User talk:David Gerard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:43, 7 April 2006

Wikimedia Foundation

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 3 (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 4 (1 Jan 2006 - 28 Feb 2006)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to WP:RFCU unless you're letting me know about a particular problem we've been tracking, in which case I look here far more often.

Can you keep an eye on Operating Thetan?

JimmyT (talk • contribs) seems to have decided that this is the night to game the system and has already tried to sneak in his original research that the OT I-VII submitted with the Fishman Affidavit are "fake (or forged)" [1]. He's also calling in others to assist in the system-gaming. [2] -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also JimmyT (talk • contribs) has been harassing me on my discussion page. He is evidently another Office of Special Affairs collaborator tasked to disrupt Wikipedia and harass editors who disagree with the cofs party line. --Fahrenheit451 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up, you 1.1, out-ethics conspiracy [3] kook. Has homeland security contacted you yet? --JimmyT 10:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's locked, for why I have no idea. There was hardly even any revert war. Maybe someone wanted to lock it in place in a dubious state. Uncrediwikia... SHEESH!!! :) --JimmyT 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thinking more about Fahrenheit451's comment. OSA collaborator? LOL! Maybe Fahrenheit451 is an Office of Psychiatric Affairs collaborator tasked to disrupt Wikipedia and harass editors who disagree with the kook line. My guess is as good as his. --JimmyT 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naked sockpuppet

User:IanDaviesFriend nakedly a sockpuppet of User:IanDavies, whom you banned for being a sockpuppet of User:Irate... — ciphergoth 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected 'Sock' of Banned User Skull 'n' Femurs

Blueboar I think is a 'sock' of the banned Masonic Editor Skull 'n' Femurs . He uses the same type of language especially the frequent use the word 'crap'. I request a check user for this editor.Anderson12 14:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser request

Hi, would it be possible for you to run a checkuser on Nameme (talk • contribs) and see if it matches up with deleted user Get-back-world-respect (talk • contribs)? I have reason to believe that Nameme is really GBWR avoiding a block and making controversial changes through a sock to avoid further warnings. I'm also being harassed on my talk page by the user. I'm not asking that you take any action: if there's any action to be taken I'll bring it up to arbcom or RfC or AN, or something else. But I'd like to know if they're the same person before I take any action that may make me look like a fool. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

User:Anderson12

Check user showed it's likely Anderson12 is Lightbringer, is it possible to get him blocked again? Ardenn 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ardenn just got admonished for vandalism and violation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding 3rr and making false accusations of vandalism. I consider this false accusation of being a sock another instance of this.Anderson12 13:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you age getting tired of policing the Freemasonry pages, but please swing by Freemasonry and Talk:Freemasonry and take a look at Anderson12's current rants and vandalism ... if this guy isn't a sock for Basil Rathbone/Lightbringer, then he is a close clone. I think he has violated 3rrr at least... and probably several other guidelines. His attacks are getting personal. Blueboar 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... another admin has taken care of it. Thanks anyway. Blueboar 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been ill most of this week and just spent last night in hospital. Eek! So I plan to be taking things very easy for at least a few more days. There's always other admins around — pop by WP:ANI and say it's something I've been dealing with, and people can see this talk page for verification. Also that Lightbringer appears a really determined mission poster, hence his AC sanction - David Gerard 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off ill

Back whenever. I might try some editing some of these "article" things you Wikipedia people claim to have a million of. And here I thought this was a project to write an encyclopedia of policy and userboxes! The things you learn ... (Do we have a million userboxes yet? Maybe by June or July) - David Gerard 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process

Hello Mr. Gerard,

I am sorry that you are ill, and wish you a speedy recovery. On the discussion page for the proposed decision of the Sidaway RfAr, I believe that you have suggested that I have abused process in some way, though I may be mistaken in interpreting your remarks, of course. I have left a fuller reply there, but I would appreciate please an explanation, if you did intend to suggest that I have abused process. How so?

