's user page and user talk page: the sock attacks just keep piling up. This is getting tiresome. Do you think anything can be done? Maybe they are all coming from a common small IP range? Thanks, --MarkSweep 06:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikien-l

Making false accusations against me on the mailing list, where I can't even defend myself, is absolutely infuriating. I want an apology. Everyking 17:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, correction sent - David Gerard 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Argyrosargyrou

David, you were asking earlier about the priopriety of my repeated reversion of Argyrosargyrou's edits via open proxies following his 24 hr block for violating the 3RR. This sort of situation is covered in the blocking policy, viz: "Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." (Wikipedia:Banning policy). -- ChrisO 22:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can see a wikilawyer hairsplitting between "blocks" and "bans", but as I said this sort of reversion is obviously a good idea - David Gerard 12:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of rubbish that we have all come to expect from you. "Who cares what the policy says, according to me, if I blocked the user, it's the same as if someone with the authority to do it banned them, so we should treat it the same. If they make a constructive edit, feel free to revert the page to the lower quality version." Great thinking Sherlock. Napoleon complex 14:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DNA vandal

Hi, there is vandal hitting DNA pretty hard, they use a unique username each time, could you check the IP for this user so an effective block can be put in place. Thanks --nixie 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can unless there's an ArbCom matter link. See m:CheckUser for the sort of concerns having such a power available raise in others' minds. So I'm keeping to AC-related stuff until there's a firm consensus to stretch it to other people. I'll see if I can find a hook to investigate on ;-) - David Gerard 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three articles vprotected now thanks the the DNA vandal (DNA, organelle and chloroplast), it's flat out vandalism, nothing to quibble over. But I understand if your hands are tied. --nixie 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you check an IP address, please?

Could you check to see if User:-Ril- is User:Lir or any of the platoon of sock puppets and anonymous addresses that Lir has used in the past? I know Lir used to post as User:Ril. RickK. 66.60.159.190 16:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be anything to do with Lir. -Ril- appears to be exactly what they claim to be, someone really really heavily into Egyptology who has slight runins with others (see their talk page) and edits from one DSL IP (which surprised me, because I know that ISP to change DHCP IPs quite a lot).

Lir's current MO is hit-and-run edits from assorted open proxies around the world. See User:Lir for the list. His last two edits to User talk:Raul654 were hit-and-run edits from wildly disparate boxes, but are obviously written by the same person. (If it were anyone but Lir I'd have considered plausible deniability, but he's such a liar and troll it fits right in with his way of doing things. Wikipedia continues to gain from his absence.) - David Gerard 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. And thanks for fixing the quote, it used to work. I wonder what happened? RickK 23:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Another address check

Could you have a look at User:193.29.205.252/User:Witkacy too? Given their revert-warring style and their shared fondness of the word provocative there's rather a strong case to be made for a link, even without technical evidence.

While I'm here anyway: Do you think this would be accepted by the ArbCom as things stand (i.e. without an RFC or yet further warnings)? I'm not really involved in the case apart from it clogging up my watchlist, but I do think the sooner action is taken against this sort of behaviour the better. --W(t) 08:06, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Another GRider role account?

I've just come accross Bahn Mi (talk • contribs), whose contribution history constists almost entirely of school articles, listing school articles at user:GRider/Schoolwatch, school VfDs and pictures of schools. Additionally the username reads very much like "Ban Me". (copied to WP:AN/I) Thryduulf 22:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wiki is currently too slow to use CheckUser much, but if it turns out to be the main suspect being a l@m3r then you'll see a remarkable spate of blocked accounts, kthx - David Gerard 23:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has been blocked. However I don't see any evidence that this user is being abusive. Seems to be performing good faith edits on school articles and voting keep on school-related VfDs, and that's no reason to block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is GRider then its a violation of the arb-com prohibition on participating in VfDs. Thryduulf 08:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The sudden appearance and almost immediate engagement in school editing is suspicious, I admit--it's clearly somebody sock or "role account." I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt until it can be checked as it's clearly making good faith edits and undoubtedly improving the quality of many articles. The other behavior isn't abusive, as far as I can see, unless it's the same person as GRider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Environknot

Is he considered a sock puppet? Although I have not participated in the debates, I have read history statements against him. I have found that Kain and the like were abusive, but Environknot was not. It says on the ban that users may have the same IP ranges as other users. What is the chance that he is an entirely different person? Is it warranted to label him a sockpuppet, and is it warranted to add that he is an "abusive sockpuppet" on his user page when he has not shown himself to be one in his edits? Or maybe he has and I am not aware. I am interested because he considers edits in his user page to be vandalism, and my recent interaction with him has led me to believe him a good faith editor.

