User talk:Mackensen/Archive11

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Arb Comm on Kinsella, etc[edit]

Hi Mackensen. As you know better than anyone, the user (or users) posting as Arthur Ellis, Ceraurus, etc., have quite a complicated editing history. As you also know, this has resulted in a request for arbitration (here). Given that Arthur Ellis is insisting there that he posts from a bell-sympatico account, and that your report (if I understand them correctly) implies that he is in fact posting from a Magma Communications account, I wonder whether you may want to make a report there. (Or, perhaps more appropriately, be prepared to comment when the Arb Comm agrees to hear the case.) Buck ets ofg✐ 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.[edit]

Indeed you do not, and whether anyone else says it or not, you know I appreciate what you do and know just what it's like. I've blocked him for 24 hours for disruption for his overall behavior, but in particular his last comment; additionally, you deserve a public expression of thanks. As such, let me quote someone who knows exactly what he's talking about:

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to combat sockpuppetry on the CheckUser page and elsewhere. May you sleep some nights. Essjay (Talk) 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Essjay, that means a lot. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFCU decline[edit]

I posted up the RFCU for a user who is suspected to use sockpuppets, but you declined it without any sort of comment as to why. My RFCU is here, and I would like to know why the request is declined, if possible. This user is suspected to be involved at sockpuppetry for the article and AfD of the musical artist that she is supposedly representing, and after I had a message left on my talk page calling me a "twit" by one of the suspected socks I felt that the RFCU was necessary. Ryūlóng 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principally because I didn't see a serious policy violation alleged in the request. If you could provide a few more specific diffs I would be willing to re-examine the request. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, does it matter that I provide the diffs here? This is an example of one of the AfD sockpuppetry votes. The contributions of Bluecanoe, Bobj7, and Sallyroberts28 are all extremely similar in diction, and Bobj7 and Sallyroberts28 appeared the day after it was suggested to Bluecanoe that she should wait for others to contribute to her artist's article. The primacy of the edits by the users I listed are all involved with the Joseph Patrick Moore article, it's AfD, the Blue Canoe Records article, its AfD, and the creation of articles for other albums by the artist. Doctorteddynewman also contributed to the Joseph Patrick Moore article, as well as posting the same message questioning why I reverted his extreme use of external links at Joseph Patrick Moore as well as links at other pages for bassists. Ryūlóng 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see that Doctorteddynewman (talk · contribs) posted that message on his user and user talk pages, as well. Ryūlóng 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the page. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU Skipsmith[edit]

A reason for your decline would be appreciated. Please check the contributions of almost all of those accounts, I think the pattern is obvious. Thank you. -- Avi 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen[edit]

Please check my reply to you here. --ManiF 07:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006[edit]

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Report at WP:AN/I[edit]

Hello, Mackensen. I know that you carried out a user check on Yummy mummy, one of Robsteadman's sockpuppets at the time of Desakana's RfA, and that you saw the RFCUs that he (as Robertsteadman) filed against Neuropean. (Neuropean is, in my opinion, quite likely to be Count Of The Saxon Shore, who had a previous dispute with Robsteadman, but there was no evidence of policy violation, as that account was inactive, and he may have just wanted to start afresh with a new identity.) Neuropean has now left. His behaviour was certainly not impeccable, but it does seem certain that Robert was wiki-stalking him, and hurling insults at him (sockpuppet, vandal, stalker), and that it just got too much for him. Robsteadman was blocked indefinitely for trolling and disruption, after having built up a record of massive edit warring, abuse, and votestacking-sockpuppetry. He was allowed back on probation, with the new name Robertsteadman. Although I personally find Rob(ert) to be an extremely abusive and disruptive editor, I believe that I have always behaved with fairness towards him, voting to keep his article,[1] removing a taunt after his sockpuppetry was discovered,[2] removing evidence of his sockpuppetry and of his indefinite blocking from the talk page of his article[3] [4] (since it probably wouldn't be very nice for him if someone — maybe one of his students — looked up the composer Robert Steadman, and found out what his history on Wikipedia was), and on several occasions reverted vandalism or harassing messages from his user or talk pages, and asked other editors to leave him alone, despite the fact that throughout all of this, he was making hysterical accusations against me as well as against numerous others.

I feel that I should have acted more quickly, because when I saw the accusations of wiki-stalking, I took a quick look at the contributions of both editors, and it seemed to be true, but I was involved with making other posts, so I put off doing something about it. I don't think Neuropean will be back, but I'd like to feel that this can't happen again with someone else. It was completely characteristic of the way Rob(ert) used to behave with people he had been in dispute with before he was indefinitely blocked. If you have time to look at my report at AN/I, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. I know it can take a long time to read up about something that you haven't already been following fully. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to user: Syrthiss who has more information - there is much more to this than the factually inaccurate acocount being posted around WP by Ann. Robertsteadman 17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something to modify at RFCU[edit]

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rudi_Dierick, may I suggest {{MoreInfo}} in front of your comment, so its blatant that you want more info. I'd put it there, but it turns into " Additional information needed." which uses 'needed', which is a subtle alteration to how I interpret your wording if I put it there. Also, nice all-at-once whammy of the outstanding requests. Kevin_b_er 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better done now before the week gets underway. I'll see what I can do there. Thanks for the heads up. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior[edit]

First thing on signing on tonight, I discovered that we are apparently the new tag-team for disruption of Wikipedia. Given that the appropritae response to individuals disrupting Wikipedia is to ban them from doing so, I'm banning myself from RfCU. Of course, as you know, all the other checkusers on Wikipedia have already banned themselves from the page as well. In the interests of preventing further disruption, I strongly encourage you to ban yourslef from the page as well. It occurs to me that a month-long ban should be sufficient to teach us to be less disruptive in future. Essjay (Talk) 04:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love you guys. — Deckill e r 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm close to feeling that way, but not quite. If for no other reason, I refuse to abandon the clerks because they've done a stand-up job there. Otherwise...Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they have, and it pains me. However, I've had my fill of being abused for trying to help. Essjay (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you in the least. Take some much needed rest; I'll mind the store for now. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet checkuser[edit]

Thanks for checking out SynergeticMaggot and company -- you made some interesting comments. ([[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/SynergeticMaggot])

You noted geographic clusters in Australia and eastern Canada and said you thought they were mostly meatpuppets. I'm wondering if there are two alternate possibilities:

I use a cable modem. My IP address is static until I select "DHCP Release" -- then my modem removes itself from the network until I tell it to reestablish DHCP. At that point , I get a different IP address from Comcast's block of IP numbers. So one person could sit there doing this and spawn multiple users with different IP addresses -- but all in the same geographic region.
Lemurien's user page indicates he works for a Canadian ISP, VIF Internet. Their FAQ page shows they have dial-up modem locations mostly in Quebec -- how easy would it be for him to just sit in the office and give himself IP addresses from different modem pools?

In either case, new user accounts would still show up originating from the the same ISP company, although traceroutes might show different modem pools in the second scenario.

In any event, it sounds like there's not much more worth doing unless the problem returns. Thanks for your help.--A. B. 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS One minor update -- check out this diff -- hopefully he's not the sockpuppeteer/meatpuppeteer. --A. B. 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without saying too much, I was speaking in geographic terms–there are a number of different ISPs (otherwise I would have had more to go on). I understand your concerns, but for the moment there's nothing more I can do. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've got a good handle on this and I will soldier on. Thanks again. Regards, --A. B. 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser on User:Science3456[edit]

Hi Charles,

I've been cleaning up after User:Science3456 for the last few months and wondered if the CheckUser revealed any other accounts he used besides the ones listed at the request? Cheers, —Ruud 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing anything else, no, other than what was noted on the case itself. I usually list additional socks when found. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DrL#DrL[edit]

Can you take a quick second look? I am not clear whether ArbCom decisions have the force of official policy, but if so, User:MichaelCPrice pointed out that the ArbCom has clearly stated that writing about yourself is a violation. ---CH 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neh?[edit]

