User talk:David Gerard/archive 3

1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005

Another official Scientologist editor?

Check out 205.227.165.11 - it's registered to CSI. I suspect this might be Nuview editing while not logged in. -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Nuview hasn't been a really problematic editor in practice. I'm not worried about Category:Scientology getting a CoS bias from them. I think it's a good thing to have their POV on board - it's not like the subject is short of solid reference material - David Gerard 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

All Pennstate U, same articles, same person?

Hello David. How's it going?

An anon IP user 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) is user:Deeptrivia who is using a Pennstate university IP as a proxy and the reason he/she was banned was because of vandalizing my and user:Mustafaa's user pages and other articles. He/she admits that" My IP is 130.203.202.156 Thank you. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC) " near the bottom of this page here [1] when arguing against user:Axon.

Also recently another anon IP 128.118.126.16 (talk • contribs) has been editing the same pages as 130.203.202.156 (aka deeptrivia) and I traced him/her back to Pennstate university also.

  • 130.203.202.156 = [ bode.meche.psu.edu ]
  • 128.118.126.16 = [ client-128-118-126-16.mobility-up.psu.edu ]

Can you please clarify whether these guys are the same? Thanks, I appreciate it. P.S This user is believed to have used sooo many other IPs I think I should make a list. :) --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 03:28 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi David, I'm not clear whether the IP-check facility isn't available at all, not even to the developers. If it isn't, feel free to ignore this. If it is, would you consider asking a developer to check Cognition (talk • contribs), a new LaRouche editor, in case it's Herschelkrustofsky (talk • contribs)? There's a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cognition_(II). The IP addresses known to be HK from the last arbcom case were 64.30.208.48 (talk • contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles, and AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255. There are similarities and differences between HK and Cognition, so it's hard to judge by the posts alone. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

Dunno if you've looked at this:

It's in voting right now. To me most of the proposals look utterly beyond belief. A great expansion of CSD, with the expressed intention of removing many classes of article deletion from discussion altogether and reducing the size of VfD. Failure to assert notability of some kind is a popular criterion in these proposals and several of them could well pass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

That's completely batshit. I've attempted to alert the world - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

The GAP Project

I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate any comments you might have there. --Duk 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Intergalactic walrus pic

An intergalactic walrus

A gamedaily.com user has contributed this wonderful pic related to the Xenu article.

Should we add it, do you think? I'm tempted to use it to illustrate the space opera article too... -- ChrisO 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

I think that's just too frivolous and somehow not quite encyclopaedic ;-) - David Gerard 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

templates for significance and importance

I've merged {{explain significance}} and {{cleanup-importance}} and rephrased the new template to use less emotional language (and soon a less emotionally named category). Antaeus Feldspar told me that you changed a lot of articles which used some previous version of the template, so I thought you may wish to know about this change. --Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

I'll have a look - David Gerard 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder

User:Njyoder is getting into a rather large "discussion war" on Talk:Cold fusion (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Cold fusion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One of his more recent comments was: Then feel free to cite some instead of making a blind accusation. I've noticed you have a tendency to try to undermine my credibility and contribute nothing of value to the discussion. I won't be suprised if you can't cite any, because you know they'd easily get shot down.

I noticed that there was an arbitration request that went against him, and wanted to know what should be done (I'm involved, so I probably shouldn't take any action). At the very least you might want to keep an eye on the page, as it is getting out of control fast. --brian0918™ 00:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite a 'personal attack' (Njyoder is on a short-leash personal attack parole), but it's certainly an assumption of bad faith, which can quickly lead to personal attacks. Njyoder is a very analytical fellow, to the point where he's stated on wikien-l that he finds WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility difficult to follow from the policy pages in question. I suppose I would first ask him to please try harder to assume good faith, and I acknowledge how hard one has to grit one's teeth to do so with some people. I do believe Njyoder is sincere, but has noted difficulty working with others; but he has been actively trying to work better with others of late. If he slips into personal attacks, bring it to the attention of WP:ANI so that someone uninvolved can act if appropriate - David Gerard 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche again

I saw your note to the mailing list that CheckUser is working now, so this is a request again for a LaRouche check. The new user is Cognition (talk • contribs), and it would be good to know whether he's connected to Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper/C Colden. The latter posted from 64.30.208.48 (talk • contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles; AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255; and also from AOL 198.80.0.0 - 198.81.255.255. Cognition says he's unconnected to Herschel, and is posting from Florida. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cognition edits from AOL and from another IP range that is indeed in Florida; I wouldn't presume they were the same person as Herschel - David Gerard 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks David. Perhaps he's moved ... ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shoes