Best wishes and geekily yours, Xoloz 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flu!

My sincere hopes that you feel better soon. It sounds awful. ... aa:talk 05:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Particularly on my talk page [4]. Just don't. - David Gerard 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go away!!! --JimmyT 13:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking talkpage

Please do not blank sections of my talk page. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, spam rollback - David Gerard 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput again

The day he "resigned" from Wikipedia, 20 February, Shivraj_Singh (talk • contribs) made an attack on ImpuMozhi (talk • contribs), accusing him of lying.[5] Suddenly a new editor, Stephanian (talk • contribs), has appeared on Wikipedia, created a couple of userboxes out of the blue, and then headed on up to Rajput, where he renewed the allegation on Talk:Rajput. [6]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

There was actually a bewildering number of editors banned from Rajput and related articles as a result of that case, but I suppose thr first one to check should be pretty obvious. --Tony Sidaway 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Stuff

My brother recorded both the radio and TV interviews. I'll email those to you once he sends them to me. Nach0king 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep's RFAr

This is regarding your statement in MarkSweep's RFAr. I think this evidence might be of help (in case you hadn't already seen it). --Cyde Weys 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC vandalism?

I'm a bit confused. I started an RFC on Freemasonry, and on [WP:RFC] there is a whole detailed process that requires subpages to be created and linked to WP:RFC in the appropriate category, along with a statement of dispute. User:Hipocrite, however, claims that the whole process was vandalism by Ril on WP:RFC. If so, Ril certainly put a lot of thought into it. Could you perhaps look into this? I'm more than happy to do things the "old way", but I think this new way (which requires that the RFC be thought about first) will do a lot to get rid of frivolous RFCs, so it would be too bad if it turns out to be vandalism. MSJapan 05:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

If you are honestly watching Freemasonry, can you please do something? Review recent editing history, and determine if the actions of MSJapan, Blueboar and Imacomp are anything more than disruptive edit warring:

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and scores more. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite. You forgot Chtirrell [16] Imacomp 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I have and will continue to do so, in the face of your continued bad acts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, David Gerard. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone reading this should try this. User:SuggestBot/Requests is where you request your custom list - David Gerard 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR

You've been named as a party in an arbitration request by an IP (which I've since blocked for ban evasion), just FYI. IP in question is User:Queeran, just for posterity. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:52 UTC (2006-03-08)

Addendum, Tony Sidaway has removed the request as trollish, which it (probably) was. ;) NSL E _(T+C) at 04:13 UTC (2006-03-08)

He went as far as phoning Danny at the foundation. WTFFF - David Gerard

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Edmunds

Thanks for your note. I don't have any further info on this guy - to be honest, I don't really agree with idea of stating all these theories in the Eloise Worledge article. It sounds too much like speculation, saying it could have been this guy or that guy or whoever, without any actual references? I'm still new to Wikipedia so I'd like another opinion.. --Commking 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the case has third-party documented speculation that's notable, that would be encyclopedic. c.f. Jack the Ripper. - David Gerard 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo.

This isn't quite the way I'd thought it would turn out when you referred me to the Dianetics article back in December, but that's the way it goes... :-/ -- ChrisO 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateman1997

Hey um... there is no way Gateman1997 is a sock of JohnnyBGood. First off, wouldn;t it be the other way around, since the latter's account was created last? But they are 2 different people. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the remarkably similar contribution record and the timestamp pattern. We got some great patterns putting the lot into a spreadsheet and seeing results come out. - David Gerard 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because they're in the Pacific Time Zone? And watchlists do exist. Where's the CheckUser stuff? I know you have access to it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2