I have just read that you were responsible for the only deletion of a high school article. You did this despite a huge number of keep votes. You wrote a lot of self-justificatory waffle, but what it came down to was that you simply decided to delete because you personally thought the article deserved deletion. This is serious misconduct, and shows that you cannot be trusted to respect consensus. Therefore in my opinion you should not choose or be permitted to implement any decision that is supposed to be based on consensus. Landolitan 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, deletion review generally upheld my conduct (about a month ago, in fact), so I think I'll keep doing what I've been doing. What brings you here so long after the fact? Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Cyde↔Weys 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MARVEL again[edit]

Hi, you have previously checked user:MARVEL and user:True Path. It seems he got himself several new accounts to revert same the articles with, can you please check them:

Best regards, --Spahbod☼ 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and post on the relevant case and the clerks will re-open it. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i sent the request to User:MarkGallagher, who contacted you, then sent me the results. --Spahbod☼ 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it seems Mr MarkGallagher took care if the matter himself. Thank you for the help though :). --Spahbod ☼ 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone using a proxy service[edit]

I think Homey (or someone exactly like him) is using a proxy service to edit despite "leaving". See my evidence here. In brief, an IP complained on ANI about SlimVirgin in relation to New anti-Semitism; then another IP blanked it. The first IP is in the same /24 as the IP that Homey was trying to get a CU run to exonerate himself of sockpuppetry. It has no domain info, but it has the same traceroute as the second IP, which is registered to anonymizer.com. It's not an open proxy since its a subscription service, but its certainly an anonymous proxy. Do you think they should be banned? I also haven't checked the other 255 addresses in the /24 to see if there are any edits there. Is there an easy way for you to do that?

168.143.113.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
130.94.134.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Thatcher131 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I've blocked the proxy; nothing suspicious otherwise in the range. Good eye! Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think about 130.94.134.0/24? The .218 was used to edit ANI today, the .250 made some edits signing as "Sonofzion" (later used by homey to try and exonerate himself), the traceroute is the same as the proxy at 168.143.113.52, and they have the same parent org per whois (NTT America, Inc.). I'm guessing its the same proxy service. Should they be blocked now or wait for someone to misuse them? Thatcher131 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to wait for now and see what develops. I think there's reason for concern, but I'm hesistant to range block at this stage. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Homey may also have edited AN/I today as 70.48.90.54 (talk · contribs), again in an effort to cause trouble for me. It was editing about the same issues as the IPs above, and resolves to the area he lives in. I didn't request a check user because I didn't feel I had sufficient grounds, but my sense is that this is also Homey. There's a Homey trademark that was used, which I don't want to discuss publicly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg and Uninvited Company ran the original checks on Homey and Sonofzion and might know more about his usual IPs. Thatcher131 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For confirmation:

168.143.113.52

network:Org-Name:Anonymizer

network:Street-Address:7525 Metropolitan dr Ste 306

network:City:San Diego

network:State:CA

network:Postal-Code:92108

network:Country-Code:US

Definately appears to be the anonymizer web-based proxy service's IP Kevin_b_er 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An AMA request has been made involving you[edit]

This is just to notify you that this has been created: [5]. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this involves me directly; if your beef is with the block Essjay made it. I seek no mediation; I don't regard myself as being in a dispute with anyone and there's no outstanding business regarding the original request. You've been told why the block was made; you've been told that people felt attacked. Other users supported and others didn't. This is perfectly normal. I respect your right to disagree but I really don't see what you hope to accomplish here. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's all about clarity of policy. To me, based on what Steve block detailed, the block happened against policy. I also think it happened when people wrongly took offense, but that's opinion, not policy. Anyway, I just let you know since you were involved in the original issue and the followup; up to you whether you are any further involved. Cheers, --Kickstart70-T-C 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree. I seek no further involvement; if CovenantD wants to apologize that's his affair. I should tell you that until the matter is dropped I've put RFCU on hiatus; we can't be expected to operate in an environment where abuse of that sort is condoned. Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for involving yourself in the discussion on this, and I'm glad we came at least to a resolution of sorts between us. I'm disappointed that the principles of this haven't done so (especially Essjay, from whom I expected more), but I guess that not even every admin appreciates or respects existing resolution methods. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I'd make such an insinuation, but that's up to you. I feel it unfortunate that you felt the need to make a backhand remark. Ah well. It's over. Mackensen (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I'd consider a backhand remark; I meant it honestly. Ah well, communication problems have been at the root of this from the start. Happy editing to you! --Kickstart70-T-C 20:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly important RfCu; I'll file it here - Arbitration Related.[edit]

User:Formerly_known_as_Homey, User:HOTR, 72.60.226.29, 70.48.89.229, and you may wish to add User:Sonofzion. All of these except the last are involved in a identity mixup on who is the "real" Homey, as the actual User:HOTR is not logging in, which has extended to statements made at RfAr. The last is involved in the case as a possible sockpuppet which you may wish to check as well. This is fairly urgent... If you do accept it, please should post the results at the current RfAr for HOTR. I assume that both the clerks and the ArbCom would endorse this request if asked, with the possible exception of Sonofzion. Thanks, --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every member of the arbitration committee has checkuser permission so they are quite capable of sorting this out themselves. I must say this case has moved from the annoying to the surreal. The only way to know if any of this is HOTR is for him to log in as HOTR and offer some sort of clarification. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of everything (philosophy)[edit]

You deleted Theory of everything (philosophy) back in May. Was it a speedy, or a prod? If the former, what criterion did you use?—it didn't meet G1. Thanks. Tim Smith 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I recall that the speedy nominator put forth strong arguments that the topic was nonsense and I deleted on those grounds. That was some time ago, and I'm quite willing to listen to arguments that this isn't the case. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G1 covers not nonsense, but "patent nonsense": content which is unsalvageably incoherent and without meaning. It does not apply to meaningful content. Regardless of what arguments were made against it, the deleted article was clearly meaningful, and G1 didn't apply. Could you please undelete it? Tim Smith 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping (RFCU)[edit]

Do you want to address the question posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin? (apologies if you've watchlisted it yourself) Thatcher131 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} template[edit]

I improved this template a little while ago, if you want to take advantage of it. While you can do {{SockpuppetCheckuser|Sockmaster}} you can also do {{SockpuppetCheckuser|Sockmaster|Checkuserpage}} now, and it will link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Checkuserpage. See the change I made to Epafus's page [6], there's a link called "Checkuser request" now, and it only appears if you've put that 2nd parameter (and if the checkuser request page exists). Kevin_b_er 06:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roitr[edit]

I've read your post about possibility of blocking an IP range related to the recent activities of th long-term vandal Roitr. It seems that this is the only measure we can use in the current circumstances.

Host masks for the Bezeq range as well as other information about Roitr can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr#Host_masks

Thank you --Nixer 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates[edit]

I would like to inform you that I have taken all citation templates off from my watchlist. I've done a lot on them for several months and it wasn't always easy. {{cite book}} (included on >15,000 pages), {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} have been fully protected now and admins do drop by there and fiddle around them without asking anybody and proposing changes on the talk page first. At the moment it is not a problem. But I fear it will soon start to be one.

In March, you opposed my request for the sysop bit because of concerns about my temper, which is a perfectly valid reason and I have accepted it. I asked for the sysop bit because of the situation we now have: I can't edit the citation templates.

Well, the trust of the wikipedians in me was obviously questionable and I thus decided to withdraw, because I'm not the person that pushes something against the will of a considerable strong group of wikipedians. I felt there was no consensus.

I have always tried to respect the consensus on the citation templates, which wasn't very easy. It might look like I owned them, but I assure you that this was never the case. I had a hard time integrating some requests there, some of which I personally never would have done if I had to decide alone.

Now the citation templates are fully protected and I can't edit them. I'm not interested any more to watch what admins are editing there. We had a group of template specialists, among them was for example user:AzaToth. He and others seem to have left the project.

This is not meant as a manipulative statement in any way, but I think those wikipedians that want to use the citation template in articles have a right to expect that they work.

I know that some important community members have always said the citation templates are a bad idea.

However, this is now a good opportunity for you to take a look at the situation and do whatever you deem good for the project. All I ask is to decide consciously. The Germans do it with a list of rules that must be manually followed ([7]). Some of us have tried to encapsulate that in template code in a single place here on en. And we had a lot of wikipedians who liked that.