Could you do a sockpuppet check on

I think they are sock puppets of

~~~~ 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure arbitration disputes aren't your favorite thing to deal with, but could you take a look at this request for a temporary injunction against User:Alfrem? There is a request for arbitration against him, and his antics have recently resulted in the page protection of Libertarianism. Temporary blocks for 3RR violation seem insufficient. Fred Bauder recommended asking arbitrators individually for their opinions, so that's what I'm doing.

Thanks for your time, and I hope this mess doesn't keep you from the more interesting parts of Wikipedia for too long.

Dave (talk) 17:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's on my big list. Catching up ... - David Gerard 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take as long as you need. He's currently blocked (3RR), so he won't cause much damage in the next day or so. Dave (talk) 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

IP tracking

I read where you caught a contributor to the Scientology article posting from a Church of Scientology IP address. That was great work! Is it possible for a non-administrator to check the IP addresses of suspicious contributors? Or is that ability reserved only for administrators?--Agiantman 17:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

m:CheckUser is reserved only for me and the actual sysadmins, and in my case only for particular purposes. In general, IPs of usernames are not to be revealed, per the Privacy Policy, unless someone is violating policy in particular ways, and even then we try to avoid it. I spotted the editor in question when they edited as the IP and signed their name, and the IP range was CoS-owned. At which point I gently noted that editing as such is fine, but he should probably note the fact. We do in fact have a few CoS editors on the Scientology-related articles, and they've been (to me) surprisingly unproblematic. The area is watched very closely by quite a few people, after all - David Gerard 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Stone

User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth[2] time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration ([[3]]), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.

I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus' request for arbitration

Hi David Gerard, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week), the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You were warmly welcomed when you first came here, and now it's time for your Old, or Lukewarm, welcome! Here it comes. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Bishonen | talk 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-D I feel welcomed! - David Gerard 00:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya David,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there, if you're not too busy... Might do Wikimedia UK stuff, too.

Take care,

James F. (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am so there and will try to deal with my simmering Wikimania envy appropriately, i.e. with pints - David Gerard 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology

Just posting to a.r.s probably isn't enough, nor even a popular website unless it's Operation Clambake ... real-world influence, e.g. lawsuits, writing a book, frequent media (discussion needed) - David Gerard

You listed this comment with notable critics. What does this have to do with NPOV'ing Scientology related articles? --AI 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I was thinking in terms of what to fill out the critics' section with - in terms of who probably deserved an article and who didn't; rather than to do with NPOV or references, which I mention in the aims as areas Wikipedia could really excel in in writing about Scientology. I'm sorry you don't think it's possible, but as a CoS member your POV is very much needed in some of the stridently critical articles - David Gerard 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Wikipedia into a playground for petty authoritarians

The title says it all. You get off on throwing your weight around and excercising arbitrary authority over people trying to write an encyclopedia. You and people like you are the biggest single threat to attracting quality editors. What's worse is that in treating people with contempt, you create angry people, who behave agressively. Please, stop it. Perverted justice 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured to have you spend your hit-and-run sockpuppet on myself and RickK, who I have the highest of respect for. Remember that if Wikipedia continues to proceed downhill, it's the work of a moment to install MediaWiki on your own server, copy all of Wikipedia to it and proceed with developing a fork under the GFDL. Since we make it suck so much, the whole community should follow - David Gerard 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a hit and run sockpuppet, since anyone who criticises you or yours is immediately banned. Of course, your response is 'put up with me being a Nazi or leave', well, not all of us have enormous porn empires at our disposal to do that kind of thing. You don't have authority to insist that unless people play by your rules, instead of the ones made by the community, they should leave. For that matter, why don't you leave and start Nazipedia.org? Napoleon complex 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Nazi-Porn empire is fully supported by the community - David Gerard 14:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is: "Everyone who disagrees with me has been banned". The cry of every tyrant. The only people left are those who have no interest in governance issues on Wikipedia, or the ones who share your vision of an 'open' encyclopedia policed by an unaccountable cabal. Only those who agree with you are allowed an opinion on any matter of governance. The price of dissent is immediate banning with no right of appeal, except to the cabalists themselves - you even filter what messages are allowed on the mailing list! Napoleon complexed 11:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please look at George W. Bush and User:134.161.244.89. A user has been fighting all day to get changes into the article to make the subject look bad. I have tried to direct it to the talk page without success. The same user is causing similar problems at Metrosexual and African American Vernacular English. I believe he should be blocked but I feel I have too much interaction to do it myself. Can you please look at the user and his edits? Thanks. - Tεxτurε 21:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sock puppet check

David Gerard,

I was referred to you by Tim Starling . Tom Haws, a WP administrator, suggested I contact him to track down some suspected sock puppet accounts of users that have been creating problems in discussions and engaging in repeated personal attacks against other editors. Tim then referred me to you.

All three are relatively new accounts, yet the users show a great deal of familiarity with WP. Also, the activity on all three is almost exclusively related the the Jehovah's Witnesses pages. Additionally, the edits and style of personal attacks suggests they are all the same individual.

The suspected accounts are:

Thanks in advance, --DannyMuse 04:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check (Trey Stone vs. Davenbelle)

As you may be aware, as of 14 July user Trey Stone (talk • contribs) is under temporary injunction against editing articles related to politics (cf, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision). Based on editing patterns, I have the strong suspicion that he broke that injunction by editing anonymously under 70.118.68.216 (talk • contribs). Just three minutes after one of the anon's edits, Trey Stone left a message on that user's talk page. Could you check the IP number he used to do that? Thanks. -- Viajero | Talk 12:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please handle or post on WP:AIV

Rn71989 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is performing some complex page move vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Havne't got time right now to look myself, but I've reposted it there - David Gerard 21:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 24 hours to give time to sort this all out, but can somebody (Netoholic?) give me some idea of exactly how he did it? -- Essjay · Talk 22:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:David S. Touretzky#RFW

Mr. David Gerard, you never answered my question:

As such, it's from an utterly unreliable source. I suggest you need more discernment in your choice of reference quality --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please describe what you mean by "utterly unreliable source" and provide references. Also maybe you can provide a reference to Wikipedia policy to demonstrate how you decided "quality" and what is and is not a source. --AI 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please respond or I will use this as evidence in the Arbitration. --AI 23:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. I think the talk page of the article in question establishes that your view (that an unreferenced, undated, alleged IRC log is a good reference) is not accepted by other editors as constituting a good reference - David Gerard 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that is understandable. Are you ever going to answer this question: [4] --AI 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually forgotten about that one, thank you - checking refs now - David Gerard 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was completely wrong - they're Microsoft-backed, not CoS-backed. Noting this on talk page - David Gerard 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting this. Aloha --AI 03:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2

Based on some of the past VfDs you've shown interest in, I thought you'd probably want to know that this one was happening. (It was initiated by Pjacobi, the same editor who initiated Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A sysop protected a page where she was "warring"

I think that User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history
My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail.
I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility).
Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP. 217.140.193.123 10:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to know that the above anonymous user is in fact User:Arrigo. I have previously warned him about not signing his comments. Deb 11:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeus

Apparently, LokiCT (talk • contribs) is another sock. Could you look into this? Thanks, HKT talk 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Axon/User:Germen conflict

I agree to support the mediation effort, as long as the mediators follows Wikipedia guidelines and are neutral on this subject. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you can find anyone reasonable who's willing to take on the effort, it'll help solve the problem and give you all useful practice in working with people you strongly disagree with. (And avoid an avoidable arbitration case, which will make the AC happier ;-) I suggest notices at WP:MC and WP:TINMC pointing at the RFAr and saying you could do with a mediator real quick.
Mediation is less about policy legalisms and more about how to work with someone you strongly disagree with - if you approach it on a very human level it stands a chance of working - David Gerard 11:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be difficult to find a person which is acceptable by user:Axon, because he considers a certain POV as embodied by the Runnymede Trust definiton of islamophobia as universally valid.

Besides, it is not clear to me why Axon does not do this himself but insists on fighting edit wars and infaming other users instead of waging a constructive effort to solve this editing conflict. Ok, I will post a notice there as you proposed and hope this nonsense will be over soon so we can spend our time in a more productive way.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrZoidberg

Thank you for your recent block of Zoidberg.

If you need any assistance or support in dealing with any criticism or other ramifications stemming from this block, please let me know and I will help any way I can.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Support Saving User Photo

Thank you for the vote to keep my user page. I was banned here a year ago because a tiny minority of admins decided I wasn't suitable, well now I'm back, and I don't plan on getting banned again. It only took this guy Raul654 a few hours of me being reinstated before he started attacking me with his pals. I'm a lot more defensive now than when I started more than a year ago, that's for sure. Once again, thanks for helping me keep my user photo! Plautus satire 15:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existentializer, suspected sock of Enviroknot

Just a heads-up. He's been around for a bit more than a week. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, could you also check on another (suspected) sockpuppet of Enviroknot, User:Ni-ju-Ichi? See. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ni-ju-Ichi_blocked_as_sockpuppet_of_Enviroknot. Thank you! Carbonite | Talk 21:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both are socks, and there's yet another username he's using as well. (He was in IRC whining about wikien-l - he's posting there as mousyme@gmail.com.) I'm sure it'll take a while for him to wear out. In the meantime, fire at will - you can tell the socks reliably because they all talk and write just like Enviroknot and make the same complaints. If they're different people, they have such amazingly bad luck in DHCP assignments they should be in Vegas rather than Houston - David Gerard 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Tony Sidaway

This one came out of the blue. I'm considering taking the issue of my practice as VfD closer to arbitration committee with a view to having myself de-opped (don't worry, I'd be quite happy as an editor so I'm not about to leave Wikipedia). Before I do that, though, I want to have some input on whether my approach to closing a VfD is really so unorthodox as to be beyond the reach of human understanding. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous bullshit. I've commented to this effect. The VFD regulars are hostile enough to newcomers (with a habit of deeming any non-regular a sockpuppet), but this is appalling - David Gerard 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway, you can't RFAr yourself

I know. Snowspinner told me.

And the Arbcom is not anyone's mothers;-)"

Oh, you're mothers all right. :)

Okay, I guess I'll just have to take up the yoke again. Life is hard. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AI has some allegations to make about you.

You ought to have a look at my talk page. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not unrelated to this, you had previously indicated that you might want to present evidence in the AI arbitration case. The case is in the workshop phase, so now would be a good time to comment as an outside party or contribute evidence. Thanks, --MarkSweep 21:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JuneD, User:D.Right, User:DoctorDog, User:Authopten

Hi! Could you please check if User:JuneD, User:D.Right, User:DoctorDog, and User:Authopten are sockpuppets? They are supporting each other's fringe opinions on Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming and reverting edits. Much thanks!--Agiantman 01:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kmccoy's RFA

Hello, David,

While I'm not entirely convinced of your sanity, I appreciate your support on my RFA.  :) kmccoy (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I was the soul of niceness and level-headedness on the wiki. I'm just terse and shitty on IRC - David Gerard 11:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrZoidberg's block

I would like to bring to your attention the dialogue that is on User talk:DrZoidberg. This user now seems to have an interest in contributing to the encylopedia and seems to express regret for trolling the sandbox. Thank you! Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Jondel, and I have also made a petition for DrZoidberg to be unblocked. He seems to be interested in editing articles and is now acting more seriously. Please see his talk page for more information. Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful what statements you attribute to me, Stevey7788. When I said "I'm really not sure if unblocking DrZoidberg is going to be particularly productive or useful" on your talk page, I didn't exactly mean it as a ringing endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I've unblocked him in any case, and put a note on WP:ANI so admins know (a) he is in fact going to be editing (b) to keep an eye out - David Gerard 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DrZoidberg seems to have already rejected his promise to contribute to articles (specifically, stating "There's nothing left for me to contribute! Everything I know is already in Wikipedia!" on his talk page). He has now gone back to playing in the sandbox, including inserting lots of equal signs so that the page scrolls far to the right. I'm not sure whether that's enough to go back to blocking yet or not, but I'd say things aren't looking good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poors RfAr

I would just like to point out that you should probably recuse yourself from Eds RfAr since it was on your "command" ("suggestion" is maybe a better word) he acted. There are other arbitrators that can handle it. However I don't want to get involved in the dispute, and if you do accept/reject I wont press the point or anything. Just pointing out what I think is proper :P gkhan 06:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I considered it, but decided that (a) I'm not responsible for Ed's actions in agreeing with me (b) speaking to NicholasT, the real concern in the RFAr is the subsequent deletion of the RFC page and the self-unblocking, rather than the initial deletion of VFD. But I'll consider it again ... I'm also currently seeing if the issue can be resolved without an arbitration case, which I think it can - David Gerard 06:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes that would be the best solution. And I guess you are right about the case, and besides, I trust you to be neutral :P Arbitrate in peace gkhan 07:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost spam

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check: User:Gavin the Chosen

Hi David, related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence#Gavin the Chosen and contribute technical evidence. Cheers, --MarkSweep 00:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another suspected sock

Gateman1997 admits to sharing a proxy with this chap. Gateman, a school deletionist, created an article Village Preschool of Saratoga. BillyCreamCorn, a user whose first edit had been just two days before, showed up half an hour later and listed it for deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry day

So here's where all of those socks go that get lost in the laundry...

Sorry for bothering you about this. The article on Biff Rose has been visited by a number of editors who appear to me to be sockpuppets of a single user. They have been playing revert war and otherwise making mischief.

Can you suggest the best way for me to proceed in this matter? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser on User:Amorrow

User:Amorrow has caused some trouble on Wikipedia. He is evading bans using multiple IPs (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Amorrow_and_Elizabeth_Morgan}here]]) as well as sockpuppet accounts. I was wondering if there is anything you can do to track down his IP(s) then, if feasible, block them? Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I was left this which is clearly from the editor in question and is from IP 172.191.246.20. -Splash 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 08:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for the image. I've added it to WP:RFA, I've been looking for one for some time ;-) - David Gerard 10:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Request.

I want to know if Devilbat and Pukachu are one in the same, and if they are Enviroknot. -- A Link to the Past 19:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am Jack's total lack of surprise that they are. Pukachu is also fond of TOR proxies. What a clever boy - David Gerard 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrZoidberg

Due to a total absence of contributions to articles, combined with a continuation of unhelpful edits to the sandbox, I have re-blocked DrZoidberg. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Amazing! Who'da thunk it! etc. - David Gerard 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check

A new user has appeared whos edits appear to mimic those of banned editor User:Zivinbudas, although Zivinbudas has been active from IPs since the ArbCom banned him, could you sock check User:Bf-109 to see if he's using the same Lithuanian telecom? Thanks.--nixie 00:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Func's RfA :)

David Gerard, I want to offer a very sincere thank you to you for your vote in my adminship. You are, (and I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way), a Wikipedian institution. :) To have received your support was very important to me; you set a very high bar of excellence for others to follow. Thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 01:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bar for admin vote support is really not very high — it's more or less 1. have I encountered them? 2. have they been around at least three months, for seasoning? 3. are they actually not crazy or stupid? Admin 'em. So you pass on all three ;-) - David Gerard 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear...for the purposes of full disclosure, perhaps I should have provided a list of all the people who believe I am either crazy and/or stupid? ;-) Func( t, c, e,  ) 00:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be (Func t c e  )? --Tony SidawayTalk 08:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "regular"

You're famous again -- congratulations!

Func calls you an institution, the Grauniad calls you a regular -- if I've been mistaken all these months and this is not an encyclopedia but a pub, pints of Fullers all round, please! -- Hoary 04:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

And the reporter called me "Dave". OUTRAGE! Must be the London Dave Problem - David Gerard 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help me defend Wikipedia noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority

Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite Nate Badd and SasSquat and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on Truth True Epistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Wikipedia can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curps user:Jtkiefer McAttack FoolWagon JimWae Byped Canderson7 Essjay Meelar Spangineer CryptoDerk Asbestos BaronLarf Veratien Ancheta Wis WhiteC Ravenswood Asbestos Christofurio Kzollman Gkhan (left by 207.200.116.72 (talk • contribs))

WP:RFAR request

Could you possibly fill in [N] in the "On this case, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] votes are" bit on my RfAr. Thanks, ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yep - David Gerard 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help me overthrow Wikipedia principles by taking it offline

(perhaps I was a mite over-influenced by the previous poster)

Lots of people make snapshots of Wikipedia, with minimal editing and many poorly-formatted pages as a result. On the other end of the spectrum, we have grand ideas about what an ideal "WP 1.0" process would look and smell like; with various ideas of what a 'reviewed snapshot' might be under such a system.

Let's set up a FAQ about snapshots of WP, without passing judgment, identifying what tools and formats and review-systems exist, and what projects, with some measures of how each is progressing.

First step : Wikipedia:Snapshots ; please add, rename, modify or comment.

+sj + 15:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! (And I assume you mean the previous-but-one ;-) - David Gerard 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check an IP address?

We have a relatively new User named NoPuzzleStranger (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who is evincing disruptive behavior in a rather familiar manner. Since Lir used to edit as PizzaPuzzle, I'm wondering about NoPuzzleStranger's name and if it's a reference. Can you check to see if this User is Lir? Zoe 23:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, I've been asked about NoPuzzleStranger repeatedly and he isn't. - David Gerard 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thank you. Zoe 01:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's now been suggested that NoPuzzleStranger is a near-anagram for Gzornenplatz. Could you please check that? Zoe 07:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger's IPs don't match Wik or Gzornenplatz. However, they don't appear tied down to a given geographical area either, so that's neither positive nor negative evidence. "Reply hazy, try again later." IP checking is not magic unfortunately ;-) - David Gerard 07:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dang, I expected magic results. Thanks, anyway.  :) Zoe 07:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy Users

Hi, at Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat, we hav a couple of, or only one? proxy users that is changing and reverting the site permanently. Proxy ips are

and lots more from proxify, maybe somebody knows th ip - ranges of this Proxy-seller.thanks.Thomas h 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

ups  a dig proxify.com gives me
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.85.195.142
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.130.120
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.130.243
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.131.115
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.131.150
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.76.148
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.76.200
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.77.116
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.77.125
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.84.56.170
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.84.56.180
  • proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.85.195.132

if this might help? Thomas h 21:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastically helpful. I'm checking out and hitting the lot now. Thanks! - David Gerard 07:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoS article accidentally fell through the cracks for the last 5 days, check it out.

Check out the discussion page for details.

Scott P. 03:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Admin overriding Arb-com

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [5]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 12:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you on the decency thing - I think it was pretty much trolling. But actions like yours would lead people who didn't realise you'd done good work previously think you were just here to make trouble, and someone blocking for e.g. 24 hours would I suspect be considered quite reasonable in the circumstances. As WP:POINT says, state your point rather than demonstrating it. I don't think -Ril- should be blocked indefinitely at this stage, so I've put a note on User talk:-Ril-/ban to this effect. (I could just unblock -Ril-, but I'd rather say it on the page so that others won't just indefinitely block.) I'll drop a note on WP:ANI as well - David Gerard 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More RFAr crap you don't want to hear.

Just wondering, did you completely forget about the RFAr on Ed Poor, or have you just not made up your mind yet? Anyway, I'm not too concerned about it anymore, for obvious reasons. --Phroziac (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were a series of long irc discussions involving Ed and the RFAr bringers to see if the problem could be resolved without fire and brimstone. Ed's said he will be much less of a lone gun, and I believe him. (I think it's come home to him that this isn't the tiny Wikipedia of 2002, and it's REALLY BIG now ...) If there's no writeup on this anywhere, there should be ... I'll try to have a look at it later - David Gerard 07:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !

David Gerard, I am asking you to intercede on my behalf regarding an issue taking place at User talk:Tony Sidaway, concerning the closure of a VfD vote. The section is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy. Point 1: Mr. Sidaway specifically mentions you in the article as an administrator who can check the use of sockpuppets during the voting process. Point 2: Mr. Sidaway is inclined to count the vote of Gabrielsimon, even though the GS character used a sockpuppet Khuhly to register more than a single vote during that VFD. Point 3: I have more or less pleaded with Sidaway to count my vote as valid, even against his arbitrary measure of my worthiness. I feel that I meet the standard of a WP editor in good standing, notwithstanding the length of time I have been registered here, but based on my contributions, and involvement wih the community thus far. When I joined this project, I was made to feel that new members are welcome to become involved with community issues such as VfD's. If I had known that my votes were being cast aside, I shouldn't have bothered wasting my time there. I feel, well, bitten. And it disturbs me to see the regard Sidaway shows to a problem user such as Gabrielsimon/Ketrovin/Khuhly/Gavin the Chosen et al., and arbitrarily dismisses my vote out of hand, as a "potential sockpuppet". Mr. Gerard, all one has to do is look at the quantity and quality (IMO) and variety of my edits since I registered here as a user. I am fully aware of the scope and importance of the WP project, and there is very little that I do here on these pages that I treat lightly. So I request that you intercede on my behalf, as an Administrator who holds some sway with Mr. Sidaway. I ask that my vote be counted, at the very least. It matters little to me if the article in question is included or not, as I pointed out on Mr. Sidaways talk page, there is room for any number of inane or useless topics in the WP, and I would never have cause to refer to Religion and schizotypy at any rate. Secondarily, if you have the skills and tools, to show Mr. Sidaway that the user Gabrielsimon used a sockpuppet to register more than a singular vote on that page and to disregard all votes of a user who stoops to such subterfuge. I thank you for your time, and I will look in this space for any response you care to make. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 20:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that "votes" for deletion is misnamed. They aren't votes in the usual sense - they're an attempt to ascertain consensus. So one either way shouldn't make a vast difference. If it does, the default per policy is to keep - David Gerard 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Hamster Sandwich 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, welcome our new David Gerard overlords!

See subject heading. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bugger that. Where's the buckets of cash? (I already get the h0tz0r wiki chicks) - David Gerard 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Per your request to be notified when X windows was going on the main page, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 3, 2005 →Raul654 19:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna laugh?

This might amuse you. Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Skyring. I never thought when I joined Wikipedia that I'd end up a fireman hosing down an imbecile. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how to prove not an open proxy

User JRm, and some other, have insinuated accusations of me being through open-proxy from some other place, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Jtdirl Could you put their baseless accusations to rest? 217.140.193.123 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP Check

Hi, Mr. David Gerard, Angela directed me here to ask you whether the IP addresses of these two users User:Colossus and User:Odysseas are the same. I suspect the guy is a sock puppet, but I might be seriously wrong - so use thy powers and please check the matter. Thank you in advance. --FlavrSavr 18:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One's on Hellas On Line dialups, the other's on otenet.gr dialups. That says nothing other than that they're both Greek, because we have quite a few Greek editors and most are on dialup through one of those or another couple of dialup ISPs ... Are you familiar with User:Iasson's brand of weirdness? If so, do they strike you as another pair of his socks? - David Gerard 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't encountered User:Iasson's smelly socks (thank God, I might say), but I have encountered several Greek nationalist hot heads - the funny thing is that they have all (except Mr.Miskin) made their nationalist extravaganza explicitely visible here - a poll in which I am abstaining (stating my reasons here). User:Colossus attributed his vote to User:Odysseas, for god knows what reasons, so I have instinctively suspected that there is something rather sock puppety there. I guess I got carried away - I am a zealous Wikipedian myself (one of the two bureaucrats on the Macedonian Wikipedia), and as well one of those creatures called Macedonians (see Note below). I have seen them get away with their seemingly absurd actions, but luckily, not this time. Sorry for bothering.
