Jump to content

User talk:David Gerard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimididit (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 25 March 2006 (→‎Is this how you conduct yourself?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikimedia Foundation
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff is no longer my problem. 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.

Terryeo

David, you've probably spotted this already, but Terryeo is rapidly becoming quite a problem user. He's been editing all the Scientology articles, and he's quick enough to cite Wikipedia policies which supposedly justify his edits. However, examination of those edits show a clear double standard. For instance, at E-meter, he has repeatedly removed a paragraph stating that the Church has drawn comparisons between the principles of the E-meter and the principles of the polygraph,because (he claims to believe) a source needs to be cited to report that the Church has idrawn such comparisons. [1] However, here's material that he added to Dianetics:

The end goal of Dianetics in 1950 was a person that could be tested for any and all neuroses, psychoses, compulsions, repressions, all mental aberrations, and all psychosomatic ills and be found to be free of such things. Tests could be run before and after Dianetics to prove this state was achieved by Dianetics. This is a clear. Clears were found to have intelligence high above the current norm and to pursue life with vigor and satisfaction. His emotions could be seen to be fluid, no longer fixed. He was his basic self or basic personality and very unique. He had all the information of his experience available to him fully. [2]

I've been doing what I can to undo his damage to these articles, but he's persistent and he's very glib in pretending that he really cares about Wikipedia policy (or at least, whatever subset of Wikipedia policy can be made to look like it supports the change he wants to make at that time.) The problem is that I am still not back to full health, and don't have the energy to both revert all his bad edits and respond to his disingenuous pretenses on the talk page that he's merely following "Wiki policy" and I'm breaking it by not explaining afresh each time what's wrong with the edits he's making. And without more support from other editors, I look like a rogue editor, a perception Terryeo is actively trying to label me with. [3] -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Feldspar. What is more, I suspect a cohort of his, Nuview is using a couple sockpuppets to justify and assist edits on the David Miscavige scientology-related article. Please take a look at Nuview's discussion page where an admission is made of using "other personas" and at Talk:David Miscavige. One is Independentmike and the other is Streamlight.--Fahrenheit451 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Nuview's other "personas" before (such being way too close to a breach of the sockpuppet policy). Keeping Nuview on is actually important IMO because he's CoS staff and edits from CoS machines — although many of his edits don't stay as he put them, he has been tremendously valuable to the Wikipedia articles on Scientology in supplying an important and relevant POV, and is mostly a good value editor. I'll see if I can look into this over the weekend. It's good we have other sockcheckers now, because then I can back off from a matter I'm editing heavily on! - David Gerard 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above about my imminent departure! I'll come back and look over stuff in a week (or so). In the meantime, get onto User:ChrisO, who can out-reference just about anyone - David Gerard 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo now has another cohort Ayespy and the POV edits on the David Miscavige article are getting more frequent. --Fahrenheit451 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How pleasent to see I'm being talked about :) You all have a real nice weekend, you hear? Terryeo 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since Antaeus Feldspar, Fahrenheit451, David Gerard (whose page this is) wish to communicate, would it be possible to get into communication with you all? Could we possibly get some possible agreeement, meeting of the minds, discussion or in some manner or means save us all a lot of editing, cross editing and other such? I do understand, you view me as unable to understand the typed word. While I view you all as simply not understanding Dianetics nor Scientology and posting, reposting, editing and re-editing from a lack of understanding. I do understand that you do not understand the body of information. okay, fine. Why should you? But perhaps I can be helpful to you. Perhaps I can answer some of the "what is going on in Scientology" or in some other manner, save us all a good deal of effort toward making Wikipedia a useful resource for our planet's 6.5 billion peoples. Let's get into communication, shall we? Terryeo 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo, you presume none of us understand Dianetics or Scientology. I was a student, staff/SO member or volunteer for over 25 years. The only answers you have supplied are along the party-line of the miscavige administration, who has made sure that anyone who even disagrees with him is given a tribunal with a coerced, pre-determined verdict and/or get labeled a suppressive person and then subject to enforced shunning. The whole strategy of Nuview, a couple sockpuppets, Ayespy and yourself has been an attempt to pervert and distort wikipedia citation policy so as to insinuate the false "reliable source" notion. Then, you define reliable source to suit your editorializing. --Fahrenheit451 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo is removing cited edits that he disagrees with. Editors are having to constantly revert this guy. I suggest an arbitration on him.--Fahrenheit451 06:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked UK users