Best regards, --Ligulem 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA on SynergeticMaggot[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot, your findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SynergeticMaggot seem highly relevant, although your comments are somewhat cryptic. Would you care to clarify? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed he was running. Let me take another look. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original comments stand. What they mean, broadly, is that I saw a definite meatpuppet issue, but saw no reason to tie it to either of the purported sockmasters. Put another way, the check was unrelated regarding SynergeticMaggot and 999, although something was definitely up. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you would say that SM and 999 are unrelated to "the two centers of organized meatpuppetry in Canada and Australia"? Or put another way, would you vote against his RfA based on your findings? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed something about the checkuser I wish to answer. The reason me and 999 show up in related AfD's is because we edit similar articles, and also cruise AfD's. I'm more inclined to keep or delete an article in an occult related field, as this is where me and 999 edit. I hope this clears up anything you may have wondered about it. SynergeticMaggot 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Check User[edit]

You wrote that you seems quite possible that there's substantial meatpuppetry going on in addition to out-and-out sockpuppetry. But it's only edit battles. Please read the artcles which I were edited. It is nosupreises to be in agreement with opinions against extreme opinion. Thanks. Mythologia 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping[edit]

This is outrageous. I demand that you be desysopped at once. I just caught you editing your own userpage unilaterally!!!!! --Cyde↔Weys 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just caught you editing my talk page! Ah hah, thief! Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck! Please don't desysop me. --Cyde↔Weys 23:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCU on DrL[edit]

Hi - I'm here on behalf of DrL, who I'm representing. We are rather concerned at the personal information remaining on the Request for Checkuser request against him (which you turned down), which will show up on a Google search. We therefore request your permission to blank the page (replacing it with a short explanatory message), so that it will not appear in search engines, while preserving the discussion in the page history. Does this sound reasonable? --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed within reason so I went ahead and did it. (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL) Since the request was declined as no policy violation, it seemed reasonable to remove what might be the user's real name and IP address, at least from where google can get it. I'll note my action at Essjay's talk page too, and if either of you have a problem, let me know or just revert it. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA and your vote[edit]

Hi Mackensen,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 33[edit]

Are you sure that Minnesota State Highway 33 should have been unprotected? If it's unprotected, it'll just attract the same contentious, ill-advised edits that it's attracted already. I know, because I'm one of the people who made a bunch of contentious, ill-advised edits to it. I'm not sure if the current remedies in place will keep this article from being edited in a harmful way. Please consider re-protecting it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an actual edit war it can be re-protected. The article was uneventful for two whole days before Rschen7754 protected it. There's no need to shut the stable door if the horse is gone. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CU[edit]

Good to see you back. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I needed a few days to indulge my inner ship-crufter! Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it's Pokemon it's cruft. When it's ships it's scholarship. Ever do any scale modeling? My dad does warships; he's the kind of modeler that hand-ties his own rigging and discards the stock trim pieces for custom photo-etched brass fittings ordered from tiny custom shops advertising in Scale Modeler. He once did a series of submarines so he chased down some old books so he coulds scratch-build the Nautilus (the first one). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never did scratch-work, but I did plenty of those plastic kits. I did a really good Arizona–getting those tripods right was a pain! Mackensen (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Another hive of scum & villany down! Kevin_b_er 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli - Jewish?[edit]

Hey Mackensen. My apologies for my friend Daniel575's interesting editing style [8]. I am copying in part a post he left at WT:ORBCW, the central discussion page for Orthodox Jewry here:

I recently removed Benjamin Disraeli, who only had a Jewish father (not a Jewish mother), had been baptized and was an active practicing Christian, from the Category:English Jews. This seems to be a controversial thing, strangely.

I think the issue is that he was neither Jewish from the perspective of normative Judaism, nor did he consider himself an adherent of the religion. Should this not take him out of cat:english jews? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, he's proceeding from the assumption that Disraeli's mother wasn't Jewish. She was. It's as simple as that. Maria Basevi was Jewish. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request one more checkuser[edit]

Greetings. Kmaguir1 may have a new sock, creating much disruption on Michel Foucault. I've added his newest possible sock to Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kmaguir1#Kmaguir1. If you'd be so kind, please check. It now seems to be a good hand/bad hand thing. Thanks!--Anthony Krupp 13:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been handled. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU#UberCryxic[edit]

Hello, I noticed that another user posted something about this in Peta's talkpage. I replied there with what I think is some useful information. Although Peta may not have mentioned this in the RFCU page (I actually don't know what's happened to him in the past few days), we resolved this problem and he accepted that the accounts were friends of mine, not sockpuppets. Anyway, it's explained in his talkpage. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brightonkid[edit]

I spent quite a while trying to determine the extent of sockpuppeteering relating to Brightonkid and friends. At the very least if you could tell me whether Brightonkid matches any of those IPs, that would be very helpful. I presume it is a simple case of clicking the "Checkuser" link? Thanks. Gsd2000 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gsd, this is not a techincal issue, it is a policy issue. You may want to read the CheckUser Policy. WIkipedia has a very strong privacy policy, and releasing someone's IP address (which would conceivably allow someone to track them down in real life) is reserved for serious, long term problem editors, which this incident just isn't. You should also read the sockpuppet policy, which says that editors who edit alike can be treated as the same editor, even without checkuser proof. You've got two IP familes from England that edit as if they were the same person, so go ahead and treat them like the same person. If you want an administrator to come by and make a comment to that effect for you, post a note at the administrators noticeboard. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the info but if you wish to leave me a message then please do so on my talk page - I had 'unwatched' this page). Clever Dicky has conveniently added something to the talk page in question, so at least it should be possible to say whether Brightonkid and Clever Dicky are the same user? I reopened the checkuser request. Gsd2000 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread about bad things[edit]

Was it archived, or erased.....? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to pose the same question; I suppose archive meant to convey available, as any thread, in the page's history, but that's surely not the connotation the archive locution has on-Wiki. Joe 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it's in the page history. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the question of whether this discussion should remain accessible in the page history be referred to WP:OFFICE. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nathan affair[edit]

I just left roughly this same note on Cyde's talk page.

At the point that I started seeing what was going on, it was clear that everyone in the world had already commented, that the information was "out there", etc. The cat cannot be forced back into the bag.

You're partially right, I am launching complaints about various administrators. I am doing so because I believe the admin misbehavior in this case was serious and uncalled for. You and Cyde both acted irresponsibly, in my opinion, and sufficiently badly enough that I believe that both of you needed to be called on it, in public.

I have not, that I recall, had any concerns about you previously, and only very minor ones about Cyde. Both of you are, in general and as a rule, good administrators who contribute very positively to WP. This is not about expressing any sort of pre-existing dislike for either of you (or the other admins I was complaining about). My complaints are specific to your actions in this incident.

Nobody who was in a position of authority or responsibility with WP should have commented on the situation to the degree that it was discussed. The information probably would have come out anyways, but there is a big difference between "Moe is saying that Nathan was blocked because..." and "Cyde and Mackensen and Kelly have indicated....". You all essentially put into public an unofficial official position which had way too much information in it.

It it unlikely that information will stay truly secret. Having parts of it leak out is probably unavoidable. Having Wikipedia's community structure via some admins take an official public stance and put some of that information out there with the apparent backing of the community structure is very, very bad. It makes us look irresponsible, vindictive, and unprofessional. If there were to be media coverage, selective use of administrator quotes from the AN discussion could do serious damage to WP credibility.

As I said in AN: the public comments should have been limited to "This is an Office matter, we can't comment.".

There should be a formal policy which states that for serious incidents, they should be kicked to Office without any further public comment than that action has happened. I would have hoped that people would have already understood how important that is, but apparently not yet. So it needs to get formalized.

I would prefer that you understand that I see this as having been a very serious problem. It might have been more politic for me to wait a couple of days to point it out and bring up the formal policy. I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you in general - in my experience, you've been a great part of Wikipedia working smoothly. But I feel very strongly that this event shouldn't happen again. And that probably requires a formal policy.

Ideally I would like to ultimately have your support for the above policy. I hope that you can understand why I am so concerned about what happened and why I feel it needs to not happen again.