Note: I am a Macedonian myself, so everything I say against Greek nationalism should be considered with the appropriate suspicion (and will be used against me in the court of law :-)) --FlavrSavr 01:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check

Hi, would you mind checking to see if User:Khaosinfire is perhaps the same as User:Gavin the Chosen? I see some curious similiarities, and it looks like Khaosinfire was perhaps active while Gavin was blocked. Friday (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yet another request

Please take a look at Talk:Macedonia. Thank you very much. MATIA 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another. Is there evidence to suggest that User:TheMessenger is a User:-Ril- sock? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catching the Willy

Would you comment on this thread regarding the technical feasability of tracking down Willy on Wheels and complaining to his ISP? Has this been tried before? Dragons flight 16:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sock check?

Sorry if this isn't possible, but could you see if User:212.101.64.4 is a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-? There's a current arbcom case rof Ril. And this anon's been badgering me on my talk page, and making personal attacks elsewhere and vandalized RFAr. It's this diff, where he comments on Ed's arbitration case and signs using the infamous four tildes Ril signature, that really makes me think it it. It appears to be a static IP as well. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 16:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How to add your photo to a wiki article

You have seen the picture, now here are the instructions Hello David. I would like to help others and to help myself by being able to write the article on How to add your photo to a wiki article. I can compress an image, and upload it, but at the moment that is as far as I can take it. This is for images from cameras which people are prepared to place in the public domain. I have read and tried but to no avail. The furthest I got was to create a link to my photo; it did not get imbedded in the article. I know the instructions are there somewhere, deep in the many pages of detail, but I keep stuffing up. I would like to have and write (or provoke the writing of) the BRIEF SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS for embedding a picture in a wiki article. I look forward to being experienced and useful and being a helper myself. Garrison Roo my email address is garrison at exemail dot com dot au One of the articles I have been working on is Lakemba, New_South_Wales. I am also the most involved in another non-profit organisation which uses wiki, and we are winging it !!

There's something somewhere on meta ... I'll see if I can find a moment to look around - David Gerard 16:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Not everyone shares your criteria for RFAs. I'm not even sure I do (depends on the definition of "crazy" and "stupid"). However, you are one of a few editors who had actually encountered me before my failed RFA, so I appreciate your vote of confidence all the more. Thank you. Rl 11:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When they say admin isn't a big deal, it really isn't. It doesn't require any more social skills than to run, e.g., a PHP-BB forum. You wouldn't want everyone having the keys, but it's not a special ability. If you continue to work at the encyclopedia and you're put up again in a few months, you'll almost certainly do fine :-) - David Gerard 16:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Houston IP block

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocked_proxy.3F, where your block of Environknot's IP is discussed. It's now been unblocked. In your opinion, was the unblocking a wise move? --Calton | Talk 02:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If it's not open any more, then it shouldn't be a blocked proxy - David Gerard 11:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joolz's RFA

Hey David, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LMC

Glad it met with wider approval. –Hajor 15:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheeseDreams sockpuppet?

It has been suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth that WholemealBaphomet (talk • contribs) is a sock of banned user CheeseDreams (talk • contribs). Their writing styles seem similar, and they appear to edit from the same POV. If I'm not mistaken, every sockpuppet use adds a week to the ban. I'd appreciate it if you could check this out. Thanks, HKT talk 18:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check request

Sorry to bother you, but I don't know where one would formally request a sockpuppet check.

Can you confirm/match the IPs of the following?:

I believe them to be the same, and therefore probably using the same IP or open proxies, possibly one of these, which Zephram Stark has used for sockpuppet support:

Thank you. --Calton | Talk 00:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've already blocked Go Cowboys and Felice L'Angleterre indefinitely, and if Zeph does it once more, I'm blocking that account indefinitely too. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Go Cowboys appears to be Zephram Stark using their work connection instead of their home one. As if it wasn't obvious from the edits themselves. Felice as well, amazingly enough. Of the IPs, 67.136 and 211.26 are highly plausible; 4.124 doesn't appear to be, nor 69.174, 72.11 or 64.114 - though if the edits match I'd suspect open proxies or similar. - David Gerard 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've just blocked EKBK indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sockpuppet check request

This one is directly related to an ongoing ArbCom case. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision#Is AI's sockpuppetry to be found as fact? for further details, including a list of IPs. Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 14:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock check

Hi, David, are you busy? I'm wondering about several problem users, that seem to coalesce a bit sometimes. Other people besides myself have suspicions that they're the same person, please compare this WP:ANI entry. Anyway, here they are:

Imdaking and Wiki brah are extremely disruptive, 100% nuisance editors, in fact I've borrowed your phrase about "showing them the door" on WP:ANI to make my point. They really, really need permabanning, as they're wearing out good editors and giving wiki absolutely nothing in return. I can't believe there will be any difficulty convincing the ArbCom of that, but effectively keeping them out is a different matter, since at least Imdaking is using nimble dynamic IP's. If we should have the good fortune to find that the two of them are the same, and that all the edits come from a reasonably blockable range, well, that would be a big relief for several harrassed editors (Lucky 6.9, BlankVerse, Paul Klenk). Bishonen | talk 14:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the one that first brought up the question, I now think that User:LILVOKA is most likely not connected directly to the others, but I think there probably is a connection between Imdaking and User:TheDeletator. BlankVerse ∅ 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And also add User:Wikipedianinthehouse, who also signed up around the same time, and also seems to keep crossing paths with some of the others. I wonder if they are all some elaborate interlinking troll game. BlankVerse ∅ 20:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the very first edit by User:Wiki brah (see [6]) and a few other of his edits, suggests that there is a strong connection between him and another problematic editor, User:Pumpie. BlankVerse ∅ 11:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response to Space Opera article

Take a look at http://stopmidsentence.blogspot.com/2005/09/scientology-two-things-i-just-learned.html ... -- ChrisO 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one's a laugh as well - http://intepid.com/2005-09-10/14.59/ -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And more... http://www.livejournal.com/users/blizack/177566.html -- ChrisO 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber arbitration

David, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't touched this case myself, but I've forwarded your message to the AC list - David Gerard 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence, etc.

I'm sorry to bother you about a couple of things:

  • I've recently added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand, as it may affect the decision.
  • Also ArbCom related: I don't know if you caught my sock check request (CheeseDreams (talk • contribs)=WholemealBaphomet (talk • contribs)?). (I guess it's likely that you did catch it and are dealing with a CheckUser back-log and other commitments). Baphomet is continually disrupting Wikipedia, and a sock confirmation would simplify matters.

I'd be grateful if you could look into these things if/when you get the chance. Thanks, and sorry again for the bother. HKT talk 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from the AI case, but I've forwarded your message to the AC list - David Gerard 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request for CheckUser on User:Onefortyone

Please be advised that I have filed a Request for arbitration against User: Onefortyone (Previously and still editing as Anon 80.141.235.81 and others under a Dynamic IP) for repeated viloations of Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. As stated in my Request for arbitration, I and another User (Wyss both believe this person to be the sockpuppet of a signed in Wikipedia user created solely to make edits to half a dozen articles, referencing and linking then all to Elvis Presley. As such, please accept this as a formal request that you access CheckUser to review the past seven days of User: Onefortyone and in order to check this possibility. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations really make me smile. I don't know what this CheckUser is, but I agree to use it, so that everybody can see that I am User:Onefortyone using a dynamic IP address and sometimes forgetting to log in under my nickname. Perhaps you may also have a look whether there are further nicknames used by User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss who have frequently accused me to be a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator. Onefortyone 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of this page, you'll see CheckUser is presently broken - David Gerard 06:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand CheckUser is now working. Could you please advise on the matter regarding User:Onefortyone. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikipediaEditor

I left a fairly reasonable comment on this user's talk page to do with him having edited your user page, and got a mouthful of abuse in return. What's going on? -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to react in unpleasant ways to people. I know there's a few admins this close to blocking him as an abusive POV-pushing troll and probably sock puppet, though I probably couldn't be bothered doing so myself (and me saying so is neither authorisation for or caution against such a move) - David Gerard 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 1.0 sifting

I'm a new member of the WP 1.0 editorial team. I have spent many hours going over all the ideas proposed on the Wikipedia 1.0 pages for finding acceptable articles, as I wanted to summarise the main ideas as a prelude to the team working on them (if they want to!). The idea of having general users do much of the cleanup and article selection work is (I think) one of the main ideas out there. The idea was proposed by User:Stirling Newberry for using tabs to facilitate the process, and I also like Mark Lewis's idea of having user's rate the article. These seem to have a lot in common with [/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Another_plan.3F_Exxxcellent. your views] (Let me know if you disagree!). I have a few questions about your approach:

  • Do you still advocate this approach? Have you made any changes since your original posting?
  • What should this project be called?
  • What progress (if any) has been made on this since March? I realise that things have been pretty much stalled, but if things have been achieved I'd like to know about it.
  • Do you have ideas on how to get "from here to there"? It seems that first we have to convince the community that it is a good idea, and second we have to get the people who write wiki code to write the code for implementing it. I'm very ignorant of this sort of thing, so personally I can't really help, I'm afraid!

I'll post things on the team page in a few days, feel free to edit things there as well if I've got anything wrong. Thanks, Walkerma 20:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check - Ray Lopez ArbCom case

Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) recently filed an ArbCom request over the actions of Ray Lopez (talk • contribs). I don't know if ArbCom is going to accept the case or not, so whether this passes your test of 'plausibly related to an ArbCom case' is up to you.

Anyway, Stirling Newberry reported that someone was forging his username and defacing images. Turns out it was a lookalike account name (StirIing with a capital eye) that made the changes. I've blocked the imposter, but it might be worthwhile to try a sock check between the imposter StirIing Newberry (talk • contribs) and the accused Ray Lopez. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Theresa Knott indefinitely blocked Ray Lopez two or three weeks ago. Obviously that reduces the urgency of my request—though evidence of abusive sockpuppetry certainly would lend added weight to Theresa's block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stirling is REALLY PISSED OFF [7], and I'm not surprised. Sigh ... losing Stirling to the trolls is a major blow to Wikipedia IMO - David Gerard 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amin123 (talk • contribs), Aventura (talk • contribs), 154.20.105.198 (talk • contribs)

David, could you please check to see if these are the same individual? Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu in a rather odd context

Check out [8]. Weird, but I think possibly meant to be tongue-in-cheek. :-) -- ChrisO 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That famous galactic overlord! - David Gerard 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another...

Repeating (you might have missed this interspersed above): Could you try one more? Professor Stevens (talk • contribs), compare and contrast with Zephram Stark (talk • contribs) as above. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could also take a look at EKBK (talk • contribs) in regards to Zephram Stark (talk • contribs). Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already blocked Professor Stevens. I'm minded to block EKBK too. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the sockpuppet blocked but not Mr. Stark himself? --csloat 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of 23 Sep 2005, arbitration has been requested against Zephram Stark. One of his suspected sockpuppets EKBK (talk • contribs) has made a statement supporting Zephram. Carbonite | Talk 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check

Not involved in this RFAR, but the edit war just popped up on my watchlist. You may want to sock check FishingGuy99 (talk • contribs) and Labgal (talk • contribs) for User:24.147.97.230 in this case. Really, the edits make it obvious. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA. I'll try to do my best with the old mop. -R. fiend 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture from the wikimeet

Image:David gerard and akardy at london wikimeet sept 05.jpg - stuck on commons. Secretlondon 00:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 09:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

David-- Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I realise that JETFA might seem vulgar to some, but that's one of the reasons I named it JETFA instead of spelling it out. And in fact, when I think of it, I actually think of "Frickin'", so it wasn't so divisive. And while some of the criticisms on my RfA have been a bit more than "gentle comments", I appreciate everyone's remarks. This has been a very eye-opening, encouraging experience. I almost think everyone should be required to go through something like this to help highlight areas of that person that could be improved. Once again, thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Dear David. I know that you say that you don't normally take this kind of case, but on the other hand it does not hurt to ask. Genyec is a sockpuppet created only for an oppose vote on rfa. I'd love to know who among our ranks is able to sink so horribly low, because I do not think s/he should get away with this.--Wiglaf 17:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. You will be unsurprised to hear it doesn't match anyone, and that's because it's a dynamic dialin IP. Yay. - David Gerard 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! I really appreciate that you had a look :-).--Wiglaf 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Uh David? Why did you add Geogre's image to the AFD page? He participates a lot at AFD but I don't think his image really belongs there, does it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image of a Wikipedian on the prowl out to carefully kill things that must be killed!
You can be sure someone will say it's "too frivolous" or something - David Gerard 12:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's too frivolous.
  2. Also it verges on a personal comment.
  3. Also I cannot see any possible way in which it can help AfD.
  4. Also you seem to have started a little bit of an edit war, since SPUI has now reinserted the image.

How long before someone puts User:GRider's Godwinian image up there, I wonder? Really, David Gerard, I expect better from an administrator. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it belongs on CSD more - David Gerard 18:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see that it had Geogre's blessing... well, foreknowledge... well, anyway... I guess my remarks above are a tad on the stuffy and humorless side. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time, have a look at this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 --Tony SidawayTalk 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I see this is going to run and run - David Gerard 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question about edit histories

Dear David, I wonder about a technical question. Some time ago, User:Coolcat moved the page Skuld (the Norn) to Skuld (Oh My Goddess!), and made Skuld into a disambiguation page. Uppland notified me about this immediately, but I neglected to look into it due to exhaustion from Wikistress. When I finally looked into it, I moved Skuld back to where it used to belong as an article on the Norn Skuld. When Coolcat objected to this move, I asked him to file a move request, which failed [9]. Now, everything is back to status quo, except for a vital thing, most of the Norn's page history is at Skuld (Oh My Goddess!). Since Uppland who is a user in good standing has insisted that it be fixed, I have to ask you if it is possible.--Wiglaf 13:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an admin can do a pile of messing around with histories, versions, etc. It's a long-winded PITA, but it's quite doable. I don't have time at this moment, but if you can find a handy bored admin ... try on IRC, there's en: admins galore on #wikipedia - David Gerard 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin. How do I do it? Ok, I can try to rearrange so that the original page is named Skuld, but then some of the edit history will belong to the Manga thing.--Wiglaf 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Nice job, burying your mistake away by archiving. You never responded and never substantiated anything. Weak. Btw, nice photo: [[10]]. Larsoner.Laronsers 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be of service, do come again! - David Gerard 20:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you ...

David, you recently blocked Dervish Tsaddik/Tsaddik Dervish/##.##.##.## for "sockpuppetry." There does not seem to be a Wikipedia policy against sockpuppetry, but rather a provision under "Disruption" that "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."

Was there an accusation that DT/TD was being disruptive? I don't think that was the case; DT had noted at one point that his girlfriend was a longstanding Wikipedia editor -- it may be that he and she just, for whatever reason, decided to use permutations of the same name. What was the underlying complaint against DT/TD?

Thanks.

Marsden 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in this. While Dervish Tsaddik is an, er, opinionated editor, I didn't see any evidence that he was using sockpuppets to violate wikipedia policy. Could you explain more fully your reasoning here? john k 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaddik Dervish and Dervish Tsaddik are the same editor. He also used the IP to pretend to be yet a third person. He knew damn well what he was doing too - David Gerard 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite responsive to my questions, David. You use the word "pretend" to describe the actions under this IP, but the word, while mildly accusatory, doesn't mean very much in this context. In what way was Dervish Tsaddik/Tsaddik Dervish/## being disruptive or violating Wikipedia policy? I note that -- under yet another name, in case you're feeling ban-happy -- Dervish Tsaddik has indicated that indeed "Tsaddik Dervish" is the username of his girlfriend. If "he knew damn well what he was doing," and he intended to deceive people into believing that he was more than one person, using the names "Dervish Tsaddik" and "Tsaddik Dervish" would seem to be an astonishingly foolish choice -- I myself have to look back to be clear which of the names is him and which is his girlfriend. What do you claim he so knowingly was doing? Marsden 14:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was this supposed sockpuppetry used for the purpose of voting, for deception and impersonation, or for circumventing policy? I don't think this is at all obvious. This ban seems unjustified to me. I'm going to unban him. john k 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry check

Hi. I wonder if you could investigate something for me in regards to a matter that is now under arbitration. Would you be able to check if any of these IPs are sockpuppets of each other, or could be coming from the same user:

67.124.200.240

64.154.26.251

216.119.139.73

67124etc

BigDaddy777

Gator1

Thanks for any help you're able to provide. Eleemosynary 01:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what the result of that check was? I have not been able to find it anywhere and that would resolve this situation once and for all. Thanks!Gator1 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw socking on one of the IPs (see block log). Still investigating - David Gerard 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whre do I find the block log and which IP was it? Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.Gator1 14:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Ipblocklist - David Gerard 14:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this is all very new and confusing to me. I saw where 64.154...was blocked as being a sockpuppet of some other users, but did you discover that Bigdaddy was the same as any of those users, because he's blocked too and I'm just tryign to figure out where an IP check was done that matched him up to one of the sockpuppeting IPs. Thanks and I'm sorry for being a pain.Gator1 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi. as I'm still really sure I'm not bigDaddy, could you please provide your info/opinion on 67.124.200.240. People are taking your statement here and declaring it some kind of "proof" against me apparently. 67124etc 04:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Gerard. Thanks for all your help in this matter. Some more evidence has evidently been unearthed here. What sockpuppets won't do when exposed, huh? Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gerard would you please respond to our inquiries? The 64.154.26.251 account that I use is being accused of misuse in a manner in which I do not understand. Can you please explain your blocks so I can either return to using it or stop using the account so I can be out of the shadow of suspicion? On October 4, 2005 about 10:30 (UTC) you blocked three users: BarneyGumble, PaganViking, and LEONARDWATSON for infinite time. All three users were accused of sockpuppetting the other two accounts, all three were accused of sockpuppeting 64.154.26.251, but only one has an edit history. You have been unavailable for comment for a half a day now. I have no idea when this sockpuppeting happened. This week? Six months ago? A year? I have occasionally looked at the 64.154.26.251 history page, which belongs to a network I share, and saw no talk page references that would indicate any kind of edit disputation or elaborate back and forth discussions, other than my own very recent ones. I am responsible for roughly 75% of the edits of that user ID. I have certainly never seen the names BarneyGumble, PaganViking or LEONARDWATSON before today. Another user of the 64.154.26.251 account has come forward wondering why someone (user:Fvw) has blocked it (the result of a different accusation which can easily be proven false), and started a new user ID. Is he about to be blocked for infinite time as well? When can we begin to do the work to disavow whomever sockpuppeted at this earlier time and clear our names? 216.119.139.73 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Mr. Gerard, here is an investigation that may be of interest to you. Thank you. (The "shared network" gambit must be a tiresome one, by now.) Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make false statements about me without evidence, do it on your own talk page, and I will contradict you man to man. Don't start fights on other people's talk pages. 216.119.139.73 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's a true statement. 2. Evidence has been provided; you've just chosen to ignore it. 3. I'll let you know that on the appropriate page, which is this one. 4. I'm not starting a fight, just pointing out you're another tiresome, silly sockpuppet that BD777 is unsuccessfully trying to trick the arbs with. But, boy, the overtime you're putting into this one is entertaining! Eleemosynary 10:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about any of these until a recognizable common pattern of editing can be identified. Fred Bauder 12:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sortan

David

Interesting (albeit ultimately non-useful) sockpuppet check on Sortan. Interestingly, Sortan commented on WP:AN/I about me very quickly after I'd commented on it about him, but in such a way that he wouldn't find the comment by looking at my user contributions (as I was logged out). Whoever it is is probably a relatively prolific user, and also has WP:AN/I on their watchlist, jguk 19:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Hello, David Gerard/archive 3. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. My term runs out end of this year.
  2. Nope. I signed up for a year because I had a good grasp of my attention span ;-) In any case, I'm presently marked inactive owing to work pressures and just a bit of burnout.
  3. It's worth doing, but crikey it's a lot of work and involves dealing with a lot of utter stupidity.
  4. It keeps a lot of rubbish out of Jimbo's in-tray, so he can get on with other things. It gives us a mechanism to get rid of the truly poisonous or the truly clueless.
  5. It's not scaling too well - as the wiki gets more popular, the number of editors and hence the number of problem children goes up in proportion - and we're burning through arbs at a horrendous rate. It gets some people thinking in terms of taking editors they're arguing with to the authorities rather than actually trying to work with people they disagree with. (The AC Is Not Your Mother. It's the last resort, not the first.)
  6. I would wave a magic wand and make the statements and evidence submitted more concise, well-written and clueful. Unfortunately, many problem editors (particularly those too clueless to work with others) are weak on precisely these points.
  7. Not at all. It's a messy job, but it's got to be done.
  8. "You have not understood the depths of human stupidity on Wikipedia until you have tried to sort out some of these things."
  9. It's difficult and stressful. You have to be extremely clueful, be seen to be extremely clueful, and have a skin like a rhinoceros. Everyone will want a piece of you.
  10. Not sure. The process needs streamlining, but it's not clear how to.
  11. Mostly, I think. We need to work faster.
  12. The most frustrating thing is dealing with cases which should never reach the AC and which are really Foolishness vs Foolishness. The really enjoyable bit is making Wikipedia a better place to work by ejecting the really poisonous troublemakers.

- David Gerard 14:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK meeting

Hi David, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio @ 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BUGGER. I am booked out. Meh! - David Gerard 11:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Wik account

(feel free to move to WP:AN/I)

Neolithic (talk • contribs)

Also, it's a taunting anagram/pun of my username. :) -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barneygumble

I have been contacted by a user who was a party to a mediation I once presided over requesting to know why he was blocked by you. I realise that you are busy but I would appreciate it if you could get back to me about the specifics of why User:Barneygumble was blocks. Perhaps I could be of asistance in helping you resolve this problem. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you are responding to other queries I must insist that you respond to mine. If you do not I will have no alternative but to unblock User:Barneygumble. Please respond as soon as possible. -JCarriker 01:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia

Hi - just thought I would let you know that you are quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald lead Icon (Technology) article on Wikipeidia. --User:AYArktos | Talk 21:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, a reprint of the Guardian piece ;-) Thank you! - David Gerard 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The paper version acknowledged that the piece was syndicated. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 08:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blow me down! It worked! Thank you :-)

Dear David: Well, I must say, I didn't think I had a hope in hell of reaching admin any time soon - but your nomination, and the community, have jointly proved me wrong against all the odds. I must confess I am quite flabbergasted that the RfA passed; I can only assume this is Xenu's doing! :-) I am most deeply honoured; I am much indebted to you, my good sir, for the trust that you placed in me in making the nomination. I promise I shan't let you down, and shall take great delight in being able to do my best to keep the wiki as detritus-free as possible. I look forward to working with you in the future, both in WP:SCN and in hounding down wikiparasites. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please ban http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:!!!!!!!!!!!!David_Gerard_is_a_pedophile_who_has_AIDS

☺Adam1213☺|talk 18:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:MARMOT

He manifested again. We need an IP check to calm the phear. ;) --Cool Cat Talk 18:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request for user check

Please check if I am a sockpuppet as soon as you can, and if possible do it today because I think I'll take a wikiholiday... I'm involved in a RFArb case and in edits at Arvanites. Previously on WP:ANI two other users had agreed to be checked against me, but there's also a user who did one edit, received a warm welcome and disappeared. I'm user:Matia.gr, the two who had agreed to be checked before (but may have already left the project, I still wonder if I'm too old for all these) are User:Chronographos and User:Theathenae and the one-edit guy is User:Thrakiotis. If you have already checked that before please let me know of the results. Thank you very much in advance. +MATIA ☎ 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

likewise

So it's true. In that case I would like to ask your help on a check that could solve an ongoing edit war. The IP adresses that must be checked are the ones of User:Birkemaal and User:VMORO. Thanks in advance. Miskin 13:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik sockpuppets

Heya, could you look what IP addresses Wik is using? It'd be nice to know whether we need to get rid of the autoblocks associated with his blocks quickly or if we can block off certain small ranges temporarily, etc. Thanks. --fvw* 23:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lately he's been tending towards using open proxies, with a particular fondness for holes in the Saudi Arabian proxy network (those being hard to block more than a short time). In general, they can be left unless there's collateral damage. Is anyone keeping a central list? I've been finding he's a good open proxy canary - David Gerard 05:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I run an open proxy blocker bot, so any open proxies that aren't currently blocked would be great clues to me. If you could put them on my talk or mail them to me that would be great. --fvw* 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Tribune