Was this really necessary? Also, please note that I fixed the two supports you accidentally removed in that diff, presumably because of an edit conflict. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflict foulup, thanks for fixing that. I think that someone opposing because he "doesn't like userboxes" is showing stupidity that really warrants approbation - David Gerard 18:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true; I don't think userbox anything is sufficient to oppose. They're just little divs; they're not worth an uproar. But I really didn't think your little blurb at the top of the RfA was appropriate; just vote support and be on your way. That's what I meant. It was mentioned in another neutral vote by User:Deiz, though it did not affect my own neutral vote. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that! I put that in because people said 'why didn't he get someone to nominate him', and I certainly would have done so had I known he was ready for another run. Because really, at this stage having Alphax not be an admin is ridiculous IMO. I'm sorry if it seemed improper; I didn't expect doing so would in fact offend anyone - David Gerard 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think about it this way: If Joe Newbie came in and did that, assuming good faith was assumed, would people really accept that, or would it be removed fairly quickly? Your reasoning makes sense, but I see it as a bit of wikicampaigning, which I don't like considering adminship is "no big deal." I'm a hair away from changing my vote to support now, anyway. Thanks for your quick responses. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct, which is why I struck it. I'm sorry, I won't do this again - 22:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi David Yesterday I noticed your message on AN/I about blocking JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997 and how you asked him to e-mail you. It was then stated that you have no valid address entered, to which I replied that it was on your user page. Today I received an e-mail from Gateman, stating that he's e-mailed you twice but received no reply. I'm wondering whether your address is still current on not. Raven4x4x 09:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very ill lately and just got sicker again. I'm dealing with the piles of crap slowly. Apologies to all for delays - David Gerard 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick follow-up from Jmk56 (Frances Farmer)

Hi, David--I received a very nice email yesterday from Mr. Wales about this recent dust-up on the Frances Farmer article. I have pretty much divorced myself from Wikipedia due to this completely avoidable conflict, but since I see the charming and diligent Wyss has posted about me above, I feel for the sake of balance I need to respond.

In terms of how much of an "expert" I am, as I have repeatedly mentioned, my Farmer research has been used as source material for many books, articles and documentaries, including broadcast documentaries on A&E Biography and NPR, and print pieces in the Washington Post and too many regional and/or web print media to list, as well as Jack El-Hai's definitive biography of Walter Freeman, "The Lobotomist".

And contrary to what Wyss asserts above, I at no time conceded that any of her edits was accurate and indeed she later went back and corrected each and every mistake she made that my attempts to correct ended up getting me "blocked" over. Because Wyss made literally hundreds of edits to the Farmer article over the course of a few days, her errors were manifold, but if you have the desire, you can see that the scores of errors she made she later went back and fixed after repeated messages from me. From my very first attempt to correct her inaccuracies (before I had been "blocked" and indeed even after, when I continued to attempt to correct her "anonymously"--though I signed every correction with my blocked username), I always provided sources for my corrections. Wyss fought me tooth and nail every step of the way.

In terms of Wyss "assuming good faith," if you take a moment to look at both her and my Discussion page histories, you will see her first "assumption of good faith" was to say "I don't know what you're up to" and then to call me a "bonehead," and then, hilariously, to assert that I was not me and had not written "Shedding Light on Shadowland," a copyrighted piece from which she "borrowed" liberally. Not to mention her repeated assertions (right here on your Talk page as well as manifold other places) that I "cloned" her ID. I have repeatedly asked the powers that be at Wikipedia to institute an ISP trace (which Wyss herself stated could be done) to trace this cloning activity. Unfortunately I have not heard back from anyone, but hopefully the fact that I have repeatedly made this request shows I have absolutely nothing to hide. I once again vehemently deny I did any such thing. I am a complete Wiki-novice. Wyss obviously has an expertise far beyond mine, and apparently tons of free time, as evidenced by her hundreds of edits daily. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

In the meantime, I notice that Wyss has careened from one conflict to another, evidently ending up being "blocked" herself, apparently several times by Arbitration Committee members. Unlike some, I think Wyss has good intentions, but has a hair-trigger temper and does not like to have her "authority" (whatever that might be) questioned. My one and only interest in this brouhaha was accuracy in the Farmer article. It's unfortunate that one zealous editor with her own agenda fought me for days instead of engaging me and trying to understand that my edits of her inaccuracies were not attacks, but an effort to make sure no more misinformation about Frances Farmer was disseminated.