Georgewilliamherbert 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assent to most of the above without reservation. My primary concern is that I do not believe there exists sufficient community backing for the kind of action that was necessary. For example, should we block anyone who discusses the affair? Desysop anyone who undoes those kinds of blocks? I suspect I'd have a legion of users calling for my head if I acted in such a manner. Stifling discussion does not sit well with some people here. The best possible outcome would have been the users directly concerned having the decency to not bring their problems here. This did not happen. I suppose the next best thing would have been to block the affected parties and anyone who dragged private information into public. This happened to a degree but I suppose I didn't go far enough. My concern is that people ask too many questions and, as you could see from the noticeboard thread, don't like hearing no for an answer. Whether something becomes an OFFICE affair is Danny's call, not mine, and we need to be free to act without invoking the OFFICE. Saying that the Foundation is involved as certain implications. Anyway, thanks for your note. I don't claim to have covered myself in glory, but I tried to contain the situation. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did your best in a messy situation. Hopefully this sort of thing will not arise often enough to require "policies" to deal with it. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something peculiar[edit]

One of the IP addresses that has been doing "Blu Aardvark" style vandalism is 72.160.98.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which was blocked for 24 hours this morning. I thought it was odd that the vandal would announce himself, so I ran a whois and the IP is registered to CenturyTel, an ISP based in Louisiana (although the RDNS says the server is in Illinois). What is odd is that last week, SlimVirgin asked me if 207.118.5.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which she suspected was HOTR, might be an open proxy. I said I couldn't tell, but that it was a US ISP called CenturyTel that did not offer service in Canada. Now maybe that's just a heck of a coincidence, but I wonder if either (a) these IPs might be zombies/proxies, and (b) if at least some of the recent vandalism might be Homey. (I don't know how to check an open proxy, unfortunately.) Thatcher131 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm definitely calling the first one an open proxy/zombie and I've blocked accordingly–I'm unsure about the second. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathandotcom[edit]

~~Could you provide some sort of link to the extensive discussion? I'm finding nothing relating to this and I find it rather disturbing. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's in the archives of WP:AN. I've nothing further to say on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I was able to find the discussion. And I believe one of your last comments is right. My first reaction was that there is some cabal consipracy. I've asked Cyde for further clarification. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merrimack, New Hampshire[edit]

Next time you should ask before assuming one person is equal to over 27,000. I appreciate you unblocking this thing, but who can I complain to in regards to what happened? Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complain? You've really nothing to complain about. You were blocked based on suspicion of sockpuppetry, the block was reviewed on your appeal, and the block lifted. All within twenty minutes, which isn't bad on the balance of things. Again, I regret the inconvenience, but as far as I'm concerned the matter ends here. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about in that.

I honestly don't have any faith in Wikipedia's processes, but i'd prefer to stay far away from them, at least for a long time. You can put back the indefinate block if you'd like, but I can't help you any further there. I've made a promise to Nick that I will not vandalize again, and I'm not going to break that regardless of what happens, i've found some peace, please assist me in trying to keep it by letting me be. Karmafist 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I hope that you can find a place here again. It's important, however, that you undo the damage that you've done. I don't want to put the block back in place by any means, but I'm not going to sit on my hands here. You say that you'd like to stay away from Wikipedia's processes but this is patently false as you've been active in them right up until now. The matter is in your hands; I leave you to your choice. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a couple of days to think it over, so take your time. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you, Mackensen. If you could, do you mind somehow helping me curtail Cyde on my talk page? It seems like he's trying to provoke a reaction from me, and i'd prefer not to engage in such discussions. Also, i've put another statement on to what you said above on my talk page. Karmafist 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no more control over what Cyde does than you or anyone else, but for my part I regard the matter as settled pending future developments. You're going to have to overcome a significant level of mistrust on the part of some users; a little hostility is probably inevitable. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that some, if not most users would have to overcome a significant level of mistrust with me, probably much greater than the lack of trust you're talking about -- I assumed good faith and all I got for it was punishment and months of nightmares.

The only reason that the "karmafist" name matters to me at all is because that name matters to a very talented young man in India looks up to that name and he spends far too much time on Wikipedia while seeming to lack respect in himself outside of it.

One day, i'm going to able to say I knew him way back when he's successful, and the only way that will happen is if he doesn't become trapped in Wikipedia like I did earlier this year and like many others do every day. Karmafist 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU problem...[edit]

I've got another RFCU for Lightbringer ("Lightbringer Sleeper Account"), and although I moved the template to the proper place, the request I made ended up in the completed section with the just completed one, instead of in the new section. How do I get it to appear in the correct place? MSJapan 15:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to move the location of the transcluded page on the RFCU page itself. I've gone and done it for you. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006[edit]

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA message[edit]

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on article title[edit]

Hi, thanks for your past help on the peerage. What do you think is the correct Wikipedia article title for John Butler, styled 12th Baron Dunboyne? What is all this styled business in any case and is there/ do we need an article about it?Cutler 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming we're talking about the eighteenth-century bishop, he should be at John Butler, 12th Baron Dunboyne. I'm not sure why a source would say he's "styled"–it wasn't a courtesy title or anything like that. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it is the bishop - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says styled. Cutler 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The title of Dunboyne had been forfeited by James, fourth Baron Dunboyne, for his implication in the Irish rising of 1641; he was outlawed, yet the title continued to be used and the estates were retained by the family." ODNB. Does that change your view on the article title? Cutler 10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I think we'd probably still put it there, but I'd ask Proteus for his opinion as well. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a grant from the Duke of Ormond to the 5th Lord (the 4th Lord's 2nd cousin) in 1670 addressing him as "Lord Dunboyne". Another [www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/carte/carte52.html letter] (1674), suggests that the 4th Baron was in favor with the King when he died (1662), so the outlawry was probably overturned during the Restoration, I'd guess. Choess 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser[edit]

Thanks for clearing up the Sunholm/WoW situation. Unfortunately, a new vandal has created attack usernames insulting me; see WP:RFCU for details. --TheM62Manchester 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again[edit]

At least you could drop the declined hammer on half the backlog :) Thatcher131 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a backlog of too much stuff to do as an administrator with checkuser permission.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Say what? Kevin_b_er 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Grin* Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined?[edit]

Please reconsider your decline on my checkuser requests. Perhaps I misunderstood the instructions - this was my first time requesting a checkuser. Here's what happened - I posted the request based on the following (from my user talk):

Hi Durova,

Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP (talk • contribs) and Rm104 (talk • contribs). -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even this message was deleted by QFMC (talk • contribs) -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse I had posted a link to this page User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc along with a request for advice. At the time when I posted to that page I thought the vandal was dormant, but these blankings (and I subsequently noticed that CF18000 blanked other posts of mine on August 21) suggest that my analysis is pretty near the mark and that "Editor X" remains active. A further indication is the edit history of User:64.83.227.60, who remains active as recently as 26 August 2006 on transgender/homophobia/medieval history topics. Note the edit to List of people with epilepsy on 10 August regarding Joan of Arc:[9]. If the connection appears unclear, please read my description of the vandal.

Per the checkuser instructions I listed all suspect accounts and IPs, even those that were dormant, and to someone who skims this might look like a frivolous request. I assure you this is not, and at least the three usernames that Netsnipe mentions certainly merit a usercheck. I respectfully request that you check them all. Durova 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is for investigating sockpuppetry and identifying open proxies. What you were asking for was something we simply could not deliver. If you refactor request as a simple sockpuppetry query then I can help you. Mackensen (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet/meatpuppet distinction[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. Since you performed the checkuser on Cretanpride, an anon editor claiming to be Ellinas has posted arguing that he's a different individual, but had previously let Cretanpride use his computer. ([10], [11]) I know that ArbCom precedent says that in cases where it is unclear whether a user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, they should be treated as a sock, but I think this case may merit individual attention. If we take the claim that Ellinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a different individual from Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at face value, then I'm not sure whether Ellinas merits an indefinite block. OK, it is (at least) a single-purpose account, but aside from letting Cretanpride evade his block, I don't see what Wikipedia policies Ellinas has violated. On the other hand, if we assume that Ellinas is a sock of Cretanpride, then it is a sock under which Cretanpride has been much better behaved than he had been, which might be considered as a path towards reform. If leniency were shown to the Ellinas account, I would be willing to act as a mentor to ensure that Ellinas understands and abides by Wikipedia policies.