David, This is Richard Mullins. I'm a reporter with the Tampa Tribune newspaper. The good people at Wikipedia suggested I contact you. I'd love to hear what interested you about Wikipedia. I'd love to know how often you work on entries and what your particular area of interest is. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the accuracy of the system and what you think of errors added to the entries. My e-mail is rmullins@tampatrib.com and my phone number is 813-259-7919. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.5.1.207 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Sandove89, Maoririder, etc

There's a notice on this blocked editor Sandove89's user page stating:

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log

Are you aware of any arbitration committee ruling or fiat from Jimbo ruling that this editor should be blocked indefinitely? I suppose it just boils down to "Some admin decided to block him, so there."

While we're here, if possible, could you perform sock puppet checks on the suspects in the User:Maoririder case? I'm pretty sure Lucky 6.9 got at least one wrong, and gave the user the benefit of the doubt).

The alleged socks are:

  • Sandove89
  • Riverofdreams
  • Cursa
  • Newsreporter

Bare IP numbers associated are apparently 130.111.105.203 and 130.111.96.164

The editor that was blocked by mistake, and later unblocked, was Inquisitor911. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser on vandal socks

Hello,

Can you run checkuser on some of the recent vandalbot socks and perhaps close some open proxies? Thanks. -- Curps 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fuck me sideways ... that vandalbot really is going for it, isn't it. I'm at work right now (just checking in), but for prompter action this is probably time for a mention on Wikitech-l and on #wikimedia-tech , for a dev who has access to the database. If they get interesting results, please get 'em to drop me a line too - David Gerard 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part is, history and logs are flaking out. For a long time (maybe still?) you couldn't get a history for WP:AN/I or a newusers log listing. It's hard to block what you can't see.
By now I presume someone has notified the developers. -- Curps 16:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put a note on wikitech-l and wikien-l - David Gerard 16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! I'm surprised you supported! I thought my "deletionist tendencies" would scare you off, LOL! Take care & thanks again! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy-thingy

Just in case you don't know, fvw has started a policy proposal on Checkuser at Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal. I didn't see your name on the talkpage, so I figured I'd tip you off. You are the one true Checkuser-dude I mean :P. If you did know, feel free to ignore this gkhan 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I should have informed you, sorry about that. I'd just spammed it to so many talk pages already I felt worried I'd be RfCed if I didn't stop :) --fvw* 12:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

Hello agian. I need the help of an admin at the moment; and you the one I recognized on RC. An editor keeps loading up Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion with rambling, incoherent personal attacks, such as [13] Ordinarily, I know that these people are best left ignored. But what Silverback is doing on multiple pages is starting to look like the kind of obsessive stalking behavior that warrants admin attention. If you have time, please take a look. Regards, 172 | Talk 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted this on WP:ANI (which is unfortunately locked at present as a vandalbot target) - David Gerard 13:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. 172 | Talk 13:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I remain highly cynical on this, David. El_C 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check request

I would appreciate if you could see if NightmareGuy (talk • contribs) and DreamBoy (talk • contribs) are socks of Gimmiet (talk • contribs) (a reincarnation of Gabrielsimon, returning after being tempbanned by the arbcom). Gabriel/Gimmiet has a strong animus towards DreamGuy (talk • contribs), the user who the previous two were created solely to harass. I doubt that they are the same, because the former two lack Gimmiet's typos, but some users have suspected a connection nevertheless. Thank you. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question regarding CheckUser

I was told that CheckUser is ineffetive for a user which didn't edit for some months, because the logs would be already deleted.

  • Q1: Is this correct?
  • Q2: But, if this is a blocked user, wouldn't his IP be stored indefinitely for the use by the AutoBlocker?

Pjacobi 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yeah, it works off the recentchanges table. This nominally keeps data for 1-2 weeks, though it might be more depending on disk space and what the devs feel like.
2. Apparently not!
Check meta:Help:CheckUser, which I just started yesterday - David Gerard 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You finally did it, Damn you all to hell!"

Looking at the deletion debate for Albert M. Wolters (unanimous delete) and the lunacy that passes for an undeletion "debate" on VFU, I undeleted the article as a slam-dunk keep whose undeletion was only being opposed out of a misplaced obsession with process. I mean, if we're going to be deleting articles like this, it's a bit pointless pretending we're writing an encyclopedia at all, we might as just call it the "let's just choose a random article every week and kill it" game, and hence my Planet of the Apes quote above.

It's a good article about a famous guy, it's just that there are enough deletion-happy individuals around that such facts don't count for much. Well my mad excess of inclusionist lust bought the article another run at AfD.

Your scrutiny (and vote) would be much appreciated. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article is deletable, it's time for us all to pack up and go home now - David Gerard 09:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If in doubt, don't delete" principle sneakily removed

Aaron Brenneman couldn't resist giving away the fact that he'd sneakily removed, from the deletion policy, without discussion, the small paragraph at the end of the opener which says "If in doubt, don't delete." This has been part of Wikipedia deletion policy for eighteen months, since it was added by a non-logged-in editor and then edited and compromised to its current wording by Theresa Knott. I have restored the paragraph. Please keep and eye on the deletion policy. There are some unscrupulous people around who find the current policy inconvenient and would do anything to traduce it. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sockpuppet Check Please

As you may or may not be aware, User:DG has been making vandalizing edits recently. He has vandalized Otherkin several times now, and has also made a [vandalizing edit] to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is_Not. Both have since been reverted.

However, the nature of the edit made to W:WWIN (flaming User:Gimmeit), when combined with the targeting of Otherkin and the initials DG, have made me suspect User:DG to be a sockpuppet of another user, User:DreamGuy who has been an active editor on Otherkin for some time and writing from a very antagonistic viewpoint, and who also has a history of edit warring with User:Gimmeit there.

I realize this is a serious accusation, and others have suggested that I should simply WP:AGF of User:DreamGuy, however it seems too much of a coincidence for a reasonable person to accept that an experienced editor with the same initials would come out of the blue to pick a fight with another editor they had no history of fighting with, much less also begin trolling an obscure topic such as Otherkin, when there is no apparent previous history of trolling by User:DG. Either way, a simple check of the IP addresses involved would settle the matter, and I've been told that you are the only person presently empowered to do so. I've also been told that you are likely not to take very seriously a request to do so, but I thought the matter worth taking my chances. Would you check, please? Jarandhel (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just noticed your policy about only doing such checks if they relate to an ongoing arbcom case. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Jarandhel (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been informed by User:DreamGuy that there is currently an [arbcom case] that could be considered directly relevant open against him; he has also said that he is in favor of me approaching you with this, though he has indicated as well that you are unlikely to take me seriously, and has indicated that my entire case is based on two initials being the same which you happen to share as well. I think there is more to my argument than that, particularly given the past history between the users User:DreamGuy and User:Gimmeit which is apparently the basis for the ongoing arbcom case, so I would like to repeat my earlier request for a sockpuppet check; I hope you will agree with me, but I understand if you think the evidence is too slim to act upon, even by checking IPs. Jarandhel (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it some time soonish ish - David Gerard 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that very much. Jarandhel (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a request from +MATIA

I've previously requested to be checked if me and three other editors are sockpuppets of each other. Today that I've returned here, I saw User:Thrakiotis and User:Theathenae, being labeled (by a certain user) as sockpuppets of a banned swedish user, but no evidence supporting those "labelings". Did your user check support this "labelings"? Please let me know as soon as you can. Thank you very much. +MATIA ☎ 10:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IgnoreAllRules

I had to laugh when I saw this. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that your supreme power is unchecked my any sense of responsibilty. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, so do you know who it is or not? What "responsibility" would you be speaking of? Please answer the first question first - David Gerard 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be fucking coy. If you have something to say, say it. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You share a proxy for a large organisation with him with you two as the only users on it, and he has a fondness for the same pages. Assuming in good faith you're not him, you'd either know who it was or not. The hostility of your responses don't make any sense unless you actually are him. Are you? If not, why the immediate hostile responses? - David Gerard 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You've never assumed good faith that I've seen,
  2. There was only one page on my watchlist that was vanadlized, so I'm not sure what "fondness for the same pages" is about,
  3. So the section at the top of this page "plausible link to an ArbCom case" should be amended with "or something to do with my mates"?
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding another Recycling Troll incident counts. So far you're saying nothing to make me assume you're not him, and this is part of your personal animosity against Tony Sidaway. So was User:IgnoreAllRules operated by you, or not? - David Gerard 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recycling troll"? That's a pathetic excuse and you know it. At least have the courage to come out and say, "Yeah, I checked the proxy despite my own guidelines." Honesty is a shared responsibility.
  • I have no personal animosity, I don't actually know any Wikipedians personally. Where I have animosity is contributors whose heads are stuck so far up their own arses that they reckon that the standards of behavior don't apply to them. And this includes you and your shiny proxy machine.
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to say "yes" or "no" is the most glaring thing here. It appears your main problem with the checking is you were caught - David Gerard 08:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be stupid. Of course it was me, I had thought that was a bit obvious. Did I even once deny it? 180 seconds of bad behavior, switch main personality back on. I was quite prepared to admit it to anyone who had simply asked, accept some loss of respect, perhaps a block even. But your flagrant abuse of the authority given you far outweighs my burst of childishness. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case my response must be: This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a game of Nomic. I suggest you go and write something - David Gerard 09:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please move on? I have my own personal animosity etc. but this is not going anywhere good... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost

Hello, David Gerard! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A possible sockpuppeting from a new/old user

Hi David. I am sorry to bother. Could you please check this? User:Halabi with contribs [14], User:Aleverde with [15], User:58.84.83.2 with [16] and User:OceanSplash with [17]. The 4 are using the same rant and non-stop personal attacks (religious hatred) since a few days now. Thanks in advance. -- Svest 00:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™ [reply]

My RfA

Although you remained neutral during my RfA, I truly appreciate the time that you took to make your voice heard. It appears that I was able to gain a consensus from those who voted and I promise to do a good job using the keys to the janitor's closet. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. As long as you remember that mop is loaded, you'll be fine ;-) - David Gerard 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

supplement to Checkuser: "revealuser" or rIP

I'm sort of floating an idea, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#.22Rip.22ping and ToSsing major .28Willy-style.29 vandals. -- Curps 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check

Can you see if User:Metalmaverick is the same as User:219.65.248.34? If so, we've got a 3RR violation. If not, damn...I was hoping they would be. Cheers, Rob Church Talk | FAHD 11:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA

Hello again. Check WP:AN#.2ATroll_users. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 19:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted

Salve, David Gerard!
Thanks for your note about my RFA vote. It was perhaps an intemperate remark on my part. I've been in a bit of a snarky mood at times lately, getting frustrated with some of our fellow Wikipedians and I surely could have phrased my comment better. Do let me know if I can help with your articles. My interests can be seen here. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 13:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment

I am disappointed by the apparent fact that you refuse to even consider criticism of what appear to be your closets friends on the Wiki, in particular Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway. If people have issues, they should talk about them, lest they fester and grow worse. Radiant_>|< 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore that I love everyone. Even you. I still think the RFC was ridiculous, though, and you'll note I'm far from the only one - David Gerard 10:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then how else would you propose such disputes be resolved? Past talk page interactions and mediation have hardly been fruitful. Surely you're not proposing that this be dropped on RFAr? Radiant_>|< 10:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think that RFC is going to resolve anything? It's already devolved into the inclusionist/deletionist war, and having a nutter [*] like Agriculture as the second certifier pretty much kills its credibility.
If you REALLY want to resolve it, do something like pop onto IRC. Tony's there a lot. He's really a pretty reasonable fellow. Talking in real time helps a lot - David Gerard 11:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[*] insert hue and cry at such language below
  • Frankly, yes, I do think that the RFC may resolve something (but hardly everything). For one, it allows people to vent their feelings and find out if others agree. For another Tony did post an apology. I do not agree with Agriculture's statement, nor have I asked him to certify, but please note that there are five other cerfifiers who aren't nutters (speaking of which, do you really want me to point out the nutters who endorsed your outside view? :) )
  • I'm not on IRC a lot, mostly for lack of time (I should, in fact, be studying right now). But while I'd like the opportunity to talk some things through with Tony, this really isn't a dispute between him and me. There has been a lot of grumbling about him, including people who call him a troll or demand his immediate deopping (both of which, for the record, I emphatically disagree with). But yes, I brought it into the open. If people must shoot the messenger, let them. Radiant_>|< 11:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where valid, the criticism was actually pretty mild. Like many other editors--like you, in fact--I can be uncivil. But I tend to be involved in controversial areas where consensus is not obvious. I've got a very good record of getting it right, but this kind of activity does mean that I tend to lead the consensus rather than lag behind. Undeletions are a case in point--I've hardly ever undeleted an article for it subsequently to fail AfD. There are some editors who don't think I even have a right to do that, but they're wrong. The undeletion policy gives me that discretion.
The undeletion of the Wolters article was a much bolder move, because it was a direct challenge to the broken VFU procedure. But again, it worked. There was a good consensus to keep, and a possible copyright infringement was addressed. Wikipedia is first and foremost about content; the very people who claimed that VFU would have restored the article in any case, had also voted prior to that to keep the article deleted on mostly procedural grounds. VFU got a shock, and I hope a salutary one. Most editors care very much about content, and the process-first ideas commonly expressed in VFU are clearly not shared elsewhere and have no claim to consensus; nor are they compatible with Wikipedia's undeletion policy. A job well done. I'd do it again if I had to. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not dispute the fact that I can be uncivil. However, I do apologize for such things far more often than you do, and that makes a difference. Nobody really objects to your principle that good articles should not be deleted - however, people object to the way you go about it - first because of your uncivility, and second because if people are already discussing things, they do not like having their discussions ignored. In the Wolters case, VFU did end up with a substantial majority to undelete. So your shock was not necessary. And note that I did not vote to KD it on procedural grounds. The end does not always justify the means, especially if the end can be achieved through friendlier means. Radiant_>|< 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that the publicity of the undeletion helped to sway the undelete vote; the same utterly mindless arguments to keep deleted, quite outside undeletion policy, were trundled out on the VFU thread right to the bitter end. You assumed that I was referring to you when I referred to Splash and Xoloz--I've no idea what you voted or why, indeed the link you give seems to suggest that you didn't vote on VFU at all. You claim that you apologise for your incivility more than I do; good for you, but wouldn't it be better if you were to avoid being uncivil? You say that "people" object to the way I go about dealing with the problems of VFU; obviously not very many do, we had an overwhelming keep on the AfD. You claim that the reason for objections is incivility; it obviously isn't. The first objection of those who object is that they believe that I ignore consensus. The second objection is that I disregard process. The former is proven false by the aforementioned thumping great keep, the latter is true. Broken processes that don't work must be ditched. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony was very much the opposite of "reasonable" on IRC. As I said before I have no respect, let alone good faith, for people such as himself. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, the fact of IRC was that you came to #wikipedia on what was for me very late a Friday night when I intended to relax and unwind in front of the television with my family around me, and a bit of friendly, undemanding chat with friends on IRC. Your presence was unexpected and unwelcome so I placed you on ignore and made no significant effort to interact with you. I even left the channel. Now anyone reading the above would think that I had harangued you with intemperate language, or worse. For the record, I didn't do anything in the least unreasonable. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help with a Puzzle?

David, I'm told that you can find the IPs used to create user pages. If this is so, then you can help resolve a dispute. Can you find the IP (or IPs) used to create the user pages user:Donald R. Alford, user:DotSix, user:Dotsix, and user:The Donald? There is an ongoing dispute over whether these are aliases of injoined user user:67.182.157.6. See [[18]] for details. If he created them, he almost certainly didn't use his main IP, but it might be probative to know if they were created with one of the AOL or Fidalgo IPs he frequently uses. (See here: [[19]]) Thanks if you can help. --Nate Ladd 17:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSort Project

Hey, I have started the WikiSort Project. Come on over and check it out.the1physicist 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for calming me down. --GraemeL (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block, why?

I'm in a BAD MOOD! Why did you block MY IP address? The explanation you gave said something about a SuperTroll and some Vandalbots. What does that have to do with me? I don't vandalise or make bots, check my contributions. I have been at Wikipedia for months now and have never vandalised. REX 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't. More answer on your talk page - David Gerard 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I ask you something. Is it possible that I am being "stalked"? I use a firewall, which compiles a log that lists every "entry attempt" together with the "Source IP" and the time. I was glancing at it just now and I noticed two (there may have been more, I didn't check) attempted entries by IPs very similar to mine:

" Time | Source IP | Destination IP | Protocol "
" 2005/10/23 18:28:50+3:00 GMT | 62.24.96.136:3910 | 62.24.144.181:135 | TCP (flags:S) "
" 2005/10/23 17:58:14+3:00 GMT | 62.24.144.51:3199 | 62.24.144.85:135 | TCP (flags:S) "

I find this very eerie, although I'm probably just being paranoid, but can this "SuperTroll" character be waiting for me to log into Wikipedia and then go to one of the pages I regularly go to, recognise my IP (as it's similar to his and the facts that our IPs are similar has been mentioned a lot) and attempt to gain access to my PC. Because I don't really know how computers work, this may all seem ludicrous to someone who does know, but tell me what you think. Should I be concerned? And if you know, what does TCP (flags:S) mean? Thank you, REX 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know MS-Windows firewall software very well, but I do know a lot of it greatly overreports and causes its users unnecessary worry. If anyone else reading this has any idea, please answer! - David Gerard 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Have you seen this barnstar? It belongs to David Gerard, who is either the most modest Wikipedian ever, or the most underappreciated Wikipedian ever or both. There isn't a barnstar big enough, shiny enough, bold enough, or rare enough to express the respect I have for your efforts! Unfocused 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm the first one to think you deserve a barnstar!

You must be:

1. The most modest Wikipedian ever, carefully deleting any trace of reward from your user page
OR
2. The absolutely most underappreciated Wikipedian ever, overlooked every time for a barnstar
OR
3. Both.

I'm going to find out which. Here is either:

1. More work to do to maintain your incredible modesty
OR
2. The first of what should be about a thousand awards for your tireless efforts here on Wikipedia.

There really isn't a barnstar big enough, shiny enough, bold enough, or rare enough to express the respect I have for your efforts. Thank you! Unfocused 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, where do I put this thing ... it's not like there isn't enough graphical rubbish on my user page ... if my mother had a userpage I could give it to her to put on the shelf ... - David Gerard 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modesty it is, then. I thought so.  ;-) I'm sure you could miniaturize it. Please feel free to cut the text or move it to a linked subpage. You have my explicit permission to slice, dice, staple, fold, spindle or mutilate at will. Unfocused 16:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could be the first person in the history of the universe to describe me as "modest" - David Gerard 16:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modest of image does not equal modesty in all things. I think you keep a modest profile here. Use the full size, the shrunken head version, or blow it up 600 pixels (which I was quite tempted to do now just for fun). Whatever pleases you most. Unfocused 16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Úbeda/Ubeda

With regard to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.C3.9Abeda, would it be possible to run Checkuser on the multiple recent sockpuppets in the page's history? They are perhaps sockpuppets of User:Kolokol, but are they socks of anyone else? -- Curps 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check for Wikinews

What I'm reading about sock check, and the problems Wikinews is currently experiencing, suggest Wikinews should request one or two of the team members be given the ability to check for sock puppets. Logically the first person who should have this responsibility should be n:User:CSpurrier, our most active Bureaucrat.

In the meantime, we've been fighting a low-level combat with a prolific open proxy/sock user POVior whose burner is often Cowicide, since mid-August. I have a half-dozen accounts and IPs I would like to check on suspicion of being a part of the problem; and I'd like to cross-reference more IPs which have resurfaced. Tim Starling referred me to you, so I'm asking you for advice: how should I proceed?

- Amgine / talk 05:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with Tim and the Board later (hopefully this evening, if I can catch him). I have no power to assign the rights, and the Board are very touchy about the privacy issues ... but yeah, I'll see what I can do - David Gerard 08:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any further word? Things continue to be extremely uncomfortable at WN. - Amgine / talk 00:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I've just emailed you. --Craig Whitford 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Also see this: Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying sock vandals

David -- There has been an itchy rash of sock vandals on List of warez groups (I know, shocking). It's only one article that I know of, but given the subject matter of the article and how persistent this person is, it made me wonder if he might not also be responsible for vandalism to other pages. Thought I'd bring it to your attention, FWIW. The users involved have been IPs User:142.150.204.230, User:142.150.205.15 (trace to Canada), User:J.D. Rockefeller, User:Jennifer Lopez, User:Acrobaty, User:Joseph Ratzinger, User:Al Gore, User:Joo Woo, User:ZenDude (seems to be the main account), User:Val Venis, User:Mao Zey Don, and User:DickyRobert. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/du-1

du-1This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration.

I have created and am now using User:UBX/du-1. Which I think puts across a much better and very important message. And doesn't contain a category ;-) - David Gerard 16:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arigato gozaimashita, David Gerard-sama. --Cool Cat Talk 13:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sockpuppets

David-Hello it was suggested by someone at the help desk that you could help me in terms of finding out if some of the users reverting Dominion of Melchizedek are sock puppets. The reverts the person is making are identical. It's really getting out of hand with not only that article but others that this person is editing.

Here are the user names: User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

Thanks for your assistance! Davidpdx 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no answer to my question yet. I realize your busy, but this problem is getting worse. We have now had to protect two pages because of this person. If you can't help me, please let me know who can. Thanks... Davidpdx 05:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC) 05:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Mr Gerard,

I would like for you to see my comment regarding Able and Baker, so here it is:

Weak keep The page appears to have sources indicating notability. On issues of verifiability, and objective notability, personal opinion cannot be expert without sources. Anyone holding themselves out as expert should produce sources upon polite request. Consensus matters much than expertise because expertise is an imprecise term open to too much varying interpretation (especially in areas of pop-culture where objective certification) and abuse (by people claiming expertise without warrant.) Given what I said, I hold the statement "Censensus beats expertise is ridiculous" to be itself worthy of some ridicule. Xoloz 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I agree with your desired result, while being quite unhappy with your logic. I'd like to ask you, nicely, to think before posting comments such as "X is ridiculous." Generally views held by geniune editors here are debatable, often wrong, but rarely ridiculous. Simply to say, "X is ridiculous" without significant qualification, is only flippancy, and I submit, likely to cause many who might agree with you to dislike your position.

I have seen you do this before (at Snowspinner's and Tony Sidaway's RfAs). I realize you may have intense feelings, but you are only barely discussing if all you can type is a five-word declarative sentence. Sentences like (and I'll paraphrase because it hardly needs looking up) "OH MY GOD YUO ARE TRYING TO DISTROY WIKIEPEDIA!1!1!1!!" (roughly your comment from Tony Sidaway's RfA) are similar examples of the same species of unhelpful, general, short, verbal ejaculations without much use as discussion.

You are on ArbCom. This makes you a symbol of Wikipedia. I am a serious person in the working world, the type whose esteem WP seems to seek. (You may be, too, I don't know). If I walk in on a business discussion, and overhear someone consistently beginning discussions with "This is ridiculous!" or with comments like, "OH MY GOD!`1!1!!1..." (The visual impact of sarcastic leet doesn't have an easy verbal equivalent, of course), I would distrust this person. If I found out he was prominent in the business, I'd be likely to avoid working with that business. Please take these comments as friendly advice. Wikipedia needs your best words, not your random ones. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions

hooray. - SchmuckyTheCat

IRC Memo

Hi David,

Could you do me a favor and check your memo on IRC? I left you something, and I'd appreciate it if you could take a quick look. I'm in class right, now, so I should be paying attention. Talk to you later, hopefully.

Linuxbeak | Talk 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to get to it for a few hours (and may not get to doing what we were talking about last night until Sunday or Monday! Work, a sick wife, two new kittens ... life is VERE BUSY!) But I'll check indeed! And I'll be sorting out something wrt the checkuser issue tonight I hope ... chat to Tim last night was productive - David Gerard 15:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good going, then. I talked to Tim as well and he gave me the green light; I just need you and the ArbCom to give me support. Looks like we're getting somewhere. Anyway, good luck with your wife and the kittens. Linuxbeak | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

I just talked to Raul. He gave me his preliminary vote of confidence. All that needs to be done is you requesting perms. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor's RFA

Hi David. While you're at it you might want to have a look at User:Salmon Fish, whose 6th edit was to vote oppose and is not trolling on the RFA talk page. Guettarda 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a wacky kid. - David Gerard 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions template

Hello David. I would like to have a look at the relevant discussion on its deletion. Would you mind telling where it was taken place? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Twoversions for a link to the discussion - David Gerard 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I found there was a link to a previous tfd nomination, which the result was to keep. Was there another tfd that led to its deletion? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the section below you'll see why I killed it with an axe and took it out of our misery. NPOV is not up for a vote - David Gerard 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In other words there was no discussion. — Instantnood 16:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely correct - David Gerard 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Instantnood 17:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions and Lightbringer