Now you have *my* side, and I will most likely not be back on Wikipedia's shores.

Thank you for reading this. Jmk56 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To David Gerard

File:Paledaffodils.jpg

Hope you get better soon, ignore these trolls, vandals, sockpuppets, KEEP ON BLOCKINGTHEM!!! Keep up the good work, you're a top admin! The image on the right may make you feel better!! --Sunfazer (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poly Prep Country Day School

He doesn't forget? So why has Harry Reid been unprotected since the 22nd of February?Geni 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. You could ... ask him. He's on IRC now, if you have IRC - David Gerard 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request for Current arbitration case - Melissadolbeer

Hi,

are either (or both)

Bacchiad (talk • contribs)
Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

any of the following:

?

(apart from Bacchiad and Robert Mclenon these are all very obvious socks of each other)

(SallyGold and Dwho are the most recent)

Thanks,

This is needed for an arbitration case (-Ril-2).

Oh, P.s. Bacchiad's edit pattern over time is here. It matches that of the combined Melissadolbeer sock's quite well.

Bacciad edits about flaky theories of Christian origin, just like Melissadolbeer, and at the same time has a grudge against CheeseDreams, which also appears to be the case with Melissadolbeer.

Robert McClenon also appears to have a strong grudge against CheeseDreams, and heavily edits in the field of Christianity. He also showed up in the KJV RFAR at approximately the same time as Melissadolbeer "discovered" it. For these reasons I think he is a plausible candidate for the sockpuppeteer.

--Victim of signature fascism 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hm. I view the allegation that Robert Mclenon is operating these socks as a little better than retaliation for the mudslinging that is going on in RfAr. However, Melissadolbeer and the rest of those listed are certainly a army of disruptive socks (obvious identical M.O.s) whose behaviour over the last nine months or more has been as poor as Ril's. The last full erruption of these socks ended when Ril left the scene and Authentic Matthew was 'sorted' in August/September. However, like a sleeping volcano, there have been small splutters since Ril returned. Most likely, the sockmeister just checks in infrequently, and noticed Ril's new controversies, but it is possible (as Ril suggests) that the whole show is being operated by some other established user. A fishing trip might yield results, but other than that, despite my disagreements with Ril, I've adopted 'block on sight policy' towards this user. --Doc ^ask? 20:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Retaliatory" checkusering is basically a no-op as if in doubt I say nothing. If anyone tries to bring up the mere fact of being checked as somehow a black mark, I slap them down promptly - David Gerard 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McLenon has never struck me as any sort of malefactor, fwiw - quite the opposite. But I'll try to look at all these later today - David Gerard 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article

A Guardian article, which mentions your name, was reproduced in The Hindu today Link Tintin (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good! They said the UK version might not actually make it online ... - David Gerard 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Window System

Thank you for your message. I know you have been quite busy lately, so it's especially good you can keep working on these articles. I don't think I will have any change of getting a photo of an X terminal: there had been some where I work, but I think they have all been dumped at this point. - Liberatore(T) 14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser/Imposter deletion request

Someone tried to register user:DufferI with my e-mail address. This person is an imposter with my very real personal information. This is fairly unnerving. Please do something about this imposter, and please erase the personal information. Duffer 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the user page up for deletion, but if there's a better/faster way, I'd love to use it. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a speedy - David Gerard 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a speedy:attack, but now you've blanked it out! - CobaltBlueTony 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) It's got the important info ;-) - David Gerard 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see I've deleted the userpage except the very last revision. See WP:ANI. Please let me know of future socks - I am erring on the side of not revealing the IP or range at this stage, but I'll keep an eye out in future - David Gerard 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David. Duffer 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents with User:Nuview