There's a discussion of the case at WP:AN/I#User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece. I'd appreciate your perspective on the matter, there or on my talk page. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Hylton of Hylton[edit]

I noticed you moved William Joliffe, 1st Baron Hylton to the one-l spelling a while ago. Why? Two-l seems to be the predominant spelling, used by Rayment, thePeerage.com, etc. Choess 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably relying on Blake's Disraeli, which spells his name with one 'l'. The Oxford DNB disagrees, so I'll accept that Blake was in the wrong, or at least in the minority. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Switched back to double-l. I wonder if Hylton Jolliffe is in remainder to the barony? Choess 03:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe that it's a coincidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected[edit]

Rejected

{{Thrown out}}? Can be done and added. Kevin_b_er 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "Rejected" is a politic version of the message I want to send. I see the {{Rejected}} template is taken, so let's just put it at Thrown out with the politic wording. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies[edit]

Hi, Could I get to you to look again at Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I smell a disruptive sock. --kingboyk 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Inglis, Lord Glencorse[edit]

I notice it was you who moved John Inglis, Lord Glencorse to John Inglis, Baron Glencorse, but I don't seem to be able to find any record that a Barony was conferred upon him. He's not included in List of hereditary Baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom or List of Law Life Peerages, and the only google results for "Baron Glencorse" are ultimately from wikipedia. I'm moving it back, if that's all right with you. Opera hat 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I think I was confused. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: email[edit]

Hi. Did you get my email?

Regards, Nandesuka 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I haven't decided. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the ack. I initially got involved with this simply by reading a notice on AN/I. I have no particular interest in the subject, but am feeling more and more like I have touched the tar baby. Nandesuka 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Vehicles[edit]

Why have you deleted this page, considering there were more keep than delete votes in the deletion vote? Jtrainor 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and re-read the deletion discussion. What brings you here nearly two months afer the fact? Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on the page by accident and found it rather odd that it would be deleted against consensus. Jtrainor 08:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't. Consensus is not the same thing as a majority, else we wouldn't bother having both terms. Mackensen (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of a vote if the number of yea and nay votes don't matter? Jtrainor 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicgirluk[edit]

I was working on an analysis of the edits/IPs. There might be a basis for comparing publicgirl and courtney akins but as for the rest, I can't see what Jimbo is getting at. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis; glad I'm not the only one slightly puzzled. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin RfC about Dmcdevit and Blnguyen[edit]

Hi Mackensen. about your post here - Actually I was also named for a block I did on both parties at Ukrainization three days ago, although I didn't receive complaints about it before the RfC was posted, so it seems a bit malformed. In my case I did count four reverts and nothing else. Anyway, to finish on an idle note, I'm surprised at the relatively small size of your archives given your RFCU and ARBCOM work. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't on arbcom long enough to attract a fan club. Regarding checkuser--the fan club often isn't in a position to respond after the fact! Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Wkipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected[edit]

Please explain more about the notice Rejected on the RFCU/Jlambert. Doctor Octagon 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the welcome message DarkTripe 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetcies[edit]

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you getting on with your List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of England? - Kittybrewster 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts[edit]

Just a heads up for you, Mackensen. What you didn't know about TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) is that it was really a role account used by several people - not one user as some may have believed. However, be on the look out for more inappropriate role accounts... --Langwath 09:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edipedia[edit]

Thanks for confirming his sockpuppetry[12]. He has been a very disruptive editor. Does this mean his account and his sockpuppets will be permanently banned now? --- Hong Qi Gong 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the community. I recommend bringing the matter to the administrators' noticeboard. It appears that the socks are already blocked. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, you're right. There were no "indefinite block" tags on the userpages and I didn't notice the blocks until I checked the logs. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikipedia:Numbers need citations[edit]

Hi there. I was recently participating in a discussion at Wikipedia:Numbers need citations, and was surprised to find the page deleted. I investigated further and discovered that this was due to "g5" of the speedy deletion criteria (created by a sock puppet of a banned user). I'm bringing this to your attention because you seem to have carried out the CheckUser check that led to this: WP:RFCU#Dr_Chatterjee. I've had this happen at least once before (have a talk page suddenly disappear on me), and that time I managed to save the page and debate (if I remember the example, I will provide a link). In this case, I wanted to somehow save the debate that had been taking place on the talk page of this proposed guideline - with a view to adding something of the sort to WP:CITE or a related page. There were some useful comments on that talk page. I'd appreciate any advice on how best to handle this. I've also copied this to User_talk:NawlinWiki (the deleting admin). Thanks. Carcharoth 06:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really up to the deleting admin; I simply ran the check that proved Chatterjee was socking (and a vandal, as it turned out). Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I'll take it up with the deleting admin. I had a look over that WP:RFCU page, and I'm impressed by the way things are handled there. A sheen of civility for what must be rather uncivil things in some cases. Carcharoth 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you were curious, I found the other case I was thinking of. The whole sorry mess can be seen here. The case in question here is the second case I've seen of proposals with active talk pages being deleted (or proposed for deletion) based on G5. I strongly believe that the correct process should be to in some way modify or reject the proposal, rather than delete good-faith GFDL contributions to the discussion, even if started by a sockpuppet/troll/vandal/banned user. Also, I would prefer to see what is often a grain of truth extracted from such proposals, rather than a heavy-handed "speedy delete" response. I'd appreciate any opinions. Carcharoth 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you could...[edit]

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Inanna-[edit]

Hey Mackensen. Just wanted to let you know that Inanna has become pretty active lately, her sockpuppet Kachik was recently blocked, but since then she's edited as 85.102.104.205 (talk · contribs), 85.107.214.53 (talk · contribs), and KreshnikD (talk · contribs) (not blocked yet). What's weird is that Inanna lived in İstanbul and Ankara, but these IPs are located in İzmir. The behavior is still the same, however, and note here how the anon basically reverted to Kachik's version of the page. Anyways, please let me know what you think should be done about all this. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per arbcom precedent, if it looks like -Inanna-, edits like -Inanna-, and that behavior got -Inanna- banned, block away. No rule that editors have to live in the same place. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll just wait for KreshnikD to make more edits then... —Khoikhoi 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CU case withdrawn, delete or archive[edit]

I withdrew and closed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Terryeo after he admitted the edits on has talk page. Since the case was never officially checked, and only checks Terry against his IP, archiving it will essentially preserve a public record of his IP address. On the other hand, it was a case of Arbcom block evasion. I'm going to leave this one in your lap to delete (if it should be deleted) or archived. Cheers :) Thatcher131 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely ;) Unless Arbcom cares, my inclination is to simply delete it. They can always check the revisions if need be. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I comment[edit]

Yes, my comment was directed at the original poster, not you, I blame a poor choice of indentation on my part followed by three edit conflicts in a row. Demiurge 23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries. Feel free to strike my comment. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger RfCU icon[edit]

I see you got your "stronger icon" for rejecting checkuser requests. :) I wonder how many users will pick up the subtle difference between "declined" and "rejected." Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet[edit]

I have two question: why User:Alphachimp gave me on side this stencil [13] as well as whose then glove puppet - User:Malfunction. LUCPOL 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in response to this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LUCPOL. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have three question:

Why User:Alphachimp gave me on side this stencil [14]. I ask about removal from my side this stencil.
Whose then glove puppet (what user to use from the same IP) - User:Malfunction.
If this my glove puppets I, ask to explain me this: LUCPOL and IP is blocked (24h) 13:41 06.09.2006, John Amber editions 14:01 06.09.2006 and 14:02 06.09.2006. Hans Schwars editions 13:46 06.09.2006.

LUCPOL 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't discuss specifics owing to Foundation policy. The most likely technical explanation is that the block allowed other established users to edit. An oversight on the blocking admin's part. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. One question: It why my edition was withdrawn was [15]. Where it in regulations writes (and how so this how much time) that we should have this stencil. Link will suffice to pass to point where this writes. If there is no this in regulations ask to make possible this me removal from side stencil. LUCPOL 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK is a good starting place. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this stencil be becomes taken off ( this is not life imprisonment yet). I ask about concrete date and hour. LUCPOL 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably when the edit-warring dies down. I've no control over that whatsoever. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Editorial war in article Limp Bizkit and Fred Durst was finished (Lucpol, Egr and different came to agreement). "Genre" be become removed with articles. It will not be editorial wars already rather. Have hope, that in draught you 1-3 days will remove me this stencil. PS. I think it that was it been possible already to unlock article Limp Bizkit. How you would write to me what dust message this boldly. LUCPOL 19:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New templates[edit]

Would it be useful to have checkuser result templates that did this?