Hi David. I have only just seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rachel_Brown_sockpuppet_army_blocked. Let me first say I am confident that these users are different people, close friends, who all attended UCL. I think this whole thing can only be understood in the context of the activities of User:Antidote, of whom I started an rfc on here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote, (subpages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Voting). The user has conducted a campaign to try and force the deletion of Jewish lists, voting multiple times, firstly back late in October on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. The multiple voting was first spotted by User:RachelBrown. In mid November the user again nominated that list as well as other Jewish lists, with many users suspecting that many votes were being cast by one user. In the context of this multiple voting, I and RachelBrown did ask other users to vote on these vfds (I have seen many users asking others to vote on vfds, including admins), and it appears that some of those votes may have been placed by Rachel's friends at her house. They were all already Wikipedia users and had all edited on different subjects prior to this (Poetlister- literary subjects, LondonEye- London locations, Rachel- Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman- fetish subjects). The vfding of the lists brought them to the attention of some users, mainly Lulu of the Lotus eaters who became involved at Talk:List_of_Jewish_jurists where he repeatedly criticised the use of the Jewish Year Book as a source which was later confirmed to be a perfectly respectable source by User:Jayjg. Rachel became pretty upset as to what she felt was an attack, her friend Poetlister then offered to help to try and solve the dispute. Lulu then began following some of the edits of Rachel, adding cleanup or unverified tags, and more Jewish lists were again nominated with clear sock puppet voting of the one user above which contributed to the stress Rachel had began suffering which caused her to almost have a breakdown as she had been a very avid and keen Wikipedia contributor and I imagine that she felt slightly betrayed by the sudden hostility she was encountering which she had no experience of prior to this episode. Her cousin LondonEye, Poetlister and another friend Newport offered to work on articles Rachel had drafted and add them to Wikipedia. It is possible that Newport is in fact Rachel (perhaps she started a new account as she felt Lulu and other users were stalking her edits) but these two accounts never voted on the same vfds or backed each other up in disputes. I am absolutely certain these users are not deserving of a ban and really this has all come about due to confusion and unfortunate circumstances. Thanks Arniep 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very concerned that things have gone way off the rails. I came across RachelBrown when she created List of highest mountains and then maintained it over a period of time. She seemed (and seems) to me to be an entirely responsible editor. As Arniep says, looking at the editing done by these various accounts (historically) shows them as having very different interests. As someone with absolutely no involvement with any of these people at all, I think there has been a serious mistake in blocking these accounts. Thincat 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... if you are in touch with Rachel, please get her to email me. Sorting this out would be good for everyone - David Gerard 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics

Welcome back!

I've completely rewritten Dianetics and I must have set some sort of Wikipedia record for the use of footnotes - there are now 72 in the article (!). I've posted the new article; I'd like to get it up to FA status, so could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? I suspect that our resident Scientologists may have some issues with it, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out... -- ChrisO 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT vs NAMBLA

There is a vote here where some users to try to overturn WP categorisation policy (whereby categories and subcategories cannot be placed on the same page) and force a subcategory (LGBT organisations) onto the North American Man/Boy Love Association page. Some of the comments made are distinctly homophobic and rather disturbing (eg, "organised faggotry", etc). Personally it gives me the creeps even mentioning NAMBLA but your vote on the issue would be welcome.

WP:AFL

G'day Dave, not sure how "in-touch" you are with Aussie rules now that you live in London, but would you mind checking out WikiProject AFL and letting us know your thoughts on it? Cheers, Rogerthat 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Series

It's part of an effort to link many, many, articles, without getting too POV about the issue, which is a serious challenge, I admit. We have CoS editors, critical editors, etc., as part of a Wiki project trying to work it all out. The template needs discussion, yes. Hopefully, editors can see the template and hash out the needed items on the template, what matters. what doesn't, etc. Ronabop 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:Wikimedia UK

David, I noticed that you have not yet commented on the mailing list or Meta page about whether you want to come to the next meeting, and if so when you would be able to make it. There is a signup sheet at m:Wikimedia UK#Next meeting which it would be great if you could add your signature to sooner rather than later so we can get things moving. Thryduulf 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock: Solyock

A user you blocked with the reason "sockpuppet creation spurt from jmu.ac.uk" has requested that they be unblocked. If you have the time, a brief explanation of the block on the user's talk page would be a great help to any administrator reviewing blocks. Thanks. // Pathoschild 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Their unblock request is still up. I'd like to have something to write there at least for a sockpuppet notice. --Syrthiss 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user's unblock request has been granted. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool :-) Sorry I didn't get to this myself in any orderly time - David Gerard 11:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise you were dead. Please send my sympathies to your family.  ;) Morwen - Talk 12:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH BUGGER! *urk* - David Gerard 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (deceased)[reply]

Arbcom for Dummies

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*punt*

Where the hell are you/have been? Don't tell me you're working because I won't believe you ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop died on holiday, using the Mac G4 at home occasionally ... but I have put XChat on it and log in every now and then! - David Gerard 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Plaque

That ... fucker. - David Gerard 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby award you this bronze plaque for this edit. I may well have that tattooed on my forehead. :-) Essjay Talk • Contact 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was really a prizewinning move from MARMOT. I think NTL need contacting sooner rather than later - David Gerard 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malitious activity on the internet is a violation of US and UK law as far as I recall. He did cause us "damage" intentionaly taking advantage of a vunrability. This can be interpreted as hacking (only the sad kind thats detectable)? Since you are the expert in UK law (compared to me), what do you think? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I shall be doing some checking this weekend to nail MARMOT to a tree if possible - David Gerard 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn

What is it with you (and your friends) and having contempt for just about everyone else in the community? You don't even bother to get your facts straight, you just assume everyone else is wrong. Yawn, indeed. Radiant_>|< 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, dear. (thinks: o_0) - David Gerard 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with you and your friends and having contempt for puppies and sunshine? You don't even get your dogs-in-the-sun facts straight, you just assume that there's something wrong about dogs lounging in a sunbeam. Yawn, indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, when a cat pees in your shoe, you know they mean it - David Gerard 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the drama...