Nuview deleted the same paragraph from the article David Miscavige on 6 March 2006 and on 13 March 2006, without discussion or consensus.--Fahrenheit451 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been willing to talk to other editors in the past. See if you can get him to at least discuss the issue. He's actually CoS staff, but he's been quite reasonably behaved as an editor (even if few of his edits stay unaltered) and his POV has been good for the Scientology articles - David Gerard 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I know checking users' identities is now handled elsewhere, but I'm bringing you a rather urgent case involving someone who has been the subject of an arbcom ruling and who not merely may occasionally use a sockpuppet to circumvent the restrictions placed on them, but may themselves be a notorious hardbanned user blocked permanently by Jimbo. Because of the urgency, and the number of checks in process, I thought it wise to do directly to you with it.

There is certainly strong circumstantial evidence that User:Ted Wilkes, who has been restricted by the arbcom from certain types of editing (and has breached the ban at least 4 times now, leading to a weekly ban) may have been using User:Danny B to get around the restrictions. There are also worrying suspicions that Wilkes may indeed be the notorious User:DW, an infamous individual who terrorised Wikipedia and Wikipedians with a host of abusive sockpuppets until permanently banned (along with his long list of sockpuppets) by Jimbo. Having defamed one user by mispresenting an arbcom ruling to claim the user in question was "convicted" of "lying", Wilkes is now targeting me for abuse for enforcing the arbcom ruling and blocking him. (Carrying out personal vendettas is just one of many suspicious similarities, including what is edited, what is written, what explanations are given, editing style, etc between Wilkes and DW.)

If he is Danny B then his breaches of the arbcom ruling with be increased accordingly (if the total exceeds six he will be banned for one year). If he is DW then the issue would become immaterial. He would be instantly permanently banned. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check user?

Hi there, I found you from the list of those with check user abilities. I am wondering if you would mind checking if the following IP is connected with a registered account (they vandalized my user page, and I have recently been under heavy attack from several users because of my attempts to NPOV a controversial article): 67.186.215.2 . Thanks very much. bcatt 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You deleted my response to Ambi's arbitration request. Please don't do this again. DarrenRay 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Not sure how that happened - I didn't backspace or anything - David Gerard 13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't delete my short statement either, but my question to you is could you please disclose any political or other associations that might lead you to have a conflict of interest in relation to participating as a third party in the Arbitration request. I make no allegations and hope you don't take it that way, but I believe that a full disclosure would be welcome to remove any misapprehensions. --2006BC 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah: my affiliation is for Wikipedia and against those using it for anti-PR in the rest of their lives. HTH. - David Gerard 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, I'd take that as a 'no comment'. LOL. DarrenRay 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Re DR - I'm a bit puzzled. You've blocked him for a month 2006-03-21 19:15:10 David Gerard blocked "DarrenRay (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (restoring 1 month block for gross sockpuppetry to further external conflict on Wikipedia). As far As I can see (and I checked until I got bored) DR has a whole string on unexceptionable edits. If he has evil socks, then I guess thats bad, but blocking the DR account for so long seems a bit odd William M. Connolley 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check my note on WP:ANI - Darren Ray (DarrenRay (talk • contribs)) and Ben Cass (2006BC (talk • contribs)) are different people, but they've been working in concert for months, as far as I can tell, as the phenomenon known to the vandal-hunters as the Australian Politics Vandal, under about 1 zillion usernames. They're actually different people, though this isn't clear from the checkuser as each has edited from the other's house (looks like to me) with their own and sockpuppets' usernames. I would say "block by massive admin disgust" except this has been pretty much in effect, and the only reason we have these two to hit with an AC case, etc. is because they are stupidly arrogant and operating out from under cover now. I blocked DarrenRay for a short block, but reinstated Essjay's 1 month block because there ain't no way these people are here to do good, except as a cover for doing bad - David Gerard 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not going to push this, as I know nothing about DR. If you're convinced of the sockpuppetry, then his denying it counts of evidence of bad faith I suppose William M. Connolley 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check on Freemasonry article