User:Thatcher131/Confirmed-nc

or

User:Thatcher131/Crystalball

I made crystall ball as a joke for Essjay after a particularly obnoxious request and thought it was too flip and informal for official use, but since you've now got {{thrown out}} maybe you'd like another option. If you like them I'll move them from user space to template space. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those would both be useful. Thanks much, Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can user {{Crystalball}} and {{Confirmed-nc}} (for "no comment"). Thatcher131 (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute 1 4 u[edit]

What in gods name can we do about this 11 year old? She uses a dynamic IP, and the only way we can find out who she is now is by watching a talk page. Ryūlóng 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call her parents, obviously ;). Well, we can try a targeted range block, but those can be tricky business. If it keeps up I'll try to figure something out. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD - response to queries (eom)[edit]

Aiming WP:UFD at Requests for Arbtitration[edit]

Just looking for unusual shortcut redirects, I found this one: WP:UFD (aiming at Requests for Arbitration). It seems to have been a past redirect to Userboxes for Discussion (now itself a redir to TfD). I'm just wondering why you made this edit, as the new redirect doesn't seem to make too much sense to me. --ais523 12:29, 11 September 2006 (U T C)

A bad joke on my part–"Users for Deletion." Feel free to change it back. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Roberts is back[edit]

172.201.95.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Presumably the same as User:Johnpallen, who made anon edits from similar IPs. Proteus has reverted his recent edits. Choess 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta[edit]

Thanks for the checkuser. Steve block Talk 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Having seen your comments, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Scientist.--Peta 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your comment on sockpuppetry[edit]

I made a similar comment then actually took the time to read yours ;-) 206.124.31.24 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hey, could you please protect the Romanians article? An edit war has broken out. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. BTW, Jeorjika (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of someone, possibly Constantzeanu (talk · contribs) or Bonaparte (talk · contribs). Could you do a check on him/her? —Khoikhoi 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, probably. Could you in turn please list your request at WP:RFCU so we've got a record? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. —Khoikhoi 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big pointy rocks...[edit]

...for snowing that. Please don't do that in the future, don't add fuel to the fire. I won't protest past here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about actually engaging in a discussion? I will continue to act in the interests of the encyclopedia and the community. I've read the old version of your user page, and I honestly fail to see how we could possibly come up with new information to justify Tony speedy deleting Process is Important. Read that again. It's important, not a fetish. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's important. To abandon it when we feel like it trivializes it. That's why I was against you closing the discussion early, especially citing that vile essay while doing it. It would be lax of me not to have left a note here about it, so I did. As I said, I don't intend to challenge it further, so just keep it in mind next time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you've clearly made your mind up. However, you seem unwilling to grapple with the central question, which is this: how does it benefit the encyclopedia to keep it open? What do you intend to accomplish? The deletion was so obviously out-of-process to pretend otherwise is blockheaded. Wasting time on DRV does the opposite of what you suggest: it trivializes the processes you apparently hold so dear by devoting five days to an action which requires about five minutes. It makes you look ridiculous. I'm afraid I can't keep your comments in mind because, in my view, they run completely contrary to what's best for the encyclopedia. I won't stop listening, but I don't agree and I'm not convinced. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial governors[edit]

You originally created the List of colonial governors in YYYY series back in 2004. In the last two years they haven't expanded beyond Portugal and therefore aren't really doing any good. I noticed because one of the articles has been listed on cleanup since August of last year. I'm of the mind to prod them all, but wanted to know if there was a real possibility that these might get expanded in the near future. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If I remember correctly (and this was a while ago, so, I'm not quite sure), the colonial governors series was created due to fighting over the title of the state leaders series, mostly to have a place to put things that had been part of that series under the previous title but no longer fit. Regardless, the colonial governors ones haven't gotten much attention; state leaders and religious leaders always drew more interest (certainly from editors, I can only assume from readers as well). What time I myself spend on Wikipedia nowadays is mostly spent on Olympics coverage. I don't plan on expanding the colonial governors anytime soon, and since it appears that the majority of them haven't been touched since I created them, I would guess no one else is likely to expand them either. You might try dropping a line at the relevant WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year), but since the project is inactive, I'd say go ahead with the prodding. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'll drop a note there before making a mess. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going through them a little more, it looks like the most recent 4 (2003-06) are actually somewhat developed--if they all looked like that, they'd be so much more helpful. -- Jonel | Speak 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine there are that many...what's the rubric? Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of colonial governors in 2006 has 66 entries, many with multiple incumbents. They range from the Netherlands Antilles to Howland Island. Trim the uninhabited islands ("administered by the US Department of the Interior") and you get maybe 15-20 solidly good ones (such as the prime minister of Greenland). -- Jonel | Speak 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Let's hold off on prodding the rest then, at least for the moment. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. Some of these are of interest to me and I'll try to contribute (I've worked on United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories which is somewhat related). In any event, they'll be wanted sooner or later, and why make someone start from scratch? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Pussy Galore[edit]

I wasn't fishing for hte User:Pussy Galore account. I am not even asking you to run it. He requested checkuser and it showed sockpuppets last week. He is now banned. We know those accounts exist. I don't want to know what those accounts were. I jsut don't want to have to battle them in the future. I agree that there would be no justification to run checkuser as a suspicion and I wouldn't have requested it based on the users edit history. But he requested it and the Checkuser keepers ran it at his own request. Once that decision was made, the die was cast. If the checkuser had come back last week indicating a Indefintitely Banned user or that he was violating policy, would there be no action taken since it was fishing? Checkuser WAS run. The decision about "fishing" should have been made before it was run, not after. The checkuser bell was already rung and it was run in good faith. You don't need to rering it, just ban the accounts that turned up last week. Otherwise you will be inundated with exonerating request for checkuser so that trolls can go on a rampage without repercussion. This is very similar to legal search warrants. If the search warrant was for Marijuana made in good faith and the search turned up cocaine, the person with cocaine doesn't go free because the warrant didn't say cocaine. Similarly when police pat down suspects for weapons and it turns up narcotics, they don't go free on an illegal search. The checkuser was done in good faith. It turned up something more than the requester expected but that doesn't mean we ignore the results. The reason for turning down checkuser requests for "fishing" is because there is not enough evidence to jsutify the check. This is just the opposite: checkuser was run in good faith and we know checkuser returned accounts. The user was banned for trolling (his behavior is why checkuser even came up). Not acting on that information is turning the policy on it's head. Use Use common sense--Tbeatty 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It showed sockpuppets last week? This is news to me. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- aahh. I was going off of the User's own comments where he expected to have sockpuppets that didn't violate policy. I presumed checkuser found those sockpuppets but there use wasn't a violation. If not, no worries. It still think it would be a good policy to run checkuser, not report the results, but blcok the turnups. In this case nothing would be done obviously but it wouldn't be a rejected request. Editors would simply never know whether a sock puppet showed up. --Tbeatty 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In hindsight, I guess it would be pointless to do this since the whole idea is not to ban IPs forever (and if they are banned, it doesn;t matter what the account name is.) Sorry to waste your time. --Tbeatty 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly a waste–by all means you had every reason to ask. I wasn't able to find any sockpuppets the first time, and I did check once more to be sure. Without someone else to check against, however, my options are pretty limited. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the Afd patterns, and the admissions on the userpage, I would say he's now using User:Mujinga. Morton devonshire 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem[edit]

Thanks for your apology. Don't worry, though, as it is quite understandable. WP:ANI is often inundated with less than upright types shedding crocodile tears regarding one terrible injustice or another. I can easily see why it would be tempting to write of most complaints as just that. I'm glad that you took the time to examine my own and that you eventually came to the conclusion that my matter is of a different and more honest nature than most. Best wishes, --AaronS 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) I should add that I apologize if I was in any way insensitive, as well. --AaronS 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox[edit]