Hi David,

Even though you're not a bureaucrat (you might as well be; you're important enough to the project), I was wondering if you could weigh in on the talk page of WP:RFA. I've had it up to here with the process and I'm sure you could throw in a word of wisdom...

Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


meta-help

There is an extreme level of anti-WP:AUM stonewalling at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:If defined, and others. I think someone needs to make the right decision and delete the lot of them, such that the people who refuse to follow the advice of our developers, well, stop refusing. Options have been provided to these people, and can be implemented immediately. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to butt in, and you'll be somewhat surprised, I'm actually in agreement with Neto here, although from a slightly different angle. As far as I can tell, these templates do nothing that could not be easily replicated using {{qif}}: I think the "conditional template" thing has been complicated by excessive spawning of ever-more specialised incarnations (and the apparent fact that invoking the same template with different parameters necessitates another round-trip to the database just rubs salt into the wound ). If {{qif}} were in good odour, I would simply blast ahead and replace them all with the appropriate incantation, but…
So, can we pretend that they've all been replaced with {{qif}} and then "replace" that replacement with Neto's temporary fix (the "CSS Hack"), and then assign these ungainly oafs to the bit-bucket?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO IT! PLEASE! Just a Simple Matter of Editing ... - David Gerard 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

Regarding this comment.

  1. I work to prevent the deletion process from degenerating into anarchy.
  2. Often referred to pages such as WP:POINT is not an "official policy" either.
  3. The undeletion policy is official policy.
  4. I blocked Tony once, and deleted the articles he had undeleted once. Tony undeleted those articles twice.
  5. I spend my nearly all my time here either writing an encyclopedia or defending it against the vandals who through ignorance or malice seek to destroy it.
  6. I am not opposed to IAR when it is used responsibly.
  7. If you want those articles to stay, the best way is to visit WP:DRV#SuperOffice and Tally Solutions Ltd and argue your case there.
  8. I don't hate contibutors who try to improve the encyclopedia, and so I definitely don't hate either Tony or you.

Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way on Earth that reacting to an IAR article restoration with an IAR blocking doesn't constitute escalating the perpetual floating wheel war. I still think it was a breathtakingly ill-considered move on your part. "Because I thought it was obviously a good idea" blocks generally have to be a hell of a lot better justified than that.
I like IAR, but I did want to add to WP:IAR what Tony said about it: it's a stick of dynamite, be very sure you want to set it off - David Gerard 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Jimbo just closed the CFD on Category:Living people against 88% delete. Will you be blocking him for disruption too? - David Gerard 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser section

Hi! I made some changes to the CheckUser paragraph on your user page, as the current version isn't factually correct (you should ask stewards to get CheckUser rights after community approval, not a developer). I reverted myself afterwards, so that you can "approve" the changes. My version is here. Cheers, Jon Harald Søby 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your change is of course quite correct. Thank you! - David Gerard 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not editors mothers?

I am confused. Do arbitrators decide intractable edit disputes? What happens when two editors really cannot agree, should we just revert each others text endlessly? Is the quality of a Wikipedia article really decided by who gets tired first? loxley 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ideally. And we have had problems where someone wears someone down to the point of blowing their top and then raises an RFAr. We're trying to get better at spotting when that's what's happening - David Gerard 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I won't be at tomorrow's meet, as I said last Sunday - too much to do at home! - David Gerard 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jmk56

Only so you have my opinion... I'm not sure how expert he is, though he's certainly a buff. Several times he has accused me of inserting "incorrect" information, then conceded it was accurate. Now he's impersonating a relative of Frances Farmer (user:GoldenBoy1 (and has been blocked at least 3x for impersonating my user ID). Personally (and you can see by my edit history that I've tried to assume good faith with him many times), I think his behaviour is due to something other than culture shock at the rough and tumble of WP. Wyss 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet on User: Englishrose and User: RBlowes

I know this is gunna sound a strange request but please can you do a sock-puppet check for me (User: Englishrose) and User: RBlowes because we’ve repeatedly quite conveniently been accused of being sock-puppets and I feel that it is damaging my reputation. Thanks in advance. Englishrose 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timecop

please respond at user talk:timecop. --172.147.116.188 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom vote

Your vote gave me a laugh—because the same thought had occurred to me, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that I'd displace James. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making me feel bad about it. Stop it! :-) - David Gerard 17:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