David, It looks like another sock of user:Lightbringer (also: Basil Rathbone, Humanum Genus, and a host of other sock names) is back on the Freemasonry page. He is going by the name User:40 Days of Lent which would fit a pattern of picking sock names with religious (and specificly Catholic) meaning. If this is indeed the same person, he has shown himself to be an avid POV agenda pusher who has been banned by arbitration from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. He needs to be cut off before he disrupts the page further. My reason for suspecting him is very simple... the banned user has a "preferred" version of the article that he repeatedly has tried to force upon the other editors. Several times in recent months, his first act was to post this "preferred" version... which immediately starts an edit war as other editors object strongly to the material. As I think you are aware, this finally resulted in having a semi-lock put on the page to prevent him from simply opening a new account and continuing where he left off. However, all this has done is to shift him off the article and to the talk page. Now he simply posts his very large "preferred" version onto the talk page as "proposed additions" (If you look at the archives, this same material has been posted repeatedly). The other editors have already patiently explained why his "proposed additions" are not acceptable (inaccurate, POV, incorrectly cited, and inflamitory just to name a few reasons)... posting it all again is now simply a form of vandalism. Please run a check on this user, and if it is a sock... slap a block on him... again. Blueboar 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that maybe this user's contribs might be of interest. MSJapan 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCU—anybody home?

Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. Radio Kirk talk to me 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It varies - David Gerard 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello David, we haven't talked before but I was hopeing you could help me with a problem, since I saw your name on the list of those with check user abilities. I suspect user baku87 may have atleast one sockpuppet if not two, which are druffc and Johnstevens5.

The problem really started when baku87 brought up outlandish POV charges against the Military of Armenia article. Soon he was joined by druffc and just today by Johnstevens5. What makes me suspect that he may have sockpuppets is how the first edits druffc and Johnstevens5 made were on the talk page to the Military of Armenian article. Also, if you check out baku87 contributions, you will see that he has had contact with Johnstevens5 at a time when Johnstevens5 doesn't even have his user page set up. Also, druffc knew about edit summary, something that most new users do not learn after only a couple of edits. Please look into this, thank you in advance!--Moosh88 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're familiar with our little realm...

Perhaps you wouldn't mind looking into this unfair block of Duffer, insitgated or orchestrated by individuals whose tactics and behaviors you had become familiar with in Tommstein and Central. If you'd rather not get involved, I'll understand. - CobaltBlueTony 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again David. I'm certain the recent vandals of the Witness pages are connected to the recent imposter and the recently banned user:Central/user:Tommstein. It's all outlined on my talk page. Anonymous harrasment has continued since the imposter incident. The Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues article (and to a lesser degree the main Jehovah's Witness article and my talk page) has recently been assualted by a cabal of anonymous vandals (or one person vandalising by proxy). Just look at the page histories for those two articles (JW:CI, JW) over the past couple of days. I was hoping you could investigate this matter. It would be most appreciated. Duffer 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gornham (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Claims to be a bot operated by WoW etc. It may be wise to run a sockpuppet check before the prospective skirmish. I suspect this might be a MARMOT sockpuppet. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-metrication

I've moved Anti-metrication to AfD because I felt it needed discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-metrication NickelShoe (Talk) 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's how PROD's supposed to work :-) - David Gerard 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm going to open a shoe store.....