~~I thought User:Giano and User:Tony Sidaway already did that.~~ ... um, is destroying the noticeboard supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? :) Newyorkbrad 01:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU[edit]

Don't do that again. Don't do what again -- put up an RFCU, allegedly make sockpuppets, what? Ameise -- chat 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply commenting on your (admitted) mistake of accidentally soliciting votes on a community. That's all. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. Ameise -- chat 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman[edit]

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about him being back. Unfortunately, his IPs seem too widespread for an effective range block. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom appeal[edit]

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have quoted you in the statement of case as well as linked to a contribution of yours on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just wanted to alert you in case I was quoting you out of context. David | Talk 19:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile :)[edit]

Srose (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hi, Mackensen! I thought I'd leave you this smile because your witty reply to oppose voter #7 on Thatcher's RFA made me giggle. Have a great wikiday, and thanks for the laugh! :) Srose (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

I was wondering, do you use IRC? I need to ask you a question (no, not about an RFCU request - I read the solicitation thing), and I'd rather do it over IRC, if that's possible - it *may* involve a tiny bit of discussion, of which talk pages aren't best suited to. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, under the same moniker. Mackensen (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to jump on #wikipedia for a sec? Daniel .Bryant 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:乾隆也是龍 and User:乾隆龍也 (More Edipedia socks)[edit]

I know you just confirmed a checkuser request for User:Edipedia's socks. But it seems like User:乾隆也是龍 and User:乾隆龍也 may be two more socks that he created today. Both accounts are new and do the same reverts that Edipedia does. User:乾隆也是龍 has already been put on indef block for having a non-English username. After that block, User:乾隆龍也 was immediately created to do the same kinds of reverts. The strongest evidence is probably that User:乾隆龍也 is blanking out the sockpuppet warning on the the userpage of User:Edipedia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like another admin already caught on. =) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taracka[edit]

I see you're online? Could you do me a favour and check over Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taracka, if you have the time? Feel free to ignore this message if you don't have the time to check for me. :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick look, but I suspect that I won't be able to run a full check for a bit. Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I comment[edit]

Hey Mackensen,

Thanks for your explanatory note here. I can completely understand your frustration, as I've been involved in similar situations with similar users, where I felt my comments weren't being given weight. At this point, I'm going to remove myself from the FSF debate, as the interaction I've had with him is somewhat limited, consisting of a bit of back-and-forth on some of the sockpuppet pages, one RFA vote, and my indef blocking of one account, and because I just don't want to argue with good editors on Wikipedia. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same. I had hoped that I'd seen the last of him last February. Alas, my responsibilities here mean I'll probably see a good deal more of him. I mean you no ill-will, and I hope that I did no lasting offense, as I certainly did not wish to. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know you meant no ill will; we all say things we later regret, and I respect your work on Wikipedia. One comment shouldn't change that. For my part, I hope you know that my comment was just trying to calm everyone down. Guess it didn't work that well. :/ I look forward to working with you in future endeavours. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that anything anyone could have said would've work at that time. I'm glad that someone tried, at least. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan socks[edit]

Hey, Mackensen. I wanted to find out whether we're doing the right thing in continuing to submit checkuser requests for these sockpuppets of Cretanpride. He's fairly easy to spot, but not quite what I'd call "obvious" sockpuppetry. On the one hand, I don't want to waste your time having to check the same user over and over again; on the other hand, it's just about possible that another individual could have the same issues/hangups with the Homosexuality in ancient Greece that Cretanpride does, and I don't want to block a good-faith user without just cause. Are you OK continuing to do checkuser in this ongoing case?

I've blocked Cretanpride indefinitely — enough is enough — but previous blocks haven't seemed to deter him. Do you have any suggestions on how best to deal with a persistent sockpuppeteer? I don't want to protect the article, because improvements are ongoing (ironically enough, the article has been improved significantly since Cretanpride began his campaign, because it's forced the editors to source the article much more thoroughly). Do we just keep playing whack-a-mole with these sockpuppets? Is there any less confrontational way to resolve the situation without condoning the sockpuppetry? I'm getting tired of this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content to check additional Cretanpride socks–he's easy to spot. I have a pretty good bead on his editing locations, and a targeted range block might be within the realm of possibility. Otherwise, he's either banned or he's not, and it would be a mistake to trod a middle path. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That works for me, and of those options I would certainly come down on the side of "he's banned". I guess I just wish that we hadn't had to get into this stupid contest of wills with him; his actual edits are slowly improving and becoming more encyclopedic. It's as if the block is making him a better editor or something. But I suppose you can't try to rehabilitate someone who doesn't admit they're doing anything wrong. :/ Thanks for your time; if a range block is possible (without blocking all of UC Irvine, or whereever he actually is), that would be great. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.86.88.191[edit]

I know about a month ago you blocked my IP address indefinitely as a "hive of scum and villainy". But really I made some good contributions so I agree to being blocked for a period of time but not forever, ya see what I mean. If you look at User:NicAgent's contribs, and those of User:Harrison V and User:How dare you?, you will see I actually made some worthwile contributions. An example of that are some of the photos on Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, as well as some info I added a while back on Harold and Kumar go to White Castle.

If you want me to, I will fully explain everything about my encounter with Wikipedia and why I vandalized so much.

Yes I know you will assume that this is a User:NicAgent sock, but I had to reach you somehow as User talk:67.86.88.191 is protected from editing. Please respond on my talk page when you get the chance. Thanx

Oh and BTW I am leaving for college in less than a year so the indefinite block on me isn't gonna last forever. And I can always edit in school like I am now.

--Creator Prophet 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally you won't begrudge me checking your IP; I see that you're up to your old tricks again. The Railer accounts really are a dead giveaway. I don't want to range-block your high school but if you keep it up I'll have little choice. When your high school contacts Wikipedia to ask why I'll tell them. I don't think we want to go down that path. I confess I'm not very interested in hearing why you felt the need to trash the place; whatever good contributions you made are so outweighed by the damage that I, for one, know that I could never coutenance unblocking. This is my offer: stop editing and we won't contact your high school to report a breach both of our terms of service and their network usage agreement. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't block User:Creator Prophet, a NicAgent vandal on sight? This is what happens when you don't http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_House_of_Commons&diff=prev&oldid=77754775 That's going to be in the edit history forever. I strongly suggest that he is perm banned. - Hahnchen 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is perm banned. In the interests of having a dialogue and not banning his high school I left him unblocked. Serves me right. Those edits can be oversighted if need be. I had good and sufficient reasons for giving him a chance; he'll not get another. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar High School[edit]

I don't mind you removing the prod tag, but if you're going to do that you ought to try and do something about the article. As it stands it's a sub-stub, completely unverified.

I have to respectfully disagree. Removing a PROD tag should not require some type of obligation on the part of the person doing the removal. The article already has a stub tag, which is sufficient from my perspective. — RJH (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can agree to disagree there. Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is true. I am just going by the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy. The step to edit an article is optional, although I do on occasion try to address the issues raised by the PROD. My experience has been that almost all High School AfD's result in a keep, so I view the PROD of such an article as controversial unless the article in question is merely a one-liner page. Per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, the recommended action is actually a merge of the article with a higher-level administrative district. This seems like a reasonable alternative to going through all the deletion hoops. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.12.166.40[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. I noticed an unblock request from someone using the IP 69.12.166.40, which you blocked for a month for disruption. The recent contributions from the IP looked fine to me, but then I saw that your reason for blocking is, "Anyone caught in an auto-block is probably Johnny the Vandal/Mike Garcia and shouldn't be unblocked." Is that worded the way you meant it? I thought that people were often inadvertently caught by autoblocks. Is this particular autoblock more likely to be of Johnny the Vandal or Mike Garcia for some reason? Is there evidence that suggests that the IP is being used by Johnny the Vandal or Mike Garcia that cannot be revealed? If the block is just based upon being caught in an autoblock, I think that the IP should be unblocked and that its contributions should be watched. If the IP is caught in another autoblock, then that would be more suspicious.