Hi David, my email server is down or something, bt I was just goint to reply to say thanks for taking the time to check out that sockpuppet and the whole RFA, (and I really hate how RFA has become such a hellhole).

Something else I wanted to talk about. I don't personally mind to see the twoversions thing gone, and it may indeed be a good application of IAR (I'm inclined to believe so) but I just wish when people suddenly have the IAR fits that they would tell someone about it first. Just because something is, er, out-of-policy, doesn't mean it has to be a surprise. I'm currently involved in a mediation related to the "Instantnood 2" arbcom case here. As an arbitrator, I bet you know the template has been a part of the dispute, and that may even been your motivation. I think it may have at least somewhat contributed to the strained ceasefire we have now, or if not, it was part of the status quo that existed as a result. It was a bit of a nasty shock just in that I feared it may upset the mediation, and so I would have like to have somehow had notice of it beforehand.

Another thing (sorry) is that I'm at least nominally interested in the Lightbringer RFAr, as I was the admin that protected Freemasonry, and especially as it's an FA now in sore shape, I'd like it unprotected, and safe, son as possible. Following Fred's recent offer to mkae my own additions to the /Workshop page, I went through and proposed some principles and findings of fact [20]. I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me if I did everything right, and if it makes sense and is reasonable? I think this case should be straightforward. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions: Being marked "away" from the AC, I wasn't even aware of it. Sorry :-( I still think it's better dead, dead, dead. So far no-one's resurrected it (it's protected blank).
I'll look at the Freemasonry thing when I get a chance, possibly tonight or over the weekend. - David Gerard 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realized you were away. There's no way I want it resurrected, and I'm surprised it even passed a TFD. Well, actually, I'm really not as those deletion pages are all giant armpits that most of the community doesn't want to touch. :) Thanks for taking a look at Lightbringer, I'm thinking of adding some more, like remedies, tonight. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remedies added. Also, one of the players in the Lightbringer RFAr, XDev (talk • contribs) is strongly suspected of being a sockpuppet of Lighbringer. Think you could do another sock check? He made his first edit (well wiki-formatted and contentious [21]) a day after Lightbringer's 3RR block. Their contributions match up. His manner of speaking [22], especially "propaganda" [23], and his manner of editing, contentious external links with no edit summary [24] are just like Lightbringer. Also, if you could check 194.65.22.226 (talk • contribs) as well, for this Lightbringer- esque edit a day after Lightbringer's 3RR block. Thanks again. Dmcdevit·t 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Vandalbot

I don't know whether it was AOL or not. I'm positive that it was a vandal bot though. The same exact text was created in dozens of different articles with nonsense titles, several per second, on different IPs, all this range. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 09:32

Sounds like a vandalbot, and that's an AOL range. Stopped? - David Gerard 10:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:AndriyK

Dear David Gerard, I take a liberty to respond personally to your comment

"48 hours break to consider discussion with others and to read the manual of style - David Gerard 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Please note that discussion with the editor was attempted multiple times! See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. He is now carefully one step under 3RR at several articles. And his moving articles is a total disaster and a huge waste of time, because takes time, effort, several editors to undo. Check again his talk! Thank you for your consern --Irpen 14:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal in my heart that he will learn to work with others, despite the "I was robbed" email I just got from him - David Gerard 15:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as that user returned to Wiki, he started to write articles too which makes me very happy. OTOH, he is back to a couple of RV wars, but not to dozens for now yet. Please check Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral and his recent revertings. I don't think AndriyK needs sanctioned again right now but it would be nice if he hears more from gurus. OTOH, I leave it up to you on how to deal with User:Andrew Alexander on these matters. Please make sure to check their recent contributions. Thanks, --16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

riPping vandals

I have posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#rIPping_.28and_ToSsing.29_vandals, calling on you to publicly reveal the IPs of the vandalbot socks that have been reverting Sealand, which I believe to be in keeping with item 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. More generally, I believe that revealing IP (rIPping) vandals should be an option in the cases of disruptive vandalism that prevents Wikipedia from functioning normally (causing articles to be permanently protected, for instance). I'll also post a query at the talk pages of Jimbo Wales and Angela to see if they have any comments. -- Curps 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Hello, I'm advocating User:Researcher99 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy and have some questions to ask you aabout sockpuppetry checking and a deleted page:

  1. Is there a way to know if User:Nereocystis, User:Dan100, User:Kewp have the same IP address as the Spatfield (talk • contribs)? It would be important to us to know if one of this users used a sockpuppet to call the AfD of the now deleted Anti-polygamy.
  2. Also, is there a way to undelete only the diffs of Anti-polygamy or to undelete it and move it into a user page? Can someone restore this article's history?

Thank you very much! (Reply me on my talk, please) --Neigel von Teighen 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been waiting to hear back from my AMA advocate (Neigel von Teighen) who made this above request of you. In order to effectively get started in the Arbitration (which was accepted three weeks ago), I am really in need of the requested information. If you already have been working on this, I very much appreciate that. If you still need time to get to it, I just wanted to PING you and add the additional needed info.
1. During the history of events in my case, there have been some very suspicious behavior from multiple users. So it is essential to find out, is there any connection between any of the following:
2. Also, for my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy case, there are some critically important DIFFs that had occurred in the deleted Anti-polygamy article. Even though I archived the deleted anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the VfD on a special archive page here, we truly need the actual DIFFs for our case. This is not a frivilous request at all. Is it possible to have that Anti-polygamy article undeleted in order to use those DIFFs soon in the RfArb? We need to use the DIFFs in that rather urgently for the case.
I am sure that you must be very busy, so your help in this will be very much appeciated. Thank you. - Researcher 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guerulous idiots?

You recently called contributors who make minor objections to FACs "guerulous idiots"[25]. Perhaps the point of striking it out was to convey sarcasm, but it comes across the opposite way when I read it. If it's meant seriously, then I find it a bit worrying. Fredrik | talk 11:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many FAC objections are indeed querulous idiocy, as anyone who's tried to put articles through FAC will know. I have four features to my credit, so I have some idea what I mean. If someone looks at those words and thinks "Hmm, is my objection important or just querulous?" then my work is done - David Gerard 11:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should trust you when you say that some of your nominations have failed due to objections that were truly unreasonable. But I've put articles through the FAC process myself, with both failures and successes, and haven't seen many idiotic objections in those cases nor in others' nominations.
I wouldn't say all support votes are the best motivated. I've on more than one occasion seen a FAC with a long list of support votes with comments along the lines of "extremely long article with many shiny pictures", had a quick look at the article, and spotted major problems with structure, language, or content. But I don't have time or interest to review most FACs, and therefore suspect many nominations pass that shouldn't (I don't really trust FA as a quality indicator these days). It's more important that FAs pass the highest standards of quality than that we have many of them, so my own impression is that there are too few objections.
You probably weren't targeting me, but I nevertheless felt hit by the statement which seemed to say something about objecting in general. In any case, the rather inflammatory wording could easily have been avoided. Fredrik | talk 12:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point. I shall add a note that possibly I was excessively bitter. - David Gerard 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic Programming

Could you please assist on Neuro-linguistic Programming to help us bring this under some control. We do have a moderator involved already who is doing an excellent job. However, IMO this revert for example is bordering on vandalism [26], and has been repeated for months. Even simple copyedits to improve grammar have been reverted. It makes it very difficult to colloborate effectively. Could you please add User HeadleyDown to your watch list, and also do a sockpuppet check on (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, AliceDeGrey, DaveRight, D.Right). --Comaze 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to have a glance - David Gerard 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

From glancing over your recent comments, am I right that you will not agree to employ CheckUser for any cases except those in arbitration? There is a growing problem with some move requests votes (which have to do with User:AndriyK, whom you recently blocked for disruption; which is actually how I found out about you in the first place). Employing CheckUser at this point would save a great deal of trouble, but I realize that privacy issues are equally important. If you could just drop me a quick note (a simple "yes" or "no" will do), I'd appreciate it. If you are able to help, I'll gladly supply you with more details regarding the case. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a glance. I use it outside that sometimes, but that requirement is good for holding back the tide of requests ;-) (It's not just this talk page, it's my email and IRC as well.) Hence attempts to expand CheckUser access, 'cos I don't scale.
CheckUser is a vexed issue at the moment. We want more people to have it, but the Foundation board have the willies about the privacy policy. We are now at the stage of dredging our way through non-profit organisation politics. I don't quite have words to express just how much fun this is - David Gerard 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you could have a glance, that'd be much appreciated. The issue in question is voting regarding these three requested moves propositions:
Me and a few other editors are concerned that some of the "oppose" votes may be from sockpuppets, which, considering the history behind the move requests, is a real possibility. To keep it completely fair, I would also suggest checking the "support" votes for sockpuppets. That is, of course, if you consider this issue serious enough. And, oh, it's too bad that you don't scale :) Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalbots and such

I wonder if this would be useful information to help us determine the source of where the recent surge of vandalbots are being created? If you have the time, at your leisure, would you be able to look into this further? Today, I blocked a handful of accounts which are attributed to supertroll/supercool, and shortly after Radioaktiv replaced my talk page with a massive text dump of nonsense characters. I wonder if this is only coincidental or otherwise? That particular user made this edit which might be of interest, although I cannot read it. Here's my block log for your convenience [27]. Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 15:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fradulent claim

I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of TheChief, please retract your fradulent claim at once. Agriculture 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You edited identically, you just did it from work instead of home. Wikipedia is very very tolerant, but we're not actually stupid - David Gerard 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you win, I quit. You trolls can have Wikipedia. Agriculture 16:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. I'm sure you have the best of intentions for the project, as I (and Tony) do, and I am (and he is) actively trying to work better with others, as I am sure you are. Massive disagreements should not erupt into the level of assumption of bad faith that involves creating an attack sockpuppet - David Gerard 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, Although Agriculture and I have certainly had our differences, your block seems to have driven him away for good, although Agriculture is a long time wiki contributor. When this happens, it should be a matter of concern to the whole community. In the interests of transparency in administrative actions, would you please be so kind as to publicly detail the evidence which lead to the sockpuppetry accusation and block? Regards, Fawcett5 17:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several emails from people wondering about this new and poisonous user, IPs from the same city. Looks like one was work and one was home - David Gerard 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I haven't been following this issue closely, but out of curiosity, which ArbCom case did this use of checkuser stem from? --Aquillion 21:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs asking. (Please excuse the somewhat Magic 8-ball-like replies, but I do have to default to those for privacy policy reasons) - 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that; nobody needs to know the specific people involved. It is important, though, to know the case it came out of, if any. ArbCom members are elected to settle cases that are brought to arberation; I was unaware that they had any other special privileges. If ArbCom members are now effectively able to make personal requests for IP checks on individual users whenever they feel like it, then I think that at least needs to be discussed. --Aquillion 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do in fact go looking for trouble (so to speak) - certain patterns of behaviour set off alarm bells. Tim Starling is actually trying to drag me into being a dev (welcome to Wikipedia! here's your accordion), so I might end up with arbitrary SQL queries as well ... God help me. - David Gerard 00:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should at probably change the notice about Checkuser on the top of this page, then. It would likely be approprate to update the criterion you listed for yourself on m:checkuser as well. I don't know if there's anywhere else where you've said that you would only use it for ArbCom cases, but it would only be fair to inform people of your change of heart in all of them. --Aquillion 00:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct. I have done so. But really, you wouldn't believe the crap that goes on. Most relevant results I note on WP:ANI - David Gerard 00:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh — and if getting caught running a sockpuppet for malicious purposes is enough to drive him away from Wikipedia entirely, I find myself strangely unable to regard this as a matter of great concern. Though I'd hope he'd reconsider and stay as a better Wikipedian - David Gerard 00:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Award

David Gerard is hereby awarded the Sockpuppet Star, for his tireless efforts in ridding Wikipedia of sockpuppets. Rex
31 October 2005

Congratulations Rex(talk) 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-O - David Gerard 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Volodymyr's Cathedral

Dear David,

I would like to bring your attention to the article on St. Volodymyr's Cathedral. Less than two weeks ago this was a nicely-written article about the Cathedral, about the architecture, mosaics, frescoes, the history how the Cathedral was built etc. (see the last version of 00:03, 20 October 2005 by Mzajac [28])

At 15:06, 22 October 2005 User:Kuban kazak decided to use this preaty neutral and nice article to push his POV that is far from being neutral (see his contribution [29]). This stared a long-lasting edit war.

Even if his insertion were neutral (this was definitelly not the case) this is a serious question whether it's legal to use architecture, art, music etc. articles for advertising (or bringing attention to) political issues. Does it improve the Wikipedia content? Does it make the work of editors more productive? Is it not an abuse of Wikipedia for propaganda purposes?

It looks like this is a more broad question. Inserting political stuff into initially quite neutral, nice and popular articles is quite common in Wikipedia. I admit that the question is not simple. Sometimes political stuff is important and the article looks incomplete without it. But in most cases the political stuff is irrelevant and just force the reader to spend his/her time for reading the information s/he was not actually looking for. In my opinion, a serious discussion is needed. What's your opinion?

It would be indeed nice to protect the article in its politics-free form until the discussion is over.

On the other hand, if User:Kuban kazak and Irpen consider the political stuff important they can write a separate article on the subject. Is it not a reasonable compromize? It would be however nice if somebody of experienced and respectable users would explain Irpen and Kuban kazak, that it is extremely important to base the Wikipedia articles on creadible sources and to avoid any propaganda issues.--AndriyK 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

open proxies

Re: 145.253.87.106 and 203.130.225.34 (from AN/I) used by the anagram vandal, I notice these are listed as transparent proxies rather than anonymous proxies. When it comes to blocking open proxies, do we or should we make any distinction? -- Curps 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they're for use by all comers and we can't see the IP, no. We only trust the X-Forwarded-From: header in particular cases (e.g. NTL) - David Gerard 11:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freenode discussion

Hi David,

Just giving you the latest update. Freenode apparently is interested in helping us out in anyway that they can. They stated that they "try to not get involved in channel-related problems" but this problem is of sufficiant severity that they would like to help. Don't know what they can do, but it is definitely a starter. Linuxbeak | Talk 13:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I can't see what they can do either (except a particularly tedious game of whack-a-mole). But the AC has also been made aware - David Gerard 13:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different

There has been some recent thought that certain templates should always be subst'ed, and a list is being compiled with the intent of having a bot automatically subst all those templates. The two main reasons are article stability, and server load. Since you're one of the main contributors to WP:AUM, it would be appreciated if you could give your opinion on this. The relevant page is Wikipedia:Subst. Radiant_>|< 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anagram vandal

It has been pointed out to me that the anagram vandal, who has been disruptive on Úbeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Schnorrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Schnorrer (Yiddish) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could well be NoPuzzleStranger (an anagram of Gzornenplatz), a recognised sock of Wik. Does the middle of this history page give enough evidence to carry out the check on the basis that is in connexion with the evasion of a hard ban? --Gareth Hughes 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Past instances of the anagram vandal have looked very Wik-like, given (a) it's a bot (b) the edits are Wik favourites (country templates and so forth) - that's quite enough to look. Bet it's all open proxies though - David Gerard 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be done to restrict Wik's access to editing WP? The current state is that these three articles are protected because of this vandal. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not - basically, if you really want to edit Wikipedia it's pretty much impossible to stop you (without closing the wiki off to far too many people). There have been discussions of, e.g., using captchas to impede vandalbots - David Gerard 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agriculture

I am not accusing, just requesting clarification as I got an email from a rather angry user (Agriculture) that he was accused of using a sockpuppet account for bad reasons and that the evidence is that the IP's are from the same city, one from office and one from home, and that the edits were similar. I thought checkuser was only a positive ID'er if the sock and main account came from the same IP...what city (or at least what size in terms of population) and what situation are we talking about. I am more than willing to concede that your evaluation is correct, but an concerned about it's margin of error based on the results of what I mentioned above. I may not chime back in for a day or two so you can enlighten me (if you even want to) at your convienence...Thanks!--MONGO 00:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His evaluation is pure and utter bullshit. Personally I don't care at all either. Look at his manipulation of comments here, I've put it up on my user page. Wikipedia is dirty. I rocked the boat, so they made up charges and nailed me to the wall. I'm only coming back to post this for your sake MONGO, as you e-mailed me, let me make it clear: I don't want to be a part of a community that acts like this guy and Tony Sidaway. I'm coming back to warn you MONGO, don't push this any further or you'll find him accusing you of being a sock. These guys stoop to whatever level they feel they can just to be sure they get what they want. Don't push them, or they'll push back hard and put you in your place. It's a secret police force that makes up whatever charges they see fit. Agriculture 01:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for you David, no I'm not leaving because I was "found out" or some such bullshit, I am leaving because dicks like you make up whatever fucking claims they want to attack their enemies, or the enemies of their friends. You dicked with my comments here to color the argument too, so I can't believe anyone doesn't see you for who you really are. But like I said, you win, and I quit. I came back solely because MONGO e-mailed me, and he's one of the few people here with an ounce of decency. I'm leaving because you and your Cabal have won. You've made it very clear that you're willing to make up whatever shit you see fit just to get your way. Well, I can't fight a bunch of Secret Police who have all the power while I'm just a lowly user, so I'm packing up my bags and leaving. Your plan of harassment worked. I hope you feel special. Why you left me unblocked when you blocked the dude filing the RfAr I have no idea. Thats probably the only thing I'm still curious about. Not curious enough to stick around though. You can have this POS you like to call an encyclopedia. It sure as hell won't ever really be one while stuff like this happens. Agriculture 01:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to slam me with an infinite block. You know you want to. Agriculture 01:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One has to keep in mind that sockpuppetry tends only to be checked on when the users are already suspected of being the same person - the edit style is primary, IP evidence is extra. In this case, the editing styles and subjects of interest are identical and being in the same city is enough of a match to nail it. This has also been exhaustively dissected on WP:ANI - David Gerard 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit style is identical you say and the IP is extra? I'll have to do a read through WP:ANI and see what you're talking about. I doubt Agriculture's current contributions to Wikipedia are of any great value (sorry Agriculture) but don't yet agree that accusations against him based on malicious sockpuppet use, based on the evidence, substantiates the end result of driving a person out of this forum. If we're talking about a city of many people as opposed to say, "Pigs Knuckle, Oklahoma" then there is a pretty big margin of error that may be possible. Before I go further, I'll read up on WP:ANI as it will surely enlighten me.--MONGO 14:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took you up on your challenge...

I wanted to let you know that I took you up on the "rework crappy prose" challenge that you posted at Wikipedia talk:Project Galatea and edited 10 random articles this morning. Most of the changes I made were relatively small, but the stumper was Anti-Neoism. That took a while, and I'm still not sure if I did the right thing or not! Mamawrites & listens 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-D
I must admit when I do it, I'll find one horrible article I'll get stuck on. If you're not sure your rewording hasn't distorted facts, ask one of the other editors on the article to look it over - David Gerard 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal sock?

Interesting choice of target for first edit, rather ideosyncratic wording. I shan't trouble you with a list of suspects. By their fruits shall ye know them (Matt 7:16). --Tony SidawayTalk 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Many of those wikilawyering on checkuser use or not are forgetting that the primary sock-detection mechanism is the characteristic editing style. IP matches or whatever are just extras - David Gerard 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You will be unsurprised it appears to be an open proxy, at least at the moment - David Gerard 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bahn Mi / User:GRider

Can you check up Bahn Mi who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of GRider (see the archived WP:ANI). If you check the block log you will see he has been blocked twice for violating GRider's ban on editing deletion related pages. I brought up the concern with Bahn Mi here, but chose not to block then. Even if Bahn Mi is a sockpuppet of GRider, it is certainly not an outright abusive sockpuppet, after reviewing the edits he looks like a sincere contributor with good edits to the main article namespace. Nor am I entirely sure that Bahn Mi is a sock, and if it can be confirmed that it is not, he can contribute to deletion related pages without running afoul of blocks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GRider's IP data fell out of the recentchanges table long ago, and I'd have thought Radman1 would have given up running sockpuppet armies after the school deletion issue having more or less been resolved the way he wanted. The user's name is "ban me" ... - David Gerard 13:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Is User:Bahn Mi banned (suspected sockpuppet whose name says "ban me") or not banned (assume good faith) from deletion related discussions? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion, Tony Sidaway unblocked him. His edits appear well-behaved. I don't actually know if he's Radman1/GRider still at it. If it is he's being very careful with his edits. I don't feel righteous fire to pursue him to the ends of the earth, if that's what you're asking; I can't be bothered myself FWIW - David Gerard 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was asking because if Bahn Mi is not banned, then any blocks levied against him for editting deletion related pages should be immediately lifted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking right now to see what if anything matches between Radman1 (which looks like the only active account of the GRider sockpuppet theatre and, since he's a known real person who actually has a Wikipedia article about him, is presumably the sockpuppeteer) and Bahn Mi. OTOH, CheckUser is not magical pixie dust and really determined sockpuppeting could evade it relatively easily - David Gerard 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No positive matches, but no negative ones either. (Interestingly, a negative match would be much stronger evidence of innocence.) - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How certain is the GRider-Radman1 connection? Does GRider's deletion-related page ban carry over to Radman, then? —Cryptic (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Definite - he slipped up and used the same IP in the same session as one of his definite sockpuppet army. (I have the smoking gun details somewhere on an old laptop, unless I trashed them in one of the several reformattings since then.) 2. I can't see that anyone's been bothered, and it has been several months. I'd have hoped he'd have had the good grace to back out of doing this sort of thing, and I haven't seen hard evidence he has done it again. You should certainly discuss the matter with Radman1 before taking action. I don't see much point in vicious proceduralism myself - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Agriculture/The Chief stuff

Good morning! I've been emailed a few times by TheChief, which is why I'm here. Again, he claims not to be a sockpuppet, and that his edits must overlap at some point with Agriculture's. I've done 2 5-day samples and, well, they don't seem to. However, another idea popped into my head- please hear me out and let me know what you think. My idea is that since a) Agriculture is far more abusive than TheChief, b) Agriculture has declared his intention to leave, while TheChief claims to want precisely the opposite, would it be a good idea for me to change the account being indefinitely blocked from TheChief to Agriculture? From our POV, we'd probably rather have him in the account that shows less venom, and from his POV it allows him to walk away with his pride intact; he'll have a new account that he likes without (some) of the baggage of his Agriculture account. Oh, and from my POV, it'll eliminate that little tiny thought that maybe he's not a sockpuppet, even though I'm fairly certain he is. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Scimitar parley 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be bothered, then probably. I'd suggest emailing both addresses to sort out which is to be treated as the "main" account then block the other one - David Gerard 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

David, if you have a problem with me I would appreciate it if you would talk or mail me about it, rather than making snide remarks all over the wiki. I'm sure it's possible to invent hidden agendas behind any of my actions, but the simple facts are that I unblocked Agriculture because, in spite of your description of TheChief as an attack sockpuppet, I could find no personal attacks in TheChief's history; and that I nominated Aaron for adminship because he recently had me (and iirc, you as well) thinking that he already was one. I've told him that it would likely fail, and he wanted to proceed anyway. It's not my job to protect people from themselves. Radiant_>|< 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the email to the AC, and the ridiculous RFC before that, and the ridiculous block before that, and the weeks leading up to all this, certainly closely resemble an obsession on your part. But yes, I should probably have said so on your talk page first - David Gerard 18:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An email to the arbitration committee? <raised eyebrows> Why Radiant, I never knew you cared! :) --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Úbeda again

Sorry to bug you again on the same topic, but can you take yet another look at the history of Úbeda and check the IPs? The last two IPs you gave for similar anagram vandalism at Sealand (145.253.87.106 and 203.130.225.34) are listed as transparent proxies, which means we ought to have an underlying IP reported. Of course the latter could be bogus or fictitious if the transparent proxy operator isn't honest, but he jumps through several different proxies as each sock name is blocked, so if different proxies report the same underlying IP, and if we ourselves test the proxy and it reports a correct underlying IP instead of a bogus or fictitious one, then we probably know his real IP address and ISP with reasonable certainty. This case certainly does call for reporting a ToS (Terms of Service) violation to his ISP.