We are sorry for the 'hotrocks' (User:Hotrocks) vandalism - instead we agree to become good contributors - and we have decided that we don't get any entertainment out of it.
This is a genuine apology and we are sorry.
Apologies again,
--Hutracks 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy right now, but I've noted this on WP:ANI - David Gerard 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tommstein

Hello David,
  Since you've placed your vote on the aforementioned RfA, the user has accelerated his level of violating WP:DICK, a policy you might want to make known to him due to his taking offense at your usage of the term. Would you mind speaking to fellow admins who would be willing to vote on this RfA? In my own opinion, the sooner the better... however, it IS fun watching him dig himself in deeper and deeper... - CobaltBlueTony 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another Neto rampage

Sorry to bang on, and you might actually already be aware, but we have a WP:OWN problem here. I know you have supported Neto in the past, but it now turns out that the main plank of his argument might not be as solid as was thought. Basically Brion has expressed surprise that people are invoking the mantra of "the servers can't take it" in their ongoing struggle against the template system: it certainly is not the combined opinion of the developers as a group. Neto's response ("He would say that wouldn't he" is possibly the low point but trawling all the way through the history is more than I can bear right now) has hardly been helpful, conciliatory or respectful. He is now, as I suggested, giving the appearance of a WP:OWN campaign, a situation which apparently is not a new one.

I'm posting this to you and to Raul654 in the hope that your combined wisdom might be brought to bear upon the situation before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Timecop indef block

  • I would like to know why you blocked User:Timecop for being a "dickyrobert sockpuppet". What leads you to believe this? Is it because he used an open proxy that DickyRobert once used? Timecop uses proxies for a legit reason, as per his userpage (he cannot reach cogent-only peered hosts from his isp). Please respond. Thanks, Jmax 65.34.226.25 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me blocking him. If it's an open proxy that's blocked, too bad 'cos open proxies are shoot on sight. If Timecop's valuable contributions don't make it onto the wiki, I'd have to consider how I felt about that, given his valuable contributions to the encyclopedia project so far - David Gerard 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I feel that his ban is not legitimate, and I would like to know the proper channel to appeal it. Can you please tell me? Thanks, Jmax 65.34.226.25 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:Velela

As Velela cannot respond himself because of the current block, he has asked me to respond on his behalf. I am a work colleague.

1. The problem - this issue arose because of one article Geoffrey Bolton which was slowly being improved but which one admin, User:Snottygobble took exception to. It remains , as of today, in its improved condition. A visitor to Velela's house, a respected UK geographer with strong links and much experience working in Australia and new to Wikipedia, asked whether he could also make an edit. An ID was created and he made a perfectly proper edit (which incidentally did not reference or revert to one of Velela's versions) Apparently because an admin believed that he owned the article he then promptly blocked Velela and all the other family accounts used at the same IP .
2. Wikipedia policy - there are no breaches of any policy here. There have been no examples of 3 reverts. There no sockpuppets (unless each PC can be used for only one account.) Even if they were sock-puppets there would have still been no breach of policy as multiple accounts are allowed, albeit reluctantly.
3. Reputation - I invite you to look at the edit record of Velela and the other accounts that have been blocked. There is nothing but good, well thought through, constructive edits, improving Wikepedia for the benefit of all. There is significant work on combatting vandalism. Were it a case of vandalism, in most cases a warning would be given before a block was imposed. That did not happen. Interestingly the block has now extended by a further 18hours - this is childish and only serves to diminish the reputation of Wikpedia.
4. Moving on - this seems to be an overt mis-use of a power by an admin because his article was being improved. An aoplogy to all the blocked users is in order and revertion of the edits made by Snottygobble advertising the blocks together with an immediate lifting of the blocks.
This completely fails to explain the other usernames Velela has been using to apparently fake consensus, or the strange fondness for point form. What on earth? - David Gerard 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Velela's version of events is:
Velela edits Geoffrey Bolton into point form and is reverted; a guest in Velela's house then logs in, coincidentally stumbles onto Geoffrey Bolton, coincidentally notices that Velela has a reverted edit in the page history, coincidentally shares Velela's preference for point form, and reverts to Velela's version; guest is reverted; another guest in Velela's house then creates an account which is coincidentally named "WA Bolton" after the state and surname of the person at issue; guest then coincidentally stumbles onto Geoffrey Bolton, coincidentally notices that Velela has a reverted edit in the page history; coincidentally shares Velela's preference for point form, and reverts to Velela's version.
Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 12:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm does benefit anybody. When introducing my guest to Wikipedia, inevitably he is sitting by my shoulder and takes an interest in one artcile that I am editing because he has an great interest in Australia. Do you not have freinds or guests in your houses  ? - perhaps not.87.112.12.15 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! It's so elegant and obvious! - David Gerard 12:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely astonishing! When my children were little this kind of coincidence was always occurring to them. Mischievous ponies would appear and smear jam on the carpet while the adults were otherwise occupied, Hordes of screaming monkeys would appear from nowhere and chew train tickets to a saliva-moistened pulp while everybody was asleep. Naughty bunny rabbits would deface library books with my children's names and in a fair imitation of their handwriting. Despite extensive investigations, not one of the culprits was ever apprehended. Oh look, I think I see one now! Up by the menu bar! Is there a statute of limitations on the crimes of imaginary friends? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger happy?