Also, I checked your block log to see if I could figure out why the 69.12.166.40 block was made and I noticed the month long block of 24.29.86.172. I checked it out in case it could give me information on why the other block was made. However, it only has a single edit, a joke on the sandbox. Unless you were contacted by email or on IRC, I do not see how it could be an autoblock thing, too, since you would not have known about the autoblock. I was wondering if there were deleted edits that were a problem or if there is evidence that the IP was being used by a vandal. I'm going to sleep, so it might be a while before I get back to you. Thanks, Kjkolb 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checkuser access which means that sometimes my IP blocks are based on evidence that regular users don't have access to. Which user was requesting the unblock? Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone using the IP address 69.12.166.40 is requesting to be unblocked. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see that. I've denied it once already. If it gets unblocked I'm going to have to watch it very carefully. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zer0faults/admin[edit]

Thought you may be interested: User:Zer0faults/admin 69.153.88.51 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of him. Further proof you've only got to slip once around here. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can wave bye-bye to the seat on the board, chartered jet, and extra cookies at snack time. Thatcher131 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.12.166.40[edit]

Could you take a look at this users' unblock request please. You have blocked the user for disruption, but I can't quite find any recent disruptive edits, I'm assuming you know better.--Konstable 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind, I just realised that you were the one who responded to the initial unblock request already.--Konstable 05:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Mackensen, I award you this barnstar for your sterling efforts at Requests for checkuser, and for your work in blocking open proxy IPs, giving the Willy on Wheels a flat tire, and being an excellent all-round admin, checkuser and bureaucrat!! Here's to more successful work from Mackensen.... keep the great work up! LiverpoolCommander 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks ;) (Psst, I'm not a bureaucrat!) Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. I'm back on Wikipedia after a year out - I was formerly a few usernames but kept locking myself out (I forgot to enable email on the old accounts!). Anyhow, I can do open proxy tests - ask at WP:PROXY for me, since I'm on wikibreak this week! --LiverpoolCommander 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith[edit]

Good faith? Explain to me seriously why I should have good faith, everyone now knows that all wikipedia real business is conducted in various IRC channels, those of us who do not go there are discussed, chewed up and decided upon - my immagination - or is that lacking in good faith too? Giano 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're permitted to believe whatever you like, but that does not grant you the right to be abusive to other people. Phil Boswell has done nothing to you, and you treat him as some thug in an alley way. I'd attribute this to the recent dust up, except I recall you were just as incivil last winter when I was trying to resolve that styles dispute. Have you learned nothing since then? Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have learnt a lot. Like many others I care very much for this project. Like many others I have invested 1000s of hours in it. Like many others I am not "fickle of ill informed". Like many others I feel it is hampered and ultimatly doomed by its admin system who feel they can insult, threaten, bully and block at whim. Like many others I am tired of seeing good editors driven off. Unlike many others I have the nouse to do something about it, before Wikipedia is eclipsed and doomed to oblivion. Now like many others in this part of the world I am going to bed - sweet dreams. Giano 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed. I had a look at the article space a few hours ago and it appeared undisturbed by all this. There's a lesson there. Good night. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One does so hate being cheap [16] Giano 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'll pretend it wasn't yet another snide remark. In the morning, try being conciliatory. You might be surprised at the response you get. Or don't, it really doesn't matter much to me anymore. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your break[edit]

Enjoy your break, if you think you need one. Yes, the project will still be worthwhile in a week or at any other time. Newyorkbrad 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for both supporting and defending my successful RFA. It meant a lot to me to have you watching my back. Thatcher131 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary constituencies[edit]

When you're back from break, I'd like to consult you on those lovely tables you invented for lists of MPs. Gary J (talk · contribs) has started some inspiring work, and I'm thinking I'd like to lay down stubs for every Parliamentary constituency, to cross-reference with the lists of MPs by election year. Choess 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison sf RfCU[edit]

Hello, I submitted a RfCU for Poison sf and a number of others for sock/meat puppetry. One person did the check but noted that they checked a 'representative sample'. Since there are meat puppets involved, no matches may have occurred depending on which users were checked. Can this be looked into again? The evidence is overwhelming and links are provided.

Also - sorry if this is a newbie question - what do I do to ask for an investigation of meat puppet abuse? I have a lot of evidence including a discussion on the Stormfront website about recuiting people to join the edit war - one of the participants used the name Poison and their username here is Poison sf. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back[edit]

Good to see you back here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser clarification[edit]

Hi Mackensen:

You did a checkuser request the other week on User:LactoseTI which you determined was a "Likely" case of sockpuppetry[17] and an administrator, User:Nihonjoe, requested a clarification of whether "this "Likely" [is] closer to a "really sure" or "it's a possibility"?" (Nihonjoe's actual request was added to the checkuser request after the request had been completed). I know you were on a break and just wanted to make sure you saw the request so that this situation can be resolved. Thanks for your time. Tortfeasor 06:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that–likely. Conversely, it is unlikely that they are not sockpuppets of each other. Mackensen (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the case a couple days ago. Can't you just check the IP addresses of both accounts? Good friend100 03:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining declined CU's[edit]

Hi Mackensen. I posted a question to the CU talk page, regarding an 'unexplained declined CU'. I hope you'll chime in and see the question as it is posed - in good faith. I'm not a frequent CU user (I may have submitted one request prior to this one, but that's likely it) and found the total lack of response very disquieting. Thanks for your input and advice. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Thanks. This is the second time this has happend, that when I make successive attempts to compromise against an editor who insists on their version only, an enforcing admin has mistaken this for 3RR on my part. It is not merely most annoying, but it gives me great concern about the standard of 3RR enforcement, and if held to it acts to stop editors from reaching compromise in editing disputes. David | Talk 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I've come to regret voting to making 3RR a blockable offense. It causes nothing but trouble. Happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u[edit]

I am just verifying your intention. You noted on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u that Cutie 4 life was unrelated to Cute 1 4 u. Is that actually the result of a checkuser? That is, were you stating your opinion or did you actually verify this? Thanks for your time. --Yamla 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A related question--is the evidence consistent with Cute 1 4 u and her socks editing from home, and Cutie 4 life and her sock editing from a school in the same geographic area? Thatcher131 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non blocked User:NicAgent Sockpuppet[edit]

Although this account hasn't done much in the way of vandalism, it is almost 100% a NicAgent sock, User:Nicholas Weiner. You'll see in NicAgent's userpage history that this was his supposed name[18] and has also edited articles such as Sharpe James which was a frequent target for the Railer socks. I'm letting you know instead of posting to AN as you dealt with another of his socks earlier. If Nicholas Weiner is indeed his real name, and you have IP blocked his school, would it not be useful to pass this on to them? - Hahnch e n 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night's 3RR shenanigans[edit]

I have filed an RFC on William M. Connolley's misapplication of 3RR. I know you regard this as closed but his block is still on my block log and I am convinced his interpretation of the rule is damaging. I would be very grateful if you would be able to certify it. David | Talk 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independant CheckUser review pls[edit]

User:Tit for Tat is accused of being User:Dabljuh .. i don't trust the person making the accusation and I was told that you're a checkuser. Do you agree with this other person's accusation? Lordkazan 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?[edit]

I stumbled over a hoax article today when Aster Placed‎ (talk · contribs) created a new article to extend the original hoax. I bring this up because said user is maintaining -- against overwhelming evidence -- that the thing is real, and the original hoax article (Kresky) was created by sockpuppeteer Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). A connection? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Parliament[edit]

Hi, I see that you were the creator of Category:Lords of Parliament. However, the category page doesn't explain the intended purpose of the category: is it intended to be for those peers who sat in the House of Lords? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate account question[edit]

Hello Mackensen, I am considering starting an additional account for myself and I wanted to run it by you first. Obviously I am here because you've dealt with lots of people with multiple accounts, helping myself and others with the problem ones, and also as an excuse to stop by and say hi. This account will be used to help me remove from articles, the images that have been in the seven day deletion categories for licensing problems longer than seven days, prior to deletion by an admin, whether myself or someone else. I eventually want to use AWB to assist and quicken this. The main reason I want to do this with another account than my own, is that I don't want my watchlist and my contributions clogged up with so many random articles as I already get enough from RC. How does this sound? DVD+ R/W 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]