It's especially problematic because this vandal isn't doing "defacement" vandalism; rather, he's taking one side in an editing dispute (which happens to be the same side that other users such as myself take), so many admins and users don't automatically revert him as we would for simple vandalism... it's a bit much to ask us to revert to a version we don't actually agree with. This makes the vandal's actions all the more harmful because this cheating poisons any possibility of real debate or consensus. In the future vandals could use this technique to torpedo an edit they oppose by cheating in "support" of it, with the goal of hardening opinions and swaying neutral voters against it (this could even conceivably be the case here).

This is the sort of disruptive behavior that if left unchecked will threaten the very basis of how Wikipedia works, which is why I would urge you to publicly reveal any IP-related information that can be obtained for the Úbeda sock edits, in full accordance and compliance with item 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. -- Curps 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this. If you agree with this guy's edits, what's the problem? Why do you claim that he's not editing in good faith? --Tony SidawayTalk 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at the article history? Abusive use of throwaway single-use sockpuppets to evade 3RR, and the sockpuppet usernames are usually anagrams or similar of the last user who reverted him. This is somehow good faith? -- Curps 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be Wik, using a bot to fulfill one of his obsessions. Curps - I'll look, but I betcha they're open proxies again (it's possible the many complaints to T-Online are having an effect ... of making him not use his dialup) - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing any actions here. I don't have experience in matters like this and I'm not familiar with the history of the suspect. But as a point of terminology isn't there some better word for what Kolokol has been doing at Úbeda than vandalism? I would prefer to reserve that word to mean narrowly "clearly detrimental edits to an article" - which is not what's happening here. The behavior is disruptive and silly but it's not exactly vandalism - as shown, for example, by the fact that it's the version of the difficult user that's been protected! :) Again, I'm not questioning anything you're doing, I just wonder if anyone knows a more precise word. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Abusive sockpuppetry" -- Curps 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin advice

Hello again. Quick question. I blocked Boothy443 (talk • contribs) a while ago for violating 3RR (multiple times). He since used Cisum6cbb (talk • contribs) (CheckUser most likely not necessary, as this was so obviously his sockpuppet I was astounded) to continue the edit war. Cisum6cbb was blocked for 24 hours for block evasion. I'm tempted to extend that to indefinite as an abusive sockpuppet. I'm also tempted to extend the block on Boothy's account for some amount of time, as a result of the sockpuppeteering and continued edit warring. What do you think is proper here? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually block abused socks indefinitely and block the sockpuppeteer 24-48 hours. A note on WP:ANI would probably be appropriate - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. That what I was thinking too. Have done so. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boot to the head

Yeah, I was aiming some kicks at you the other day for hypocrisy. You probably don't recall because I'm sure you get abused by a much better class on vandal than me all the time. Regardless, in the interim you've made it clear on WP:ANI that you'll sniff the packet of whomever you like and if we don't like it, rough.
Well, I actually don't like it but I do respect your stance. Thus will a bow and a spit, I formally withdraw all charges of hypocrisy. Not that you probably care, but hey, credit where it is due. And for the record, I'd strongly support farming out checkuser to every third admin's dog, but would want it to be logged whever someone uses it. Especially you, I see those shifty eyes and I know you're up to no good.

Also, could you possibly examine User talk:Nichalp#Template talk where I try to convince him that a transcluded sig is a small but pointless drain? I've made a lot of hand-waving without really knowing what I was talking about, so some real facts probably couldn't hurt him, or me for that matter. Thanks.

But by the way, not only is this a type of Gnomic, everything is. brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still can hardly believe someone called me "modest" earlier on this page ...
There is no firm law that transclusion is so evil it must be wiped from the face of the earth; WP:AMT sets out the case against templates-in-templates, but even then it's only "avoid" rather than "verboten". I find weird-arse templated sigs irritating ... you'd have to ask a dev. Probably posting a precise question to wikitech-l (subscription required) would get a sensible response.
Having provably gotten the Agriculture/TheChief one wrong (see WP:ANI#Double-checking_DG), I have sent out for several crates of humble pie. (Though I think it's pretty clear they're in close communication.) So you will be pleased to know there are more CheckUser users on the way very soon - David Gerard 12:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I had thought you were a dev in all but name. Clearly I must now nominate you as one. As to the other, I promise to experiance no more and no less Schadenfreude than I would if my dearest friend had made the same mistake. That is to say, lots.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Starling has intimated he has plans for me. He said this in the same way that I have been when I've been marking someone six months ahead of time as a good Arb Com candidate (we've been burning them out at a stupid rate), so my fear is very real ... welcome to Wikipedia, where your reward for a job well done is another three jobs - David Gerard 13:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Persistant Republican Sinn Féin vandal/sockpuppet

Hi David. Some has suggested that I contact you regarding an anonymous user who for the past few months has been POVing the following pages: Republican Sinn Féin, Continuity IRA, Fianna Éireann, Tom Maguire and others. I have gathered the ISPs he uses at the page User:217.43.172.38. I'd appreciate your help in sorting out this problem and would be interested if there is a registered user operating from the same ISPs. --Damac 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Can you use edit summaries on WP:AN/I? Your posts there are almost always worth reading, but I generally have to use a diff to find them. :-p --GraemeL (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, I shall :-) - David Gerard 17:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi David,

You're rather difficult to get in contact with on occasions ;-) Could you send me an email indicating who the potential new checkuser people are? Thanks, Linuxbeak | Talk 16:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be five of the arbitrators who can tell one end of an IP number from the other. I asked that you and Fvw get it too, but for now you'll have to send the requests through us ;-) This is not idyllic, but it was the best quick compromise between a need for checkers now and the lack of a decent Foundation policy on how to give out this potentially explosive power (Anthere told us some hair-raising examples of real-life requests for terrible reasons that make the Board's reluctance very understandable). The eventual policy will be based on the one at m:Proposed CheckUser Policy, we expect. It's had most of the rough edges hammered off it - David Gerard 17:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I understand the reluctance of the board giving that power to other users, and I can't say they're not correct. From what I am getting from reading your response, you're indicating that checkuser for me is not "no", but "not at this moment". Is that correct? Linuxbeak | Talk 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not "no", but "not for the foreseeable future," I suspect. As noted above, keep doing work at Wikimedia stuff and being the soul of wikipolitics and the reward for a job well done will usually be three more jobs ;-) - David Gerard 17:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, fair enough. Looks like I need to start rubbing more elbows ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would like to thank you for being just and fair in your final evaluation of the evidence. I had no doubt you would eventually come to understand the truth of the matter. Two issues still concern me, however, and I was wondering if perhaps you could help me in these areas.

  1. You call me a "poisonous user". I do not believe I have breached WP:NPA, or WP:FAITH, and I have tried to be both positive and constructive in all of my dealings here on Wikipedia. What is it that I have done to earn this label? If you could help me identify any problems I am having with policy, or general decorum, I would greatly appreciate the effort on your part for the purposes of improving my compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, policy, and suggestions.
  2. It seems to me that perhaps there is a need for guarenteed formal hearings and public accounting for charges such as the one leveled against me. As I had no guarenteed avenue through which I could seek the recusal of the charges against me I was forced to rely on both the kindness and motivation of generous users on my behalf. While undoubtedly the end result proves that Wikipedians are top notch citizens of the internet with this regard, I would like to persue a course of action which would implement a forum for formal hearings, presentation of charges, etc, so that if another is ever put in my position they will not feel so helpless and trampled.

Once again I want to thank you for your sense of justice and your sense of decency. I appreciate your efforts in the review of my case and in addressing the issues I have enumerated above, if you have the time to help me with them. TheChief (PowWow) 16:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the checkup :-D

Hi David, it's me again.

I think it's time to do the sockcheck again to mine some more data. Remember the e-mail I sent you? ..heh, now i'm sounding like I'm in the cabal :o Linuxbeak | Talk 20:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur's RFA

Thank you for supporting my nomination till the end, for using admin cliché number one on me and for using an environment variable in your support vote. Keep up your good work and friendly attitude. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

There are loads of dead external links on this page. Perhaps just one link to the main page would suffice. --Spondoolicks 10:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're actually a list of papers by the AdTI. Probably better to comment out the URLs but leave the papers listed. Or find copies on archive.org - David Gerard 11:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More anagram socks

I blocked a number of abusive sockpuppets evading 3RR, if possible it might be worthwhile to run checkuser to block some open proxies. I'd really rather not get involved with open proxy blocking, hopefully fvw might consider resuming it. PS, he's not actually using anagrams much anymore, but it's quite obviously the same person (see User:Agraman, for instance, an anagram of "anagram"). -- Curps 10:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fantastic Door and "Hotrocks" IP 82.42.151.164

Update: Never mind [30], blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 19:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago, you did checkuser to discover the IP 82.42.151.164 of a sock vandal and blocked it for 3 months. A few days ago, User:Fantastic Door contacted Antandrus, stated this was his IP and that he was an innocent user affected by the block. Antandrus unblocked, but there's a couple of problems: Fantastic Door has created a few socks including "Fantastic Door on Wheels", and his home page has a very familiar photo of the obese mice on Obesity. He also wants Fantastic Door on Wheels unblocked (he says it's a doppelganger to prevent impersonation, but it's not clear why he would need it unblocked... why would he need to edit with it). Anyways, I've reblocked for 24 hours, could you take a look and either unblock or reapply the longer block? Thanks. -- Curps 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reapplied the longer block for 82.42.151.164 though, perhaps I should leave that to you... did he use it in his latest edits, is it more or less exclusively him? Perhaps you can discover a few other sockpuppets using checkuser. -- Curps 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aranda56 and "Mexican G" vandal who abuses him and others

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mexican_G.27s_sockpuppetry. The abusive vandal has used the same AOL IP as Aranda 56, which perhaps means the vandal is geographically close to him (same city, same neighborhood?). Although it may be difficult to get information regarding AOL proxies, perhaps checkuser might turn up something useful. Perhaps someone fairly high up at Wikipedia (not an ordinary admin) might try contacting AOL about this, just in case. -- Curps 02:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Dear David, i sent you an email with some questions about check user. muriel@pt 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


My reply

You have my reply, sir. Respectfully,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery meat

Hi. I also like to simplify links as per the Principle of Least Astonishment. Here's the edit summary I use:

Simplified some links as per the [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment|Principle of Least Astonishment]]

So now you have an actual Wikipedia style guideline to back you up. --Doradus 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Negro

Fred Negro, an independent musician from Melbourne, is currently listed at Articles for Deletion. A couple of voters have asked for input from Australians. My understanding is that you have a very good level of knowledge about the Australian independent music scene especially from the 1970s and 1980s so I thought I would drop you a line and see if you were in a position to comment.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twoversions

Please remove the protection you placed on this template, so the blanking can be undone and the proper Tfd notice added; otherwise the very applicability in the debate is questionable (as many people may not notice that a TFD has been created for it). I want to say that it seems you are an interested party to the issue of the deletion, and your out of process protection and blanking seem highly inappropriate -- as the template itself is not clearly POV in any manner, and it is possible that it could be fixed.

Your opinion that it does violate POV is one thing, but this doesn't mean that it is appropriate to ignore the Deletion policy or Page protection policy, in a case that is not clean cut at all.

Allow for the opportunity that sometimes problems can be solved, don't just blindly press delete. --Mysidia (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...

We need to talk. Vote tampering, sockpuppetry, and other goodies. Catch me on IRC later. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

(in response to 'hey' above, since I was away for a couple of days)

Okay, I can understand how it may seem obsessive, so allow me to explain a bit. My opinion of Tony is that he is generally a good admin, but one who has some problems with civility. This has lead to disputes in the past. These disputes tend to get aggravated by the existence of 1) a group of people who have lost all faith in him and wish him deopped ASAP, and 2) a group of people that are so impressed with him that they consider any criticism of him to be a personal attack. Of course neither of those opinions is particularly constructive, and both groups have a tendency of assuming neutral people belong to the opposite group. This in itself has occasionally lead to furhter disputes.

By my book, both RFC and RFAr are forms of dispute resolution, not petitions for punishment. And that is precisely what I have tried to do recently - to resolve a controversial dispute, mainly by bringing it into the open rather than letting it fester. Since my wikitime is limited these days, I haven't seen yet if it helped or not, but I certainly hope so. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know him in person, and the same words you see on the wiki sound completely different heard in his voice. I think your RFC has brought Tony awareness of how his reactions can look to people he's disagreeing with, and communicating successfully even when you're completely at odds with people is pretty much required around here. I expect he'll continue to take controversial action as he sees fit (keeping in mind the nature of IAR, i.e. a stick of dynamite), but will probably explain himself better ;-) - David Gerard 11:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotrocks redux

BOWCLOCKER (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) appears to be a new instance of the "hotrocks" vandal (the same interest in Greater Manchester and WoW). Perhaps he's found a new place to access Wikipedia from. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jguk and Sortan

Hi David. I did leave you a message on IRC, but it seems you aren't around. As it is, could you just verify what I have written at [31] to put my mind at rest? Much obliged, [[Sam Korn]] 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Joan of Arc mediation

64.12.116.197 and Mr. Ballard are thought to be the same editor, and are engaged in a POV dispute at the article. "In the opinion of some editors this is anonymous editing from User:Awilliamson, a banned editor." (User:HAJARS) Could you please check it out so we can either enforce a ban or get on with Mediation? Much thanks in advance, -St|eve 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard's law

For an insightful comment you made recently, you have earned yourself a law. →Raul654 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks, and I'll do that (e-mail you). I have to get a new e-mail address. Ryland 16:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

You can now e-mail me. Pass it on to User:Kyla, User:Pimp Juice, and User:Cool Cat please. Bye! Ryland 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

Hey there =) Sorry about erasing your comment on Kelly Martin's RfB. I didn't even notice =x TDS (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! And Mac OS X it always will be... Ramallite (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop vandalism & Official vandalism

According to the tab Sysop vandalism is not protected. Also you may want to put in {{deletedpage}} tag. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct. Thank you! - David Gerard 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem.

I need a sockcheck on User:Elyk53. I think I know who it is, but I just want to make sure. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 8-Ball says: "WELL DUH." No actual IP matches, but the physical location of the IP combines with the edit pattern to make it bloody obvious - David Gerard 22:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Password Request Troll

I just got eight e-mails that someone from IP 152.163.100.131 had requested a new password for my account, starting at 10 Nov 2005 21:57:14 GMT. I think it's AOL but I figured that if you're looking for this person I suppose any info helps. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail

I've noticed you removed http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com for a very good reason.

G-mail is known for filtering spam and I love that feature.

But don't mix spam with marketing. And don't mix marketing with information.

That link was actually a good point of view of the bad side of gmail. If we want to be enciclopedic I believe providing good and bad aspects about something is actually good for achieving the goal.

I believe it's a good link to be there, it wasn't spamatic in the article itself, since it was in the right place.

--Cawas 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, no worries about putting it back - I was just cleaning up after the latest Brandt rampage. If a good editor puts their name on the edit that's just fine - David Gerard 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocking Weirdness

Hello again. Although we met under less than friendly circumstances, you seem fair-minded and fairly mighty in the matter of socking sockpuppets. Ansbachdragoner seems to have been the victim of some weirdness involving Sockpuppetry, IP masking and other assorted Scheiße. His account may have been compromised. I'm not even sure if the one who posted on his talk page is really him. Please see if you can help sort out this mess. Thanks and best regards, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock's gone now - he should be fine to edit (until of course whoever the silly person is has more fun with imitation usernames) - David Gerard 08:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assistance and info. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web graffiti

Hi David, what is going on with that article? Did you intent to use {{deletedpage}} for it? If yes, where can I find the AfD discussion that authorized its deletion? Why has this not been listed to Wikipedia:Protected pages? I think that protected blank pages are a bad idea; if they don't make sense to me, they certainly confuse newbies as well (and are a nuisance during short pages patrol). Regards, jni 08:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages created and pretty much only edited by hard-banned users are CSD. I used {{deletedpage}} because it's a favourite topic of 142's - David Gerard 08:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cool Vandalbot

You're probably already aware of this, but in case you're not, please take a look at 63.19.198.0 (talk • contribs), 63.19.134.103 (talk • contribs) and 63.19.128.32 (talk • contribs) who all exhibit the same strange behavior, to wit a dozen sandbox edits followed by a warning on ANI regarding the vandalbot. Radiant_>|< 17:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN

David, you mentioned on the suggestions page that you would be interested on commented on the checkuser story. Feel free to do so now, though I'll assure you I'll do my best to make sure the story will be unbiased and accurate. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 15:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on story talk page! - David Gerard 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! By the way, have you considered archiving your talk page? It took a mighty long time to load... Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing it monthly! - David Gerard 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser board?

Now that there are a group of new Checkusers, do you think it'd be useful to create a central page (e.g. WP:AN/CU) where others could go to request a check on an alleged sockpuppet, and to hear the result (or, of course, hear "request denied" if inappropriate)? Or would that be overdoing it? Radiant_>|< 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK

You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser list up

My email is Tomasz.Wegrzanowski [at] gmail.com Taw 08:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikien-l moderation task

An individual claimed (through an email to HelpDesk-l) public defamation by Wikipedia from certain correspondence on Wikipedia. Indeed, seemingly defamatory emails (that he claims will cause him reputation damage) such as [32] appear in the first few search results when searching for his name. In order to clearly avoid being sued, please remove from the archive (HelpDesk as well, if possible) all relevant emails mentioning this complainant (W.C. - I'd rather not cause him more concern by his name appearing elsewhere). I'd also appreciate it if you let me know when that's done (if it's possible). Many many thanks. jnothman talk 15:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the power to remove email from the archive - David Gerard 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone? Unlike Wikipedia pages, these can't be publicly changed, and could contain defamatory material, which, being stored on Wikimedia's servers and made public, could be the subject of legal issues. Please forward me or this complaint to relevant persons (system admins?), if possible. jnothman talk 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the linked email, and I'm having trouble seeing what is defamatory there. Pretty much it seems to be saying that he's not in Wikipedia because he's not very well known and doesn't seem to have any IMDB credits, and that we tend to frown on self-promotional articles. I don't see what isn't fair criticism–mild, at that–or plain unvarnished truth. The fact that a Google search for his name pulls our mailing list entries as the fourth site hit seems to support the notion that he hasn't made it big. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree; and yet some of the comments on the Wikien email are clearly made to mock him: if it were you, trying to get a job, and someone did a character check on you by googling your name, it's probably not the nicest thing to appear, even if it is true.
More importantly, it is shocking that there is no comment on the Wikipedia:Contact us page that says that all emails to the helpdesk and their responses will be published publicly online. I actually think this is a breach of privacy, if not Copyright.
jnothman talk 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there is a warning that the questions and answers will be publicly viewable. If you follow the mailing list link from the Help desk, it takes you to the Help Desk mailing list page, which explicitly states
Asking questions: Please check the FAQ and the archives before asking a question. You can ask a question on this list by sending an email to "helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org.
In other words, there is a direct link to the archive of all the mailing list posts right in the instructions on that page; someone who wishes to post to helpdesk-l is directed to examine that archive before posting. The idea that many people will be able to view the email messages sent is also implicit in the notion of a 'mailing list'.
Getting a little gentle criticism for trying to promote himself in our encyclopedia is not going to be the end of his career. Heck, Hollywood will probably approve of shameless attempts at self-promotion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) He complained, I thought I would do my best to fix it up. He wants to speak to the CEO and to call his attorneys. Who knows whether to be worried?
2) Implicit isn't good enough when it comes to law and defamation of character, even if the defamation here is not so explicit either. I don't think a link to archives is sufficient to absolve WikiMedia of faults in publishing someone's intellectual property and/or private details.
3) Most people contact the HelpDesk mailing list from Wikipedia:Contact us (and not WP:HD) where there are no warnings, explicit or implicit (I wish I could change this, but I can't).
jnothman talk 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He complained, I thought I would do my best to fix it up. He wants to speak to the CEO and to call his attorneys. Who knows whether to be worried? - The Foundation would. What you're talking about is a Foundation matter. As such, you should forward the complaint to them.
(I did get an email from him, and haven't been able to get around to answering it ...)
This is an issue under some discussion. While people are understandably reluctant to remove content just because someone doesn't like being talked about, it can be an issue. Best bounce it to the Foundation if you think a legal threat can be taken at all seriously, rather than taking drastic action ad-hoc, because they're the ones who will be dealing with it if it does turn out to be a serious issue - David Gerard 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I see no sign of defamation here and I doubt any tribunal would. If he feels he should call his attorneys, I think he really should. To my opinion, we only have a person who wanted to do a bit of self-promotion and now find himself a bit ridicule with the request being on the net...

I will forward the mail to juriwiki-l AT wikimedia PUNTO org to check (I recommand you use that address each time there is a mention of a legal issue ongoing)... Otherwise, the way to go is to ask our Technical Officer (that is... Brion)... but the latter will probably only delete the mail if the board ask him to. Note that all mails are archived by gmane as well, so even if a developer delete the mail, someone will have to ask Gmane to specifically delete it as well (they are okay with that, I asked them several times and they did not ask any questions).

My personal opinion : it so happened that we opposed deletion of mails... as they were attempt to hide information which we considered important to keep. In this case, I do not care at all. However, it would be much better if the famous film-maker made a gentle and polite request rather than issuing threats for a mistake he made himself and for putting himself in a ridicule situation.

Additionnaly, yes, you should clarify on the relevant pages that wikien-l is a publicly archived list. On the french wiki, we made that page [33] where we exactly detail which lists are public, which are private but archived and which are private and not archived. I think this is important to make it clear to those making requests. Anthere

I would love to, and have suggested the Wikipedia:Contact us page be clarified at Wikipedia talk:Contact us but don't have the power to do so myself. jnothman talk 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Sorry I don't know enough yet about where to go in case of a particular issue. Thanks for clarifying that a little Anthere. jnothman talk 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm, the page is protected... how odd. Perhaps it would be no big deal to unprotect it for a couple of days ? Anthere

It's that time again!

That's right! It's sock-checking time!

Today's exciting episode involves the following users...

I have my hunches as to where they originated from, so let's see if I'm right. Thanks!

Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed the same, all created in two bursts of, er, something, last night and this morning. User names are: ‼ ‼ ‼ Alex Schenck (aka Linuxbeak) is a paedophile.; ! ! ! ! Linuxbeak is a pedophile.; Angela—what a bitch!; Holy shit! Curрs, you're fast!; Too slow, Curрs!; Psychonaut's experiments include anal penetration.; Psychoanalyst; No no; Anney; Abigail Williams; ≤woot≥; Slimboy; TerrorMaker; Linuxnaut; ≤w00t≥; Tgb; Psychobeak . I couldn't possibly of course tell you what IP they're coming from, but I'm sure you can guess. And it doesn't actually match any existing user I could see, so I'd guess it's DHCP. Yay. For some reason I find it difficult to assume good faith with that selection. I wonder why that is. Any other names with this pattern? - David Gerard 16:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. Please don't tell me this is from Jarlaxle.. I mean, that's what I'm getting from reading your response. I was thinking more along the lines of ED trolls... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it a copycat trying to get Jarlaxle in trouble, or is it Jarlaxle getting Jarlaxle in trouble...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope it's the former. I mean, it really would break my heart if Jarlaxle is still doing this. I will try to confront him directly. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I said that 'cos the IP has been editing WP:ANI, not cos I thought it was JA ... but it's in the same DSL DHCP pool as JA, and there's no handy crossover of times to clear his name. Are there any other usernames you suspect of being the same person (JA or imitator)? I think a word with JA would be in order - David Gerard 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Could you check to see if User:Werxaddamill. Your welfare bill or User:63.19.195.125 are sockpuppets of User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes or each other? Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu: OMFG!

Looks like South Park's creators have been reading Xenu! We can expect a lot more traffic to that article and Scientology, thanks to the latest episode shown in the States. See http://thenicsperiment.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-another-reason-to-find.html ....-- ChrisO 00:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They knew what they were doing. Here's our summary: Trapped in the Closet (South Park). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that ep. It was pretty damned funny. Do you think it came from our article? There were noticable differences between the scientology story on south park and hte one in our Xenu article. &rarr;Raul654 05:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been all over the media from our article, as is evident from phrases and sentences lifted word-for-word. As the writer of many of them, I'm most pleased ;-) If the South Park version included any phrases directly from the article that aren't LRH quotes (and even if they are), then I'd think it likely they at least saw it - David Gerard 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating Experiment

Is this headed in the right direction, you think? Please comment at Template talk:Rating and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template: Rating Tom Haws 06:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's premature. It would put the ratings straight into a use before we've seen what people tend to do with them. Also, I see what you're trying to do with "elementary-school-safe" and why we could benefit greatly from it, but quite a lot of people see just the bald tag as horribly POV, and I can see their point. Plus, there's good reasons ratings are per version not per article - you can say something about a given version, but tomorrow your elementary-school-safe article might say "MR HENDERSON IS GAY" - David Gerard 16:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Survey guidelines to Wikipedia:Straw polls merge