I realize it is not easy to simplify and clarify NPOV, but I rather liked my version. The paragraph you reinserted seems to endorse original research. The section I want deleted is redundant. How about an explanation? Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view Bensaccount 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From the Requests for Unprotection: This has been protected for a couple of days now. I think there's enough discussion on the talkpage to ensure edits made without consensus will not last long on this page, jguk 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to appeal to David Gerard on that one. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. It was to calm down Bensaccount - David Gerard 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. Hopefully discussions will take place on the talk page rather than through revert wars now. If not, I'll concede defeat and ask for re-protection. Keep up the good work on AfD - at some stage banging your head against the brick wall will cause it to come tumbling down:) jguk 13:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socket puppet in use as support

Hi David can you please check this out.

Can someone do a sockpuppet check on the anon and R0m? They both started posting around the same day in the same areas. I suspect there's a good reason the two of them agree. (Though of course it could just be R0m and a friend.) R0m, provide examples of "cunt" used as a pronoun. You have not yet. We will continue to your next point when you have (or when you've revised your position; as you prefer). —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Can't refrain from commenting - this guy sounds rather uncouth to me) Arno 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:R0m and scoket User:210.84.41.100 are the same peroson User R0m was previously signing this socket as R0m. this is based on contribs by both R0m 1st post was after 0900 hrs 26 januARY 2006. THIS WAS REVERTED. after 1400hr saem day socket 210.84.41.100 entered the discussion supporting R0m. edits prior to 26th by socket 210.84.41.100 were signed R0m. Gnangarra 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_English"[reply]


Thank you Gideon

The deletion tarpit

As you're probably aware, modifications to AFD have been discussed for at least half a year. Thus, it's about time that something is done about it. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which is basically "delete any article unless anyone objects to that". The intent is to go live within a week, to at least offer an alternative rather than debate the issue to death once more.

This should take about 80% of the load off AFD, doesn't leave the insulting logfiles that Jimbo complained about, and makes it easy to counter loaded words such as "vanity". Your comments would be appreciated, and since I'm not much of a mailing lister please notify the wikien-l if you think it useful. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gmail

Hello,

Apparently Gmail needs some kind of invitation code. Can you provide one? Please gpg encrypt (key here) and post the encrypted invitation code on my talk page. -- Curps 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't use IRC, I used it only maybe once or twice many years ago. Things like IRC and even e-mail can be a major time sink, I don't know how other folks find the time. I suppose I could download a client and read the documentation and figure out how to use it, but perhaps posting GPG encrypted information to my talk page would be more convenient? Incidentally, how does IRC map to Wikipedia usernames... is the same password used? -- Curps 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You choose - you can use the same username there that you use here (assuming it's not already been taken), and the same password, or different ones if you so desire. Raul654 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, so in other words there's no direct tie-in or "my preferences" setting in Wikipedia as there is with e-mail. -- Curps 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC and wikipedia are independent. You can have diferent wikipedia and IRC usernames however people generaly prefer having idenical IRC and wikipedia usernames. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timecop 'sock Puppet'.

To quote from a note I sent to another user, Ta bu shi da yu:

I'm writing to you about a user that you have banned, Timecop. Timecop's user page has a list of several 'backers', most, if not all of which are banned as suspected 'sock puppets', etc. One exception is User:Viscid. Viscid claims to be herpetic, has made virtually no contributions other than to support Timecop, and all in all looks suspiciously like another 'sock puppet'. Could this ID be looked into, please?

Regards, Arno 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's already a formal request on WP:RFCU. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril-

I agree that being from BT isn't much evidence. However, both -Ril- and CheeseDreams mostly edited fairly obscure pages related to New Testament apocrypha. Looking through the page histories of these articles there seems to be only one BT user with a long term IP who edits such pages. Both -Ril- and CheeseDreams seem to have a problem with their cookies, and get logged out by accident while editing, leaving quite a trail of such IPs. Their set up also seems to keep an IP for several days or even weeks. By going through the relevant page histories I've been able to piece together the series of IP addresses the -Ril-/CheeseDreams computer was assigned this summer. It is quite clear that this is one user, the time frames never overlap, and there is never more than one such address editing in these areas:

- SimonP 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But the conflict style is totally different IMO. CheeseDreams is so bugfuck crazy I can't imagine her toning it down that far, and -Ril- acts completely differently when pissed off. This is just my subjective opinion FWIW - David Gerard 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I see The Epopt agrees on the RFAr - David Gerard 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't underestimate the ability of such editors to adapt. Consider DW, who was about as nasty an editor as we have had, but one of his recent manifestations edited heavily for almost a year before being noticed and banned. - SimonP 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some nice little pieces of evidence:

Elonka situation

I was always fine with her just leaving me alone so we could mutually ignore each other, but her actions were clearly out of line. Unfortunately, thanks to the intervention of other admins and editors also trying to get back for perceived slights in the past, she now probably thinks that what she did was perfectly fine and that she was justified. USer:Alkivar absolutely should not have modified the block, as he is an admin who has hassled me in the past and was already actively trying to help Elonka with her in progress RFC. Furthermore, her website attacks and her attacks on me, all while making ultimatums that anything she considers an attack on her be removed from any page where it happens is simply unacceptable, and she needs to know that that willnever fly. Unfortunately User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to try to remove them for her, starting with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68. Another editor left a message on my talk page implying he would also go around removing the things she objected to if I OKed it, which I certainly do not, but I did not check yet if he o someone else had done so already. We cannot cave to the complaints of an editor making such ridiculous demands, because if this works, precedent will ahve been set and then every editor for all time will be arguing to have "attacks" removed from all pages..

I don;t know that you banning her wsa quite what I or Bishonene had in mind when the ocmplaint was brought up, but the undoing of all blocks as if it she had done nothing wrong at all sends completely the wrong message. People need to know that harassment in unacceptable and whining about old comments is counterproductive. DreamGuy 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I've requested a username change[21]. I'll let you know if my brother's computer is still blocked when I hear from him. Regforafd 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domo Arigato in advance

More suckpuppy checks... I am still waiting for the earlier checks. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat/Impersonators

Can you check howmany of those are MARMOT? Also I suspect these may also be MARMOT ([22]):

--Cool CatTalk|@ 16:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonal (talk · contribs)

This guy is campaining against me and accusing me of sockpuppetary. He also has less than 50 edits. I believe him and the sockpuppets on WP:AGF are doings of User:MARMOT or User:Davenbelle or who knows. I have to handle too many peoples apathy.

I would like you to do a sockpuppet check on those.

Also check the "checkuser lite" idea on villige pump proposals page. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonal screams "troll" to me. I shall Investigate - David Gerard 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed (talk · contribs)

  • Take a look at the contributions: [23]
  • This user has been "spamming" categories with no logical connection. Thats his entier contribution aside from campaigning against my rfa by posting at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and several talk pages.
  • He writes stuff like:
== Cool Cat ==

Hello DMN 

I write on German

Ich glaube du kanst deutsch gut ich hofe sehr.

der benutzer CoolCat ist ein türkische Nationalist er hat sich sehr agresiv für die Löschung der kategori Kuristan engagisiert. 


Coll Cat is an Turkish Nationalis .--[[User:Muhamed|Muhamed]] 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
At least the German of Muhamed is very bad. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He can't even spell my nick correctly. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sysin (talk · contribs) seems to have simimlar edit summaries. Can you investigate this one too. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs)

Erwin Walsh (talk · contribs)

Sorry for the load

I know checkuser art isnt easy but can you at least take care of my backlog :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostility on wikipedia

I am seriously considering leaving wikipedia due to the level of hostility I have to deal with on wikipedia. In fact I want to leave the project all together but something tells me not to.

Do you deal with block threats from board members, suffer bans from arbitrators etc on a regular basis as well... Or is this special treatment only I recieve? --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Regforafd

Yeah, he e-mailed me too a bit ago, but I just told him that if he was in an AGF situation, that he should just start up with a new name and not participate in deletion debates for 50-100 edits or so. If he can participate appropriately and transparently, I have no issues, the last time it was just so fishy that there was no other option. Karmafist 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review:

I'm done with Elonka entirely - she's proven to me that she's not helpful to the encyclopedia, so I'm done. Please review [25] and take whatever action you consider appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. - David Gerard 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cox Interview

Hi, On the Meta Multilingualism page you wrote "there's an interview with Alan Cox where he talks about learning Welsh where he has a great quote about how if a language isn't on computers in fifty years, it won't exist". I'm wondering if you have any more information about which interview this is? I'd like to cite the source. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crikey ... I don't recall at all! I think it was when he was talking to the press about taking a year or two off Linux to do his MBA and learn Welsh, whenever that was. I'll see what I can find. - David Gerard 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you if you can find it! It is a great quote and so true. I'm hoping to use it to help attract some native speakers to my wiki project at http://tyvawiki.org/wiki/TyvaWiki:Interface_translation_project Perhaps someday it could grow into a Wikipedia or be useful to someone else. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser

A checkuser run would be useful to cut short a consecutively-created set of aged sleeper sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#.22Accept_good_faith.22_sockpuppets. It would be good to discover the complete set and block them in advance. I'd ask Kelly Martin, but I think she's in the wrong time zone. -- Curps 06:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka pt. 2