I believe that since Freemasonry has gone back to unprotected, we have another LB sock in the personage of Fyodor Dos (talk • contribs). He's decided that an incorrect line in the occult article regarding etymology is reason enough to call Freemasonry "occult", without bothering to look at the content of either occult or esoteric. His new name is a writer who converted to Catholicism, so the MO is spot on. Can I get an RFCU, and would it really be so awful if I was maybe given the CheckUser permission so I didn't have to keep posting RFCUs that sit and sit because those who are not directly involved think this is a simple content dispute? On that note, though, Lightbringer now has an entry on WP:Long term abuse. MSJapan 04:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fyodor Dos has pretty much made his thoughts known on Talk:Freemasonry, and sock or not (though I'm sure he is) he will be incapable of editing in an NPOV fashion. He also can't back up his claims with any reliable evidence, even when asked. MSJapan 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleCheckUser

Saw your note on the WP:RFCU talk page. When you have a moment, would you be willing to take a look at this request for a second look. While I think the editor who filed the original request for CheckUser now realizes that we are indeed separate individuals, there is still the matter of some votes which have been cast into doubt by the first incorrect analysis... TIA, —Adityanath 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how you conduct yourself?

It's good to know that your blocking me for 12 hours for 'Idiot Trolling' accusing me of being a troll just for making a complaint about the conduct of certain administrators was a BREACH of blocking policy. Also good to know that there were sensible administrators out there prepared to unblock me.

I've not once ever been involved in trolling and the User: Jebus Christ block had nothing to do with trolling. It was a username block. You obviously didn't bother to even read what i'd written on Jimbo's talk page. You just assumed it was a rant about the username and that was enough to accuse me of 'idiot trolling' and being a 'dick'. What the hell kind of conduct is that?

I can't believe I even have to come here an ask this but I would like an appology please.

Thanks,

Jimididit 09:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, before you engage in further debate with this troll, I highly recommend you run a checkuser on User:Jimididit and User:J is me. Based on J is me's last edit and Jimididit's attack on me in his very first edit and many many many subsequent attacks, I'd put my wisdom teeth on them being the same person. Do us both a favour and run a check, okay? Snottygobble 12:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty, if you can refute my claims I will offer you a full appology. But at this time I still can't see why you associated two IP addresses from different countries with J is me when you accused him of trolling (he is clearly a troll though). I also can't understand why its ok for Grant65 to put a suspected sockpuppet tag wherever he chooses but anyone else doing the same to him is automatically a troll who deserves to be blocked.

Apologies to David for cross-talk on his page.

You might be suprised to hear how many people consider David Gerard to be among our most sensible wikipedians. And your example "sensible administrator" is probably not an authority you should look to. Don't mistake the unblock for imprimatur.

If David had droppped a message on your talk "Based upon previous behavior please don't use Jimbo's talk," and then said "disruption" the block summary followed by a semi-plausible rationale on WP:ANI there may have been no unblock.
You are deviating slightly from the center of the distribution as far as your behavior goes, you may not have realised. The best thing for you to do right now is go and make some article edits. Uncontroversial ones, fix some typos of do some stub sorting, something productive. You'll feel better, really.
Forget an apology. Take this page off your watchlist. Take everyone's talk off your watchlist. Just move along, really.

brenneman^{L} 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We now return to out regularly schedualed programming.

other talk pages on my watch list are there as part of my campaign to restore my old username. This talk page is on my watch list because Left a comment here. Why is that an issue for you? Anyway I get it, wikipedia admins stick together like shit to a blanket. Jimididit 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix (talk • contribs) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

Fadix is getting involved with votes I am involved and breaching the arbitration ruling in my view. [17]

I may be over reacting perhaps but you may want to pass the word to the arbitration people.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

Could you please update the commonwealth games section - i have suggested an enry under March 26.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_by_user:AKMask

I suspect AKMask is infact a sockpuppet of Davenbelle as he has been stalking me at least on two votes. He is not a regular voter and is a relatively new editor and had started editing roughly about the same time as davenbelle left. He is overal being a dick as well. Can you look into this? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. --Bhadani 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running for admin on meta

I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:David Gerard - David Gerard 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MARMOT

He is still active. Have you found the hammer to nail him to the tree? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck. No. Grrrrr - David Gerard 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? about Terryeo's RfA