It's nice to see some action there, and the merger was overdue - but would you mind if I reversed the merge - i.e. moved the content from Straw polls to Survey guidelines, and made sp a redirect? Survey guidelines seems to me like a better title, and besides, the entire talk is at sg not as sp.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could do ... I specifically put it at "straw polls" rather than "survey guidelines" because the first sounds less formal. But the content of the writing is probably more important IMO - David Gerard 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the talk page over as well ;-) I'll fix the double redirects tomorrow - David Gerard 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:WEB

Does it look worse for him to delete the page rather than simply undoing to re-direct? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT - David Gerard 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think he's actually disrupting wikipedia just to prove a point.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant you. Don't be disruptive for the sake of it - David Gerard 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

check user

hi

please see my comment here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taw#check_user

Anthere 08:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bluh. I missed this simple and sensible step entirely. Will remedy - David Gerard 14:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
oki :-) thanks Anthere

User:David Gerard/1.0

hello. regarding User:David Gerard/1.0, what do you think of Wikipedia:Requests for publication? -- Zondor 14:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locking or moving articles won't fly. The marker idea (a given version is acclaimed as the "published" version) is probably more workable, but that requires software. Presumably the "published" version is in the version history; version URLs are stable, so we just need a link to that somewhere - David Gerard 14:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, when you go through the version history, a particular version, considered as marked for example, will not necessarily reflect that old version because the latest version of images and templates would be used. unless the mediawiki software needs to accomodate this by storing the oldid of the image or template or store the total raw data of that particular version. [34] -- Zondor 15:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are also a problem for the article validation feature. I've put a suggestion on m:Article validation possible problems that old versions also try to pull in the relevant version of the template, or be stored with the version numbers of any templates. I predict that will be far, far more acceptable than making any article in the main Wikipedia non-editable - David Gerard 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfool's claimed nihilartikels are 100% verifiable

He pulled a fast one on us again. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 17:06

He's enough of a dick I'll be contacting his network admins in any case - David Gerard 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Harassment_by_BrandonYusufToropov.2FYUBER_super-sockpuppet......

RE: Your message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yuber

"

****Yuber has also been fond of sockpuppetry and is absolutely certain he's far smarter than anyone else here. If new users show up and strangely start making the same edits ... - David Gerard 14:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Commons batch-upload / categorization

Hi - categorization has to be done by hand, because no tool can know what the image shows. AFAIK, all upload tools allow/force you to include an image description, which should contain source, licensing and categorisation.

I have written a tool that allows semi-automatic categorization of images, see commons:COM:VP#Semi-Automatic_categorization. Unfortunately, the server that hosts that tool, broke earlier today due to a disk failure. It may take weeks until the tool is operational again (someone has to buy new disks and get the installed at the colo in Amsterdam). Regards -- commons:User:Duesentrieb 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you may also be interested in pl:Wikipedysta:Tawbot by pl:Wikipedysta:Taw, which is designed for image uploads and uses my categorization tool. Talk to taw if you like, his english is quite good ;) -- G. Gearloose (?!) 16:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BulgarianBen

If this is indeed Wow, it will be the first time he will be trying to copy a talk page, I would like to requesta a check user on this one. I am more than curious if this person is in the UK as I only know someone who has tried to commit such an act. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a sock check!

That's right!

I want to ask for your opinion here. I was feeling brave this morning and decided to see if I could make a dent in Category:Wikipedia backlog. After looking at about 25 articles with the wikification tag attached to them, and being so disgusted with the lot as to be unable to make a *single* change, something major hit me.

We need to, as one might say, flush the crap down the toilet. Allow me to explain.

A LOT of the articles in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are so poorly written and so obscure that they have no possible use, worth or value to anyone! Jimbo himself made it clear in that interview that although Wikipedia does have some gems of articles (ie our Featured Articles), there is a rather poor signal to noise ratio. We all know that backlogs need to be cleared out, but no one is going to be able to do it without a.) time that reaches beyond time itself, b.) unlimited patience and c.) endless knowledge. In other words, to clear out the backlogs would be akin to an act of God.

I know you know what I'm thinking, David. I want to nuke a ton of articles in the backlog. Things like this may have a place on Wikipedia, but *not* in their current form. If these things are important enough, they can be tagged as such and someone can be given it to work with. But I want to delete a lot of articles.

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from other users concerning this. They will kneejerk to "OMG ABUSIVE ADMIN LALALALLA" and "DELETIONIST! OMG DELETIONIST!". But, we need to do something about the absolutely wretched backlogs.

Get back to me on this. Thanks. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean about some of these things making one's brane seize up solid when you're trying to work out how on EARTH to fix them.
Ones like Help the Aged deserve an article, but the true crap is eminently deletable. Most of this stuff would have to go to AFD - if it's been around long enough to tag, it's not a speedy. The important thing is not to flood AFD with articles ... 10 a day is enough.
I dunno. Getting rid of crap is a bugger because of so much perceived abuse of process on AFD anyway. You might run it past wikien-l as well, and AFD talk ...
Get a cleanup squad on the case. Recruit User:Deeceevoice, aka kosebamse on the list, for a start (she's expressed interest). It's going to take actual editorial slog, I fear. - David Gerard 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that it might require that. I need to get on wikien-l as well.. blah blah blah. Frankly, the cleanup taskforce is not where I want to look for help. I'm going to need a specialized group that is interested in *this* alone. I also can go without people doing it because it's "yet another thing to put on your userpage", if you know what I mean (I think you know the people/persons I'm talking about). This is going to be long, boring, and quite frankly unglamourous. How do I get on the wikien-l? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I like your term "metric shitload". lmao Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:-) http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l is the list info page. Post something like your rant here ;-) I've also added the Category:Articles that need to be wikified challenge to my Fix Crappy Prose Challenge. EXTREME COPYEDITING!!! - David Gerard 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Help the Aged just needed reverting, not deleting, which highlights one problem with letting admins delete this sort of thing on sight is that there would be no five day AfD period where people could check the history and make sure the page really was deletable. Angela. 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion sought

David,

You are probably aware that some nutter posted defamatory edit summaries about Bush and Jimbo lately. As we all know there are other defamation issues arising elsewhere *groan*. I created a blunt template to be put on talk pages of people who post defamatory stuff on WP. It has been used a couple of times for the nutter posting the child abuse allegations against Jimbo and Bush. I'd welcome your opinion. It is called {{defban}} FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - legal warning

You have been blocked from editing for posting potentially defamatory claims on Wikipedia edit summaries.

Wikipedia does not tolerate the posting of such claims on its website and takes such posting seriously. All defamation posted in edit summaries is removed from the Wikipedia website and deleted from records and archives. Those who post it are immediately banned from the site and may be reported to their server. If a computer in an educational establishment was used to post that claim then that establishment may be informed. You are reminded that defamation is an offence in law.

Under Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act, which governs Wikipedia, Wikipedia cannot be sued for the defamation you post. But YOU can be. Your server may be able to trace your edits back to you. The person you defamed could get a court order to require that the server release your name, and then sue you personally for defamation in the courts.

Remember: You put yourself at serious risk of a prosecution under the laws of defamation for any defamation you deliberately post.

Note: to any visitors here. This template is being shown as an example. It is not being directed against David!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does juriwiki-l say? - David Gerard 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnwb's RfA

David, Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude.

On a personal note: while I'm here, I wanted to mention that I was a big fan of Party Fears, which became one of the inspirations for me to start my own fanzine in the early '90s - Misuse. Cnwb 23:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion

Since you were mentioned there in responce to my querry, I thought I could ask you for a comment on this issue. Section is (so far) fairly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My law

Perhaps you would like to comment on my law? The probability of being a target for trolling and harassment is inversely proportional to the user's tolerance of stupidity. Yes/no? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to give that one some thought ;-) - David Gerard

Re: IRC

You have your opinions. I have mine. For me, until certain parties behavior improves, I will continue to hold my opinion. Perhaps if you were as persecuted by this bunch as I have been, you'd feel differently. --Durin 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sortan

Has anyone run a sockpuppet check to see if Sortan and the blocked impostor Jguk. (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) are connected? Also, although it may be a coincidence, did you know that “Sortan” is Finnish for “I am a bully”? - Susvolans

Sortan and the blocked impostor don't appear to be in the same geographical area - David Gerard 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Jguk." account appears to have been run by CDThieme, along with a mess of other socks. See WP:ANI#CDThieme_sockpuppetry - David Gerard 11:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PM

Just heard you on PM, great interview! Thank god the article on PM was of good quality. Dmn 17:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Very cool. Well done. User:Noisy | Talk 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dershowitz and Radio 4

Your comments about how "anyone can still edit" on Radio 4 don't mesh with what's happening on the Alan Dershowitz article. It seems like it's heading towards admin-only editing, and letting vandals and legal threats dictate articles - Xed 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been a case of almost anyone can edit almost any article at almost any time. I must say, the proposed experiment on Dershowitz caused me to raise an eyebrow, and I suspect I'll be diving in to participate. Anyone else can still suggest additions on the talk page, and I hope they will do so - I'm sure there are some excellent and well-sourced NPOV things to say - David Gerard 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your eyebrow may raise higher when you see BRIAN0918's explanation here: Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#Deleted_revisions - Xed 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo on the BBC!

Someone on IRC directed me to the tail end of your BBC radio interview. Bravo, good sir! I enjoyed your more down-to-earth and realistic interpretation of the events and questions involved in the interview, and it was cool that you descrived the nuts that add things to articles as what they are... well, you described them as "nutters", but I'll let that slide because of that big ocean between us causing language difficulties. :P Anyway, that interview was awesome! :) Mo0[talk] 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I didn't catch the interview live, but just heard it on the website. Excellent work, and hopefully this will help clear up a few of the myths that have been doing the rounds recently. the wub "?!" 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good interview David well done! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 09:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK

Do you know where James F has gone? He's changed our draft MoA and AoA to pdf, and then scapa'd! A number of us are edging towards incorporation - we just need the final tweaks to James's draft put through and for the MoA and AoA to be reviewed by a charity lawyer and we'll be ready to incorporate. By the way, well done on PM! jguk 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no idea - hit his email, I guess, or hope he's on IRC. Pinging the email list might also help. I'll let him know if I spot him - David Gerard 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg

Please note I just deleted this media file as copyvio. --Avatar-en 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought it was on shaky ground for Commons. I've got a copy on my own webspace: http://static.rocknerd.org/david/DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg - David Gerard 08:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quitting Thing

Yeah, I just assumed that I had lost face and would have to do things that would make me have to leave in order to make things work out and blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the intervention, here's a barn star for your trouble, my friend. Please let me know if I can help out in the future. karmafist 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More bad templates

Some new so-called "logical" templates are being created (see Category:If Templates and Category:Boolean Templates) by a couple "clever" individuals who've found a way to hack the template mechanism into doing things it was not intended for. Rather than petition the MediaWiki developers (or write code themselves), they've put this kludge into effect and it is unfortunately growing rapidly. I'd like you to take a look at those and please comment on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Logic templates. Thanks very much. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief, those are ridiculous. You might want to drop an email to wikitech-l as well - David Gerard 16:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this... would you please comment on the talk page about the guideline status of WP:AUM. I'm having trouble communicating with the mob on the Talk page that are unaware of the history behind it. -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a terse note - David Gerard 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which we didn't understand. – Adrian | Talk 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And wrote a suitable email to wikitech-l as well. I must say, before reading that discussion on WT:AUM, I wasn't aware that database and cache performance could be correctly estimated by taking a vote on what you'd like it to be - David Gerard 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to thank you. Unfortunately, the people that tend to gravitate to WT:AUM are most often those clever folks who create meta-templates who I've directed to read the guideline. That tends to skew the discussion, as you've seen. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the classification as a mob. – Adrian | Talk 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think this shows a desire for more functionality in the template syntax. Implemented properly, some basic logic would be quite useful. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. The demand is there big time. But, as the page says, this needs actual development work, probably involving a fair bit of computer science. Just because someone wants a clever hack and can do it doesn't make it a good idea! - David Gerard 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a really unspeakable template on the main page of Uncyclopedia: Uncyclopedia:Template:Wotd. I think it uses three or four levels of metatemplating. And I put it there. MUWAHAHAHA! God help me. I marked it clearly in the wikitext so we know what to remove if needed! Moral: Metatemplates are OK for good reasons if you know the dangers and/or you are on crack - David Gerard 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hi! I came across your name when trying to find out how to report an obvious number of duplicate/sock puppet accounts which have been recently created (all within about three minutes of each other). I hope this is the correct way to report this kind of thing....

They all appear to be quite obviously linked... because it's a strange coincidence otherwise! HowardBerry 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be blocked as a sockpuppets (or at least impersonators) of WoW. The first one has already been blocked. Jonathunder 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I blocked them all by shutting down 63.19.128.0/17 ... if you do happen to get around to looking at the IPs behind these, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't start with 63.19 (the "North Carolina Vandal"). I wrote a bit about it on AN/I. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More (belated) well done on PM

I just heard the interview: well done! The Land 11:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:book reference without if

Hi David

If we shut down usage of if in template:book reference and template:web reference I see no way than shutting down those too. That's what also Netoholic want's, right.

What would you propose to do with template:book reference. It's already used on about 3000 articles and I by myself have applied it on my own small list of articles. I can edit them to old-style by hand, no problem. But what should we do with that other few thousands of articles. Subst does not work. The substed code just contains a bunch of qif's. Netoholic tried that on Albert Einstein (see [35]). So to remove uses of book reference a bot would be needed that simulates book reference, I think. The other problem is that there might be some disagreement among editors. There will be also some disappointed people (me too).

At least I would propose a calm respectful style to speak with the people around template:book reference and template:web reference. This would be far more helpful than how Netoholic did. And blaming if as ridiculous isn't helpful either. People have invented that in good faith. I think it would be advisable to respect that.

And this was just book reference. There are other templates too. That's a far more subtle thing than just roaring on some peoples user pages or blaming if for beeing the antichrist... – Adrian | Talk 21:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

meta templates

I made some investigation of the source code, and would like your comment on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Another_view →AzaToth 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser: User:jguk and User:SmokeDog

User:jguk has claimed publically that User:SmokeDog is one of his socks[36]. Due to a currently ongoing incident where I believe he intended to circumvent his Arbcom block using User:SmokeDog, I am contemplating blocking SmokeDog indefinitely. But I wanted to get a CheckUser done on them first, to make sure. Thanks. Nandesuka 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted many a time that SmokeDog is a sometimes used alternative account of mine - and anyone's free to check its contributions - it's never been used disruptively and it has more featured lists to its name than any other account!
I must say I'm really fed up at Wikipedia's continual preference for trolls over long-established editors. I've been hounded for a long time by a number of WPians (who may all be one WPian for all I know) who have no history of making substantive edits, but despite that, are given more credence on WP than established content providers. Like most prolific contributors, I spend my efforts on WP improving it and making edits. But it seems if you run into trolls you get walloped by ArbCom (and I've never read the case I'm up against as I was away on business whilst it was decided and never had time) and portrayed in the worst light. It's no surprise we lose so many good editors to trolls - the trolls always win!
Kind regards, jguk 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you don't read your talk page, either. Look, the quality of your edits really isn't at issue. What's at issue is your unwillingness to comply with a really simple restriction. Maybe the guy who busted you in this matter is a really terrible, horrible, awful, no-good, bad person. Stranger things have happened. But you have an Arbcom decision against you, you've been warned not to violate it, and you've been blocked for violating it before. This is nobody's fault but your own. Cut it out.Nandesuka 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and merging

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bread Making. You have a good point and I probably should have merged/redirected the article in the first place. Is it considered acceptable on Wikipedia to redirect an existing article while the AfD is underway, or is that considered a disruption of the AfD process? Tim Pierce 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes ;-) It's the appropriate thing, and some process fetishists will consider it disruptive. Do it anyway as the blindingly obvious thing to do. Merge/redirect rather than five days of AFD needs to be encouraged! - David Gerard 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can live with that. Thanks for your feedback! Tim Pierce 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology centers

The information you're coming up with is good, but it would be better if each center had its own article, with the detail you're adding to the list put there, and the list only contain links to the articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of breaking up anyway. The list is useful for research purposes. Not many are so notable as to deserve their own article - Saint Hill is one that is - but breaking it up by Scientology "continent" should make each list manageable and is actually a very topic-relevant split for those trying to figure out WTF Scientology gets up to. I just so wish the original article hadn't sucked so much ... - David Gerard 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curpsbot-unicodify

This bot is mass-changing HTML entities to unicode glyphs. To me, this changes wikisource so that it's harder to edit and harder to read, especially since it changes dashes and quote types that cannot be distinguished visually (or are hard to). I have seconded a request for the bot to be stopped, and draw your attention to the matter, should it interest you. Demi T/C 23:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possible sockpuppets

Could you please check User:Astriolok and User:Vertaloni for sockpuppetry? They have been involved in an edit war with other editors on Arabic numerals and I had to block other editors for violating WP:3RR. However, these two users have the same writing and editing style and I have a suspicion that these could be sockpuppets (I understand from the talkpages of other warring editors that they too have the same suspicion). Could you kindly confirm? Pl. reply on my talkpage. Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*POKE*

Are you on IRC? I need to go to breakfast soon, but if we can chat for a moment or two that'd be good. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

regarding User:CDThieme

hey David Gerard, this user has been outed as a sockpupett [37] by you User:CDThieme, he has removed all sockpupett tags on his user page, is that allowed? is he also allowed to be active on wikipedia again, what is the proper procedure/rules? with kind regards... Gryffindor 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The sock tags should go on the socks' pages. Check for edits by CDThieme or by any of the socks, though, and lock the user and talk pages if he's trying to remove them. He is entirely allowed to be on Wikipedia again - and I hope he's had a good think and will NOT ACT LIKE SUCH A DICK again. (He pretty much single-handedly killed Haukurth's admin nomination, for example.) - David Gerard 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unicodify bot and mdash/ndash

It does not change mdash/ndash (unless a flag is set manually, which I keep turned off). It did change them in its very earliest edits (months ago), but not since then. -- Curps 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good! They really are a problem to distinguish in the typical monospaced text edit box ... and I am using Firefox on Linux with the full Unicode salad - David Gerard 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn inclusionists :P

WP:TFD#Template:Routeboxint --SPUI (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have begged for it to be shrunk at the least! - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi David Gerard, Thank you for your support on my RFB. I withdrew it with a final vote of 14/5/2 and am planning on wait awhile before possibly re-applying. Thanks again for your vote. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consumerpedia deletion

Hi David,

You voted keep on Consumerpedia. I have lodged a comment on that page disagreeing. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

DanKeshet 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is certainly convincing ;-) - David Gerard 12:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Palmer (Avatar)

As you seem to be connected with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, I figured you might like to know that something seems to be up with this article, and maybe you can shed some light. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange email for more details. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's someone who doesn't like his Wikipedia bio. Since the article is unreferenced, we really should do something about it. But rather than blank or remove it, I'll be asking about for sources - David Gerard 12:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85

Hi there David, Im Moe Epsilon. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? — Moe ε 18:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPOV and NPOV

Hi David, are you interested in looking at a specific example of the problem? Am I just paranoid, that Reddi's edits in Scalar field theory give me bad dreams? Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2#Statement by Pjacobi. --Pjacobi 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd resolved the insane bullshit trying to vote science off the island problem in WMC ... argh. - David Gerard 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Sockpuppets

Hi,

You don't know me, but we are having a dispute on Wiktionary here about whether Grye and Methodology are my sockpuppets or not. They are users of both wikis, and I was wondering if it would be possible to check the users's true IP addresses here in order to prove that they're not me. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Sincerely,

Primetime 12:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rockets

Your comments at the above named AFD indicate that you can populate a disambiguation page for "The Rockets" with at least 3 entries.

So here you are. =)

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Policylist

Sounds workable to me. Cool Cat, you should go through and do this.

That will also mean we can feel freer to play with the template. I've just done a substantial refactoring of it - see Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 13:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it sometime today, need to run now. take a look at the discussion on the template talk page. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Policylist done. All comented out :o --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election process and concern

Hello. I wish I was writing to you under better circumstances, but how relevant was this? Yes: it was an abortive attempt that I still support, but accepted the decisions of the ArbCom without dispute. Herein: I and others are merely and genuinely trying to develop a ruleset for an effective election process (indicated by Jimbo) this year and to do so with the goal of consensus or some rules – whatever they are – KM initiated contact with me recently and expressed solitary dissent and has otherwise not participated in the discussions.

Fine, but your recollection of this is analogous to other users (for example) dredging up another current Arbitrator's disbarment in public life (and I won't name names), so I believe this is an attempt to obfuscate one prior issue with the current one: to sully the process and to sling mud. Lastly, I'm not running for the ArbCom and do not desire it ... and I still believe KM's actions (IMHO) constitute a conflict of interest. So who's taking it personally? I neither desire nor request a response from you, but I find your act highly distasteful. E Pluribus Anthony 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Five editors total (including you) commented on your overelaborate suggestion. Kelly pointed out that you can't pull "consensus" out of thin air and you went complaining to the board about her. What on earth? It may not be sour grapes, but if not then it bears an unfortunate close resemblance. Read m:instruction creep and take its message to heart. (And please don't extend it.) - David Gerard 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all about 'instruction creep' (et al.) and this is addressed in the ruleset and later comments: it is meant to prevent additional instruction creep (as some would say occurred last year) and to be a basic set of rules for the process and to make it more manageable – nothing more.
Five editors – who partook in discussions on the talk pages – is better that none ... more than what KM did and who hasn't commented at all on the talk pages regarding Jimbo's 2nd proposal. (It would've been good if KM and you did.) Wikipedia is dynamic and developing rules no less so. Effectively, KM went to Anthere through the back door amidst this, and that rightly deserves my comments to Anthere about her and your actions. I'm just a regular Wikipedian who initiated a prior case erroneously (and with all the feedback garnered), has put it behind me, and I'm attempting to formulate rules to ensure an effective process: KM – on the current ArbCom (a possible conflict of interest) – and you have dealt with this improperly and you in a rather dispirited manner.
So, what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. And that still doesn't justify your wholly distasteful act. E Pluribus Anthony 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your grapes are exceedingly far from sweet - David Gerard 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. E Pluribus Anthony 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church Talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionals

Hi, after the reecent events by the contitional tempaltes, which I understand is not the best solution, I have made a pice of code to incoorperate such functionality direct to the parser, trying to make it as fast and light as possible. It's located at m:User:AzaToth/Logic, and I would like your comment. →AzaToth 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in fact a coder! I am however a sysadmin, though not for Wikimedia ... I know User:Jamesday hates the conditionals, per WT:AUM. The thing for you to do with your code is to go to #wikimedia-tech and talk to Brion, TimStarling and/or Jamesday about it and see if (1) the functionality has a hope of heck of going in (2) they like the code. qif is powerful, but wikitext becoming Turing-complete would be a really horrible thing to happen - David Gerard 20:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ment to be turing-complete :), I have not implemented any loops becaus I think they are totally useless. I first exanimed the event when you want to displat certain information based and parameters and their eventual values. The arthimentics is perhaps not always useful, but it can be handy if you want to be able to calculate a specific size of an object, or for example calculate colspans etc., for map I have templates as {{main}} as a point, join is just a simpler variant. and switch is for example a rose is red so we want the color red here. →AzaToth 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you get into #mediawiki right now, they're discussing this - David Gerard 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do IRC behind this firewall, is there any chance this could be discussed out here in the open where we can all see what's going on? —Phil | Talk 08:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Point