Yeah, and she constantly makes other personal attacks as well. She claims that me saying that something she said was a lie is a personal attack, yet on her recent post to ANI she accused me of and User:Bishonen of lying over and over and over again. She simply cannot be allowed to call anything less than flattering about her a lie that has to be removed while she and editors she encourages go around saying nonsense and calling people psychopaths and such. She doesn;t care about rules or process, just forcing her will onto everyone, and she's very smart in how she does it, by specifically contacting editors and admins I had conflicts with in the past so they can all run around and complain andmake it look like a big deal when it's just an editor throwing a tantrum and demanding -- she calls it "non-negotiable" on her website -- that she removes whatever she objects to or else. DreamGuy 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, as stated on AN/I I have removed the "refactoring" template Elonka added to three talk pages she wishes to censor my comments on. Phil Welch threatened to ban me or anyone who stood in her way. This may need direct action to stop admins from grudges making up rules on their own. It's ludicrous to think Elonka is unblocked after her childish behavior with her website and now here and that one admin threatening to block me might go ahead with it.
Personally, I have not directly contacted her to try to resolve anything, as she quite clearly states that removing all the comments she objects to is "non-negotiable" -- so it's a lost cause. Wikipedia is not censored, and especially not because she doesn't like that I said less than flattering things when she was clearly acting in less than reasonable ways. DreamGuy 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philwelch is still encouraging Elonka to "refactor" pages despite you and others on AN/I disagreeing with him. This huge removal of comments of multiple posters is apparently her idea of "removing personal attacks." It'd be nice if it were spelled out to him and her that this is completely unacceptable. DreamGuy 19:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it appears he's not only supporting her but reverted and locked the page to her version. DreamGuy 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

***Nudge***

You've got a nudge! :P C'mon man has been a day since I posted my comments. You should be out there somewhere! :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser status

David, can you please do a CheckUser on User:MorganStanMan and User:PPEist? Their talk pages look similar, and I have been getting what I believe to be harrassing messages from both accounts. Please also note that PPEist has threatened to get another IP address and carry on blanking pages if they get blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww... isnt that sweat of them :) More blokcing fun for you, ne? --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice.org entry may require arbitration

David, personally I disagree with some of the comments by an anomymous user in the OpenOffice.org Performance section. Hence I provided alternative sources of benchmark but it seems like it could turn to become a benchmark philosophy flamewar and you may want to see if it requires arbitration. I don't want to turn the entry into a benchmark debate when it is about Office software. - Zero0w 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC+8)

The worst thing about open source software articles is the advocates who completely fail to understand NPOV and only understand advocacy. That's why Linux is a wasteland - David Gerard 13:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Article

The ritual citation by Rathbone is in excess of 100 years old and much of the usage is now significantly out of date. It's probably worth reviewing the discussion in Wiktionary around the compound word he cites which is also inaccurate. By brute force edit the editor is avoiding reaching any form of consensus which does little to the value of the article.ALR 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I reverted because it was a sockpuppet (Ima User) of a sockpuppet (Blue Square) of a user already editing on the article (Skull 'n' Femurs) - David Gerard 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't looked into it that far yet beyond being aware of Blue Square being a sock already. It's a useful discussion but it keeps coming up. We appear to have reached a stable state now.ALR 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikien-l

From just five minutes' perusal: User:Zoe/Holdspace

None of it is my commentary. It's all word for word from the mailing list archives. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thread starting at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/038615.html is nothing but personal attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I click that link I get to a thread called "The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?". Is that the one you meant? It seems to me to be a thread that has at worst "concept attacks" rather than "personal attacks", because there is criticism of a process, idea or concept. But to call it an "attack" of any kind seems rather harsh. Banning that sort of stuff would make it effectively impossible to disagree with any other Wikipedian. How do you recommending disagreeing good-intentioned, good-faithed but wrong Wikipedians? Pcb21 Pete 13:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your CC

Got your cc'd email... was there something else you wanted to send? Or was this what you meant on my talk page? 72.65.126.35 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that was it :-) - David Gerard 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.0 Collaboration of the Week

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent! This might get us a printed version that's less than 300 volumes ... - David Gerard 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wait, what?

How in the hell is Template:User pedophile an "attack template"? What inept definition of "attack" are you using, exactly? // paroxysm (n) 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why he called it that either...It depends on the conotation of Pedophile (though there are only two possible ones).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks that template was put there as anything other than a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks has judgement too grossly defective (in the best of faith) to take seriously - David Gerard 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the ridiculous pedophilia template should be deleted, and I voted to that effect, your comment [26] on that discussion was disruptive and uncivil - don't call other good faith contributors "bloody idiots". You have been a contributor for a long time, but that does not make you above the rules. Speedy deletion is intended for cases where the issue is so clear-cut that any debate is pointless (e.g. blatant vandalism, patent vanity, etc.) When reasonable Wikipedians disagree, process is important so that people on both sides of the issue feel that they are being treated fairly. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:POINT means - it means doing something you don't want to happen to disruptively make a point. As such, the rest of your argument fails to follow logically and makes me wonder at the depth of your understanding of the rest of the policies and guidelines you name. I don't know if there's a handy acronym link for "our policies are not a suicide pact" - David Gerard 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my comment, David. // paroxysm (n) 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to pay me more - David Gerard 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you denying that "bloody idiot" is a personal attack? ..Well, your good judgement becomes clearer with every comment, David! // paroxysm (n) 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You called me "inept" above. I WILL SUE IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY - David Gerard 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics again