Thanks in advance,

Guy Montag 09:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot = ElKabong = KaintheScion. But while he behaves himself (i.e. not spouting personal abuse under whatever name), people are mostly willing to put up with him and take his edits as they come - David Gerard 10:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should he still be labeled as an abusive sock puppet though? Perhaps he has taken the identity of Enviroknot on a permanent basis. Is this a particular policy that is being upheld, because his main complaint against any one right now seems to be that others are invading his personal user page. I just think it is cruel to not ban someone and then allow them to post with a stigma when they have (at least in my view) reformed.

Guy Montag 11:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot isn't those other two users, Gerard just keeps insisting so because he needs someone to persecute and because he won't admit when he's wrong. Enviroknot is a good man who stands up against the large group of Islamists who are trying to fill Wikipedia with propaganda.

This comment was left by217.160.75.48, tagged by --Tznkai 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racist edit

The persecution of User:Yuber is just another gang rape by Wikipedia’s Jews. They do this to everyone whom they disagree with. The Wikipedia Jews suck shit even more than the average Jew.--Jewshit 00:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I and Jayjg recieved a racist message from this user. Could you check if this is someone's sockpuppet?

Guy Montag 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

David Touretzky

I notice how an article on David Touretzky has popped up, evidently as part of yet another dead agenting attempt. Care to assist in cleaning it up and making it NPOV? --Modemac 16:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I recognised that name! Well he may well be just about marginally notable as-is, with all the hoo-hah down the years. I did a bit of a cleanup myself. I think of it as my first bit of clam chowder in nine years. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hip to this one. It's User:AI at work, who may be "anonymous.informer" from a.r.s, who may be Barbara Schwartz. If that's not a familiar name, don't worry, you don't want to know. The important thing I've done is add him to the relevant category, Category:Critics of Scientology. The article also needs to mention his DeCSS Gallery - David Gerard 19:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The most important thing is contribution from all viewpoints... - AI 22:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Dave, this is a bit overdue, but thank you for your support vote on my RFA. I finally have the time to properly thank everyone, and you're on the list of people that helped me become an admin. Thank you! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

LOST PASSWORD

Hello, your name is provided as a possible source for retrieving a lost password when no email contact was given in the original log in process. Is that something you can help with? 67.174.76.243 (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Me?? Sorry, I have no idea on this one! Who advised this? I should advise them otherwise ... - David Gerard 07:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BeBop sock?

62.253.96.40 (talk • contribs) is obviously the same as MARMOT (talk • contribs), and their behavior appears similar to what is mentioned in the RFC on BeBop. Since I believe you were involved there, and you're pretty much the authority on sockchecking, I thought I'd let you know. Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And another sock???

This is probably a false alarm, but User:Ambush Commander created a huge colored box to promote the Google Test and stuck it all over VFD. The last time someone did this, it was GRider with his tally boxes, and GRider has been known to attempt to discredit the google test by pulling it out of context. Like I said, probably a false alarm and a good faith but misguided effort, but FYI. Radiant_>|< 16:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind that, it was a good faith attempt. Sorry to bother you. Radiant_>|< 21:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request for injunction

Sorry, dropped again - my ADSL line is very unreliable. :( Could you please consider either enjoining User:Argyrosargyrou or quickly processing his RfAr - he is causing chaos at the moment on articles related to Greece and Cyprus, through creating multiple POV forks of articles and exploiting sockpuppets on a scale I've never seen before on Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever come across one person with so many sockpuppets! Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&action=history , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Invasion_of_Cyprus&action=history and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul for examples of what I mean. As of tonight, I've begun blocking each new sockpuppet as it's created. As far as I can make out, he's using multiple open proxies to make the task of blocking more difficult.

One other datapoint - Googling for "argyrosargyrou" or "argyros argyrou" or "argyros george argyrou" shows an extensive history of extreme POV websites (with recommendations from Stormfront.org!) and Usenet posts going back to 1997. He's clearly a hardline long-term POV-pusher who's decided to try to make Wikipedia his soapbox. -- ChrisO 00:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Idiotboy who I blocked

Sweet. I feel empowered :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Well, you are a colossal loser, so I'm hardly surprised. Oh, hi David." Marmot