Hi, I see you're looking in on this (I was wondering whether UNK and JimmyT were one and the same), and I believe you were once an arbitrator, so I'll ask you the same thing I've just asked ChrisO--is it useful for other editors with knowledge of the situation to sign on and testify on the RfA, if that is basically just going to restate material from the RfC? I see the potential for more confusing back-and-forth talk, as has characterized so many of the talk pages where Terryeo is active as well as the earlier, failed, mediation attempt. I don't want to add anything unless it is going to be percieved as clarifying the issue, as opposed to just creting more "noise." I'd appreciate an arbitrator's perspective--any advice? BTfromLA 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If/when the RFAr opens, I suggest just supplying factual and verifiable evidence then; adding a statement of the problem is probably superfluous before then, as you suspect - the RFC covers it pretty well in my opinion - David Gerard 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#en.wikipedia.vandalim -> #wikipedia-en-vandalim

Diring the transaction fennc gave away channels ownership to essjay and recently essjay booted me off the channel.

Since I failed to convince User:Angela to take any action (or even consider my case seriously), I decided to create a new chain of channels for my bot. However the main issue is moving/copying all the access settings (on 12+ channels). #wikipedia-en-vandalim has a list of over 200 usrs and I do not want to copy/paste them one by one.

I was wondering if there was any way you could assist. I believe you know quite a number of Freenode staffers.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde and SPUI

I have edited your user page, since I have decided that you are a sock puppet of Cyde and SPUI. I base this on emphatical CheckFool evidence, which is indisputable, because I say so. Hope you don't mind. I also removed the photo of you since it's clearly not you, since you're a sock puppet. We all decided that you had all sold your accounts to someone. Not sure who. CheckFool doesn't lie. See: WP:CheckFool

-1 Flamebait Cyde Weys 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- -1 Unfair

Meta adminship

Yikes, you're RfA is starting to go down in flames over there! Did you rock the boat a little too much or something? I voted support because even though you have strong opinions at least in my experience you generally hold back on using the buttons at inappropriate times :). I'm starting to get a little worried though with the long-time stewards opposing you :\. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere has apparently decided I'm part of an organised invading troll force from en: (I'm wondering what to do with the email she just sent me ... it's amazing) and is MOBILISING THE TROOPS against me. Note the "number of edits" she's been putting on RFA votes (the same behaviour that got someone sanctioned by the AC in the webcomics case, but of course Meta is a different place). What the fuck. It would possibly be taken as an assumption of bad faith on my part to declare that the Foundation is going BATSHIT INSANE of late, but really it's an assumption of bad judgement - David Gerard 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfas are often unreal. But think it this way, no one threatened to leave wikipedia if your meta adminship were to suceed. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARMOT

Disrespect_to_Taccloo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Soiler (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
The_Suassage_Factory (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Sammy_the_turd (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Apology_Accepted (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

These are MARMOT sock, he is talking to me about it on irc. Are they ntl/tor or someting lese. Could be open proxies... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've removed it...

but AN/I really needed more cowbell. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced! - David Gerard 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad the situation has been resolved. JDoorj a m Talk 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got another suspected of the same guy. User:JamieBattenbo. I wonder if he has (m)any more? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:12, 6 April 2006 edit JDoorjam (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,237 edits User:ROGNNTUDJUU! ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:43, 7 April 2006 edit undo BorgHunter (talk \| contribs) Administrators 6,679 edits →‎User:ROGNNTUDJUU!: Got another one. Next edit →
Line 468:		Line 468:

	Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad the situation has been resolved. [[User:JDoorjam\|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza\|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam\|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam\|Talk]] 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)		Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad the situation has been resolved. [[User:JDoorjam\|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza\|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam\|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam\|Talk]] 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

			:Got another suspected of the same guy. [[User:JamieBattenbo]]. I wonder if he has (m)any more? —[[User:BorgHunter\|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>[[User:BorgHunter/AntiUBX\|ubx]]</s></sup> ([[User_talk:BorgHunter\|talk]]) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)