Hi David,

Thought I might drop a line to update you on the ongoing editing dispute on Dianetics and related articles. Terryeo clearly has no intention of following basic editing standards, whether it's because he doesn't agree with them or just doesn't understand them. We should, however, give him the chance to get the views of people who haven't been involved in this dispute and whom he might see as less partial sources of advice than us. I plan to submit a Request for Mediation concerning the Dianetics article. If that fails, a Request for Comment on Terryeo's conduct may be necessary, though I'd prefer that to be only a last resort. It's up to you whether you want to get involved, but you'd probably have to recuse yourself for any arbitration. I'll let you know what happens. -- ChrisO 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'M NOT AN ARBITRATOR ANY MORE! AIEEE! Yeah, taking it gently is the right way. This too shall pass - David Gerard 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So can I consider you permamently recused, then?  ;-P -- ChrisO 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, does that mean you can get involved?  :) (j/k) --Modemac 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(mutter) yeah probably (mutter) - David Gerard 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I don't have to. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning level 2; Blanking.

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:User paedophile. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Made in poor taste. My apologies to David Gerard. I think he understood my point, though. [27] —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank it, I deleted it as an attack template then recreated it blank. That is NOT listed under 'simple vandalism'. Hope this satisfies the urge for process, and thanks for your concern - David Gerard 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and userboxes are not Wikipedia content either. Whoops, two strikes! - David Gerard 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect people to vote for it on TfD if they can't see what it is, as you keep deleting it? Leave it be until the TfD is finished. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expect them not to be so jawdroppingly stupid and process-obsessed. Evidently this is a bit much to ask - David Gerard 23:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks, or you will be blocked for a brief period. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a breathtakingly out-of-policy block, particularly after a provably out-of-policy "warning" above. You are now too involved - David Gerard 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My foot. If you make more than one personal attack, that's a disruption in my book. There is no excuse for personal attacks, and that is policy. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: Seeing that you (BorgHunter) are personally involved, it would be against policy for you to take any administrative action against David. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I'm personally involved, but fine, I won't make the block if the reason arises. I'll put it on WP:ANI and let other admins decide. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a "don't abuse your admin powers" policy. You have them to enforce policy, not to break it and delete anything you don't like. // paroxysm (n) 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant trolling template. It fails the good sense test. I suspect you did in fact create it in good faith the first time, but recreating it is blatantly furthering disruption that is visibly in progress.
(as a note to our readers, User:Jdforrester created the first userbox on Wikipedia. He is very sorry indeed) - David Gerard 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last undeletion of the template was just undone by Jimbo. I eagerly await you placing the blanking warning on his page, to demonstrate your evenhandedness and lack of any personal view of the conflict - David Gerard 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, he didn't blank anything, though that's not really the point...it is, after all, his website and not mine. Not yours either, though, and you'd be wise to remember that. I still maintain that you were in the wrong before Jimbo intervened. And finally...drop the sarcasm, don't be a m:dick. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...please drop the sarcasm here...there was clearly a TfD still running with several keep votes. Although I voted Strong Delete, I still respect other opinions, a trait you seem to be lacking. This is very dissapointing considering that you are an arbiter. And why can't Borghunter block you, even though he is "involved"? Surely that is just a matter of stupid, dumb, process...Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have a steward on Aisle Three? There's some idiots masquerading as admins who need to have their privileges revoked. Thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a steward and former arbcom member, I'm sorely tempted to take your advice. We are here to build an encyclopedia. So process over substance will not stand. The template was clearly trolling and should have been speedied and never resurrected. BorgHunter's vandalism notice above is particularly laughable. --mav 06:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that when I delete BS advertisements, some people complain that I am not following process, yet it is OK here.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That only works as a comparison if you assume everyone who disagrees with you is part of one group who you assume to be working together in a consistent manner - David Gerard 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was put on AN/I by OwenX, and only Radiant pointed out that he agreed with deleting them. If there are a lot of people who support just deleting this stuff on spot, then where where they? I guess none of them read AN/I or care enough to respond there.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming a template this blatantly inflammatory is a matter for discussion rather than prompt removal. I saw it and went "wtf? DIE!" and it seems I was correct in this. Note additions to WP:CSD explicitly setting out what was previously assumed to be obvious - David Gerard 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clearify. I would like to delete BS ads and stupid, possible offensive, templates on the spot. However, not only were much of the speedy delete arguments nonsense, but people have gotten into to trouble for just deleting this kind of crap on sight. Now that Jimbo forced in a CSD policy on it...it is more justified...but not really. The reason is that people disagreed on whether it was meant to be inflammator or not. I think that all