QE2 VfD

Could someone who has not already participated in the debate please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada and determine whether or not there's a consensus. As far as I can determine, according to the consensus guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus the criteria has been met since there's a 2/3 majority to merge/redirect but since I've proposed the VfD in the first place it's apparently seen as objectionable by some for me to declare the now week old VfD closed and implement a redirect (the merge has already been done). AndyL 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The accuracy of your Enviroknot IP check

You recently did an IP check linking Enviroknot to KaintheScion. Enviroknot claims it was due to repeated power outages that caused him to be assigned the same IP address as Kain. Is this a reasonable explanation for the positive link between them? Ingoolemo ^talk 02:23, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Enviroknot is talking complete dog bollocks - David Gerard 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How does harassing this user help resolve their behaviour? If they are insistent that they are not the other user, why can we not simply encourage them to dissociate themselves from the bad behaviour of the other users? And what does it matter if someone is a sockpuppet? It's only really an issue if the sock is being used to circumvent policy. If they're not, witchhunting and harassing them seem to me to be just as bad as the behaviour we are lamenting in the sockpuppet! It's surely the behaviour that counts ultimately. Grace Note 05:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, dear - David Gerard 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, David. I don't think Grace Note made that suggestion in bad faith. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I genuinely feel that the whole sockpuppet thing takes up far too much of good editors' time and energy. Some of them are about as unpleasant in their pursuit of socks as the socks are themselves. I'm not surprised that Dave thinks that it's beneath discussion though! Why stoop to listening to what one of the peasants has to say? -- Grace Note

Hello

I gather you are a developer. Is it possible for you to check to see what IP address is used by User:WeKnowItsYou, and who else uses it.

I suspect that User:WeKnowItsYou is a (highly obvious) sockpuppet created for abuse. I would like to determine whose sockpuppet it is so that I might bring a formal complaint against them for using sockpuppets abusively. ~~~~ 21:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: Your comments

I am concerned about what you said:

'MARMOT appears to have created a sockpuppet, User:Master Shredder, to vote against Weyes' RFA; this sort of thing is unacceptable; please do not do anything of the sort again, out of frustration or any other reason'

I don't know where you got the idea from, but clearly you are mistaken. There is no connection.

Marmot 23:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx v. Zzyxz

I reversed your block of User:Zzyzx11 (the admin), being almost certain that you erroneously read that in place of User:Zzyxz11 (the impersonator) when doing your IP check on MARMOT et al., see also my comments on Weyes' RfA. The admin had already blocked his own impersonator. If I am wrong, and we really do have an admin pulling stunts like this, then there had better be a swift de-adminship coming. --Michael Snow 22:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooooh shite. Thanks for catching that one. - David Gerard 01:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was quite surprised that I was not impersonated sooner as I seem to irritate a lot of vandals and trolls trying to do their sabotage. The block really had no effect on me since I was not editing during that time. Anyway, keep up the good work on the IP checks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

belated thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA nearly a month ago. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

I think we need to make a push to get Scientology up to scratch (preferably to FAC quality). It's being referenced like crazy at the moment thanks to Tom Cruise, as is Xenu. See e.g. http://www.technorati.com/search/xenu . I liked this one! -- ChrisO 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A very brief rundown on why I think Tom Cruise should be neutered and then locked away.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

(http://www.livejournal.com/users/gothbunnyodoom/33499.html)

Oh Gawd. You're probably right. First thing to do: cut that link list down to a sane size. I cut it, and people agreed, then someone restored the whole thing because "people might find it useful." Yay. Let's put it on peer review and see what they say ... - David Gerard 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a start on the beliefs section... see what you think. :-) -- ChrisO 11:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Could you possibly have a look at this proposal by Ed Poor and the corresponding discussion page? I'd be grateful for your thoughts. -- ChrisO 11:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your idea is far and away the best approach to this problem I've seen. If no-one comments soon, I suggest just writing up the short form as a suggested guideline and putting it on Wikipedia:Naming conflict - David Gerard 29 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

I've expanded the proposal to cover some more ground - see what you think now. -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Likely Enviroknot sockpuppet

Could you determine if User:Enviroknot is User:Kurita77? I'm about 99% certain since Kurita77's first edit was 15 minutes after Enviroknot was blocked (for violating his injunction). He immediately began quoting Enviroknot. I'm tempted to block, but wanted some definitive evidence. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Not at present, unfortunately - CheckUser doesn't appear to be switched on for me in MediaWiki 1.5! When I have IRC access I'll ask Tim. Or you could pop onto #wikimedia-tech and see if someone is around who could check. The IP number on the wikien-l email looks familiar, but I'd have to make sure before I could say - David Gerard 29 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Good idea :-) - David Gerard 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)