Hi. There is clearly misunderstanding about what WP:Point really means, highlighting the need for a clear statement of the rule at the top of the page. Would you mind reinstating some kind of banner with your interpretation of the rule? Stevage 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It means "don't disrupt by advocating things you don't want to happen", which should still be in the text itself.
Mere disruption is frequently just fine and in fact a good thing, per WP:IAR. Keeping in mind of course that WP:IAR is to be treated with the caution due a stick of dynamite, and if you piss everyone off too much you'll learn about actions and consequences. But en: is strangling in bureaucracy at present and most of it needs an enema - David Gerard 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:IAR is not an official policy/guideline. You may be right about WP needing an enema, but I'm not sure that removing my uncontroversial statement of the rule (my statement was almost the same as the title of the page, save that I used "interrupt" rather than "disrupt" and added "normal functioning") from the page was the right way to express that. I'd rather you put the box back, even if you do change the wording to something you're more happy with. Stevage 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re Talk:List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number

Were you aware we have an entire category of lists of Pokémon?

Some days I just can't believe all the cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, this image brought it back again - David Gerard 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the recent situation...what happens now?

I am feeling distinctly battered under the barrage of ire sparked by the current controversy over logical templates. My personal situation is that I have encountered Netoholic before, when he was wielding WP:AUM like a spiky stick, just before he was banned from the Wikipedia name-space, and this has since coloured my perceptions of his activities somewhat. I was aware that the current implementation of {{if}} was unwieldy and inefficient and I thought that replacing it with the rather elegant {{qif}} sounded like a good thing.

When Neto started in with his usual "you're violating WP:AUM" line, I thought that it was simply his usual intimidation tactics, trying to get his personal hobby-horse treated like policy, when it had specifically failed to be promoted to such status.

So now I find that actually he is seen to be in the right, even if his methods of putting his message across make good old Oswald Moseley seem calm and reasonable, and that all of us who have been trying to make a bad thing slightly less bad are now seen to be in the wrong.

So now I'm feeling like crap and wondering whether I've been wasting my time the last few weeks, now that Neto has, so far as it appears from here, been allowed to get away with intimidation and bad manners. His most "helpful" suggestion so far has been to eschew the use of templates and to instead hand everything over to his bot, allowing him to do the job which could previously have been done by any user through templates. I want to edit Wikipedia myself, thanks, not have to work through some other user whose agenda I simply do not trust.

I'm now wanting to discover whether I should be going ahead with using {{qif}} to replace more unwieldy templates like {{if}} and {{if defined call3}}, or should we simply revert to not using templates at all? Or is there some middle ground we could attempt to find?

Yours, slightly bruised, Phil | Talk 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you to please extend Netoholic some slack, gritted as your teeth might have to be at times. Netoholic was arguably right, but still sometimes interacts with the social skills of someone who hasn't any, and has pissed off SO many people this way they are less inclined to extend him the assumption of good faith. (I didn't realise this was what was going on until I was writing up his arbitration case evidence and remedies and realised he was not actually malicious, but just REALLY CRAP at convincing people when he was in fact arguably 100% right. This changed my entire view of him.
In this particular case, he had the sense to ask me and Snowspinner to help with the diplomatic interaction (that he asked Snowspinner is amazing and cheering itself, given the history) and Jamesday (who is the Wikimedia DBA) to chime in.
I did ask him to send the bot my way as then I can take responsibility for its actions and argue the case for what I tell it to do.
The devs quite clearly stated "Meta-templates suck and are horrible. We haven't disabled them altogether because of various important uses, but they still suck. Get coding if you want to fix this." Some people discovered they could make fantastically useful conditional templates and tried to get WP:AUM taken out of even being a guideline by "consensus" on WT:AUM ... that is, faith-based computer science, where DB and cache performance is determined by a vote. You can appreciate I boggled at this.
I think this is likely to be from similar experiences to mine with Neto, who has previously represented "I don't like this style of doing things" as "this is really dangerous and will destroy Wikipedia": people simply assumed that he was up to the same tricks. His attempts to have WP:AUM made into a guideline were practically text-book examples of how to lose friends and influence people negatively. Unfortunately his most recent invocations of that guideline-now-policy were simply more of the same, and were received in much the same spirit as before (i.e. fsck off and bother someone else who is actually a vandal). —Phil | Talk 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The conditionals are fantastically useful and people REALLY WANT THEM. But they are also a horrible kludge.
My question stands: should we be replacing the totally horrendous {{if}} with the still horrible but functional and arguably more efficient {{qif}}, or are we supposed to just sit there whilst Neto and his pals tear down all the hard work which people have contributed? —Phil | Talk 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Last night there was deep discussion of conditionals as Mediawiki builtins on #mediawiki. The danger of extending template syntax is making wikitext Turing-complete, which means that any article text could in fact be active code. Any user of Microsoft email products should be able to tell you the dangers of active data (I predict the moment it's possible, some clever-clogs will write a Mediawiki virus to prove a point). So it depends whether the feature gets past Brion. I have no idea of his thoughts on the matter.
I myself certainly don't want anything more than embedding {{qif}} (preferably actually named if:-) and {{switch}} in wikicode: more than that would indeed be taking the p*ss. Who the hell needs loops‽.
I see you have mentioned AzaToth's code on the technical mailing list: it looks interesting, although I don't know how much we need arithmetic, and some of the terminology is too language specific (I would have to look up what the map function does, for example). Maybe see you there for a bit of code review ;-)? —Phil | Talk 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when I'll next be on IRC, but we could probably have a chat about this and I'll see if I can't come up with some verbal Arnica for the bruises - David Gerard 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above (sorry, buried in amongst it all) I can't do IRC where I am. It's slightly odd: if I bring my laptop and connect to the office proxy server, I can do just about anything I damn like. However, if I use this machine, which has a named account and should therefore (you would have thought!) be able to do more, I simply cannot get an IRC connection: the fscking proxy server bounces me with extreme prejudice. Since it's a pain and a pest to lug my laptop to and from home, I just use the supplied workstation, but I therefore can't do IRC. I can do Windows Messenger, and I think I might be able to manage Google Talk (haven't had anybody to test it with yet). Whatever, thanks for the soothing words: I was feeling like a naughty child for a while, and couldn't figure out what on earth I'd been doing that was so wrong… Cheers —Phil | Talk 13:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the plan for Template:Qif?

I note from here that Neto has passed the ball on his campaign against {{qif}} to you. There's nothing on the talk page which might give any clue as to what he was intending to do. I would like to know what the plan is, in order to avoid tripping over your toes, and frankly to decrease my Wiki Stress. (As Harry Dresden says: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a demon just around the corner waiting to rip your face off". ;-)) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about what to do about the accursed thing. I'd like to know what the plans are wrt conditionals in Mediawiki myself before proceeding though. Might try to catch a higher dev on IRC later - David Gerard 15:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy templates

Hi there! You've stated several times that those iffy templates are horrible but their functionality is kept enabled because of some important issues. Since I haven't been able to locate any, I was wondering what issues you refer to. And I trust I can get your vote on our poll to modify Planck's constant? Radiant_>|< 16:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all citation references templates are using qif, {{main}}/{{see}} and {{see also}} uses it. {{language}} will crash completly without it →AzaToth 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For a group that was so "clever" as to come up with this in the first place, it's too bad the proponents of qif have so far shown no interest in finding solutions which support the developer's request. All of those templates worked before... -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should check your facts before you accuse peoples? →AzaToth 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*aaaaahem* That turns out not to be the case - AzaToth in particular has written code to make conditionals a Mediawiki builtin, as noted above on this talk page - David Gerard 17:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the bull-headed lack of willingness to use the current template methods to satisfy WP:AUM... hypothetical MediaWiki changes to templates have been proposed long ago and many times since. I firmly believe that the existing functionality can achieve solutions for 99% of templates and so adding convoluted conditional code to template syntax is a mistake because it is a barrier to the average editor. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of us are trying; it tends to be a lot of work, though, so many users won't bother until you go and kill something important ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. I'd like to hold off on the bot-substing of qif until we know if the conditionals have any hope of going in; if they do, then the bot can change qif to whatever that is, and everyone will be happy - David Gerard 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (from the note here) that qif broke when subst'ed. Is that no longer the case? —Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea ... I asked brion and jamesday on #wikimedia-tech a short while ago and they are very wary of extending the mediawiki syntax too far. I strongly suggest fans of conditional templates get on channel and/or on wikitech-l and ask in detail what to do about this, Brion is The Man when it comes to what goes in or doesn't - David Gerard 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is maddening. Someone offers to fix the problem, offers a verifiable solution, and the devs are still stonewalling. Are they trying to make things as hard for Wikipedia editors as possible? If this proposal is turned down, then I don't ever want to hear anything again about "voting down Newton's law" or anything of the kind. This is a deliberate choice to limit functionality for no reason. Firebug 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are trying to make things as easy for Wikipedia editors as possible. MediaWiki functionality is intentionally made simple, so that you don't need programming experience to understand/write it. Allowing everyone to edit seems to me an excellent reason for limiting functionality. [[Sam Korn]] 10:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood. It is indeed possible to edit Wikipedia knowing no wikicode syntax at all. You simply type your text in and it works just fine. All that formatting stuff is purely optional: someone else can come along later and do the complicated stuff like formatting and linking. Mediawiki takes care of the work-flow element: it allows editors of differing levels of skill to work together, accessing different tool-sets. It does not mean that we should all be limited to the tool-set appropriate for the rawest newbie. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, {{qif}} specifically depends on the feature thoroughly documented here. Its reaction to being SUBSTituted would be catastrophic. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is evil

I'm tired of seeing discussion on IRC referred to. I cannot get IRC where I am. I could not join IRC at the requisite times anyway. Why can these discussions not be held on Wikipedia where everybody can see what is going on and contribute at a time appropriate to them? —Phil | Talk 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is evil, yes. There's wikitech-l, or indeed emailing and asking directly. I mention IRC because it's by far the most reliable way of getting hold of Brion, Tim and Jamesday, or indeed the devs, to find out what they think of something! They pretty much live on IRC - David Gerard 11:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A glimpse of one possible future...

How about entire articles consisting of just templates? -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, make it stop :( Agnte 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
***SPORK*** - David Gerard 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few of those (like this one). They're usually not that long, though. I recall, incidentally, that there was once a CSD that allowed the deletion of any article consisting of only a template. —Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's not a good CSD criterion IMO. At all. A template-only stub is better than no article at all if it's completing a set, and particularly if it's an infobox - David Gerard 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD policy

Thought you might like to take a look at this given your comments on WP:DRV recently: Wikipedia:GNAA deletion policy. —Locke Cole 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

David - I'd appreciate another person helping to ease tensions on Template talk:Infobox Company (between Netoholic and Andreus) Raul654 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking later today - David Gerard 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Can you please assist with Template:Infobox Company? I've been trying to make changes in line with WP:AUM, but there is one editor who keeps reverting. He's got a bug up his ass because he happens to be the first editor of that template and has an odd affinity for some excess whitespace. See the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 03:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"bug up his ass" is an unduly antagonistic way of putting things ;-) I'll have a look some time today

(Copyed over from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question )

[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed, original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
I find this a LITTLE bit scary in it's wider implications --82.195.137.125 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]
Also completely wrong. Of course it fucking applies. Perhaps they could work with the National Gallery on this one - David Gerard 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Better idea David could you see your way to making your case to them (I have already made mine)? Here is contact page http://appi.org/permissions.cfx and post any results here? "Inclined" is, to my mind, a word that is still open to negotiation --82.195.137.125 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]
I probably wouldn't do so myself - I'd be personally tempted to ignore them as being obtuse about copyright - but it would be a good thing to bring to the attention of the Foundation, which you've done. The foundation-l mailing list would also be appropriate - David Gerard 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter McConaughey

Hi David, I know you left a message for Peter asking him to cool it, so if you have a chance, could you review Peter's latest comment [38]. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks - David Gerard 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance on Infobox Single

I was fixing this infobox to remove a meta-template, but stumbled on a function called "Reviews". I've posted on Template talk:Infobox Single that I don't believe that the feature is encyclopedic, and in fact could be/is being used as an effective linkspam mechanism. A vast majority of the Reviews point to allmusic.com... which I'm sure appreciates the business we are sending them.

I tried to disable the feature in the template, but it's turning into a revert war with one of the locals. Can you poke your nose in? -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise leaving the template alone for now and discussing it on the talk page — it doesn't matter if it's not fixed tomorrow. Is it possible to add nofollow to a URL by choice in Mediawiki?
Personally I'm not sure about linking to any old review, but that's an editorial judgement consideration, which I've also discussed - David Gerard 10:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One line summaries

On wikien-l you seemed to tentatively support (20/12 1:22AM london time I believe) the idea of guidelines having a one-line summary at the top, which could then be reproduced at WP:RULES to make a guideline set that can be read in a minute. I have now added such summaries at Wikipedia:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Build the web and Wikipedia:Subpages. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the worthiness of this task, and its execution! Stevage 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good one! You're right. I've added such a box to WP:POINT as well - David Gerard 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will take this as encouragement to add more boxes to more guidelines and policies. Stevage 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. You were right and I was wrong :-) - 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have run into opposition at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy (as I was of course bound to). Ensuing discussion on the talk page there and at Template talk:Guideline one liner. Your advice very much appreciated! Stevage 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail...

...email that is. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber and such

Yep, I don't really care if he's blocked indef or not, I just figured that he'd never learn his lesson and stop doing that, and that nobody would care enough that he was indeffed. Maybe i'm wrong, and we'll all be happier for it, but quite frankly I don't have enough energy to tutor that obnoxious fool and I don't trust the chaos of Wikipedia to keep enough of an eye on him to change anything since this is the third time he's done this.

It's kind ironic, I heard that Fred Bauder is trying to desysop me on the Mailing List, despite the fact that the same thing happened to him more or less. I wonder if it wouldn't be a better thing sometimes, letting the POTWs and Kmwebers win just to show the hypocrisy of how Wikipedia governs itself now. At this rate they will IMO. And anything like what Fred Bauder or Kelly Martin would want(basically seeing me as a perpetrator rather than an admin doing what needs to be done) would probably drive me from Wikipedia in a kind of Wiki-seppuku. karmafist 19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response notes and they read like you were at 11 on an anger scale of 1 to 10, which is what people like Kurt and Pigsonthewing do to normal editors. As I said, I've been there with Kurt ... We'll see how it goes. Maybe he will be blocked by popular disgust next week, maybe not. I hope not - David Gerard 19:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's kind of ironic, CBDunkerson says that alot when defending POTW. Ultimately, my problem isn't with POTW or Kmweber, but the way they behave and are treated for that behavior. No offense, but the arbcom as a whole seems to do nothing about it, and everybody seems to scared to take people like that on despite the fact that policies/guidelines/whatever holding Wikipedia together right now are paper thin. I have no qualms with indef blocking Kmweber or seeing him blocked for anything more than a month. Anything below that won't do anything other than setting up another block since he doesn't seem to want to learn.
I don't care, whatever. I'm not worried about such things anymore, if I see Kmweber doing the same thing again once he comes back, i'll block him once again, and I assume this will start all over. karmafist 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you block him indefinitely all you will do is cause arguments and disruption. Repeated 24 hour blocks tend to be more effective anyway. Plus indefinite blocks on usernames don't even work. The autoblocker only blocks for 24 hours. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Kurt blows it again I'll cry no tears because he'll have done it to himself with the best chance I can possibly organise for him to have made good - David Gerard 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I'll try to let you guys deal with it and try not to say "I told you so" too loudly when he goes back to doing this. I'd also suggest making part of his punishment mandatory Mentorship. I have little to no interest in getting chided for trying to save Wikipedia from itself anymore. I'll head back to my little corner of things. karmafist 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you (Karmafist and David Gerrard): Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Exhibition case" of VfD

Hi David.

If you want a classic exhibition case of how VfD is hopelessly broken, and the undeletion process even worse, then carefully read Talk:Gil Student. Pay attention to the details.

Here we have "notability" used as the ulterior motive for the deletion of a page about someone whom whose opinions on an entirely separate matter offend the nominator. The bad faith of the nominator is clearly proven in the article's edit history, if you look at the article's history diffs carefully, but of course they can no longer be read by non-admins like myself (which is another reason the nominator pushed for it to be deleted as quickly as possible).

This one is also a thriller: An ultra-Orthodox Jewish Wikipedia user succeeds in getting an article deleted about a rabbi who stoodcause up against a bann on books by Jewish creationists, and was central to an internet led revolt against many of the leading rabbinic figures in today's world (who promulgated the bann). He also republished the banned books after their regular commercial publisher discontinued them because of the bann. (They now sell better than ever...)

Is it possible to make at least the history of this article viewable again even without the VfD mob scene?

If you want to use this as a classic case of the idiocy of VfD (the admin clearly had no idea what he was doing, deleted in the midst of a serious debate, and also couldn't care less) then please do! Dovi 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dog Album/Bootleg

Hello Mr. Gerard,

Just wondering... why so little patience? Neither WP, nor Mr. Snoop Dog, will die if the debate at DRV cotinues; in fact, if it is a bootleg, Mr. Snoop Dog might rather it go. Consensus is a good thing, and comes not from a single individual's mind. Happy Holidays, Xoloz 15:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because claiming that it MUST stay deleted because of an erroneous speedy is process top-heavy enough that it's a Bad Thing. DRV has a bad enough case of process over product as is - David Gerard 17:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only some folks made that claim, and the debate was still in progess. You might get more cooperation from some folks (like me, I'm really more inclusionist), if you let the debate FINISH before ignoring it. It might have come out your way naturally, and everybody's happy. You can always act unilaterally afterwards, if you must. By ending incomplete discussions, quite frankly, you just make yourself look peevish. Peevish people in high places (you're still on Arbcom for a few days) make WP look bad. Speaking solely for myself, I have limited my involvement with and support of the project because I question the capacity of some folks in important positions to act calmly. I can handle disagreement just fine, but "taking the ball and going home" reminds me of a playground, not an encyclopedia. For the good of this place, I again ask you to exercise wisdom, and refrain from acting unilaterally (at the very least) until you have no alternative. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop again

Can I ask you to visit this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1. You seem to be a reasonable person. Lajbi 17:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection reminder

When semi-protecting a page, please add {{sprotect}} to the top of the page and list it at WP:PP. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP would be I forgot, oops! - David Gerard 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, David Gerard/archive 3! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

zomg+4This user is an integral member of the sekret IRC cabal. Flee.

Merry Christmas David!

As my friend, I present you with your very own super-duper userbox for Christmas. Talk to you over IRC in a few days! Kind regards, Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Fabulous! - David Gerard 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regforafd

Hey man, I blocked him a few minutes before. There's an entry on WP:AN/I about it, I believe he may be a sock of Mailer diablo, which sucks because Mailer is a good contributor. karmafist 23:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and apparently you said something over there already. This keeps on happening, I feel like it's only a matter of time lately, so I started this page. karmafist 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eek! You were 100% right something askance was up, but the action was extreme ... there's people watching WP:ANI all the time, so noting there's something you think is extremely dodgy going on is fine, 'cos someone else will look and shoot if confirmed - David Gerard 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "lets-vote-on-server-requirements" lobby strikes again

Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered helpful. Your assistance would be appreciated. Ambi 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socks for Christmas

David, I've replied. I think the only merry dance has been from people with CheckUser access not actually producing the kind of evidence policy requires... Dan100 (Talk) 09:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case it matters, the example Dan cited about the sockpuppet accounts voting against each other at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists was not correct; they were in fact voting in support of each other. See my reply. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that producing the checkuser evidence in sufficient detail for a third party is generally likely to be a violation of the privacy policy. That's why there are now three people who went over it; three looking and going "wtf" should hopefully be enough. I looked after Kelly emailed the AC list saying she and Jayjg had looked at it and thought "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" so I did too and went "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" - David Gerard 17:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I can butt in. 1) Wikipedia:Privacy policy states clearly that not only can you release CheckUser info but you are actually obligated to do it per user request. Given that these people are trying to prove their innocence, I think its safe to assume that you have their permission. You are therefore obligated, as in required to produce it. Failure to do so is a disruption of process (and that kinda makes sense when you think about it too). 2) What SlimVirgin says is not correct. I have documented what happened on my page User:Zordrac/Poetlister#The so-called collusion which goes over what really happened there - they didn't vote together at all and their voting habits were not connected. 3) Please, whatever you do, look at the evidence I've provided. I've spent probably 100 hours documenting this, and its only fair that you at least do me the courtesy of looking at it before you just brush it off as irrelevant and without an investigation. There are a lot of people who support this going straight to Jimbo. Go and have a look at the details of User:Zordrac/Poetlister. The explanation that they are NOT sock puppets is one hell of a lot easier to believe than the fanciful idea that they are. IMO CheckUser is irrelevant in this kind of situation, when you look at their edit histories that go back for 7 months with 0 collusion. Absolute worst case = they all gave RachelBrown their passwords in mid-November and for a week she voted as them. I am going to stick my neck out here - they only used the same IP for 2 weeks, didn't they? And they didn't all use the same IP, did they? I think I can figure that much out. So either they had a party or else she briefly used their passwords. If it was for the entire 7 months that they used the same IP, that's indeed extraordinarily surprising. But it isn't, is it? Tell me if they were using the same IPs in July. Or August. Or September. They weren't, were they? But you didn't check back that far, did you? You didn't actually investigate this at all, did you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For You Support

I wanted to tell you this since I trust you more than just about anybody on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this sounds worrying, but I don't know how much longer I can keep this up. The POTWs seem to be everywhere. I can't do anything to stop them, they keep on hurting people -- parasites contributing nothing while just preying on others. They're like insects, they keep on multiplying. But when I try to swat the insects my arms are bound by red tape. Maybe uncyclopedia will cheer me up or something. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know, I don't know how much longer I can hold out but I will do my best to do so. karmafist 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, take a holiday! Wikipedia will do fine if you, me or Jimbo were to be hit by a bus tomorrow. If you ever get that feeling like you're turning the crank that makes the wiki go round, (1) you're overdoing it (2) it'll either go round without you or not at all. My own wikistress went through the floor when I just stopped looking at my watchlist at all ... - David Gerard 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion listing

You may not have noticed that, in response to our undeletion of OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood, someone has made a mass nomination of this and many other minor Snoop Dogg albums. To me it has the appearance of a deliberate campaign to give such material the bum's rush from Wikipedia. I'm somewhat concerned about possible sock puppetry in this case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of my responses to this is to merge the material into a new article-in-progres, Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guess Who's Back?. This isn't minor material. One of the three works listed for deletion is officially credited by 50 Cent with bringing the work of the artist, who had been ditched by his record company, to the attention of Eminem, who signed him to Shady Records. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally just packing to leave on holiday tomorrow morning ... if you can't get sense out of them, I'll be able to look in a week and you can speedy undelete if there's been gross sockpuppetry involved. Since 0 has happened with the AC, I expect we'll still be in place for January at least, and I do expect to come back to deal with cases should this result in one. I expect the webcomics case to have interesting fallout whichever way it goes - David Gerard 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RefBot blocked erroneously

Please remove the block. User:RefBot has been blocked indefinitely with the current explanation "username created only to evade arbcom ruling". This is incorrect. RefBot was spun off (before the ArbCom ruling) because it has become too specialized for the utility and development account User:SEWilcoBot. Evasion also does not make sense with an account labeled as belonging to me, as the ArbCom refers to me under any account and was aware of User:SEWilcoBot. The ArbCom has also provided additional clarification [39], and you'll want to be able to monitor its activities here. (SEWilco 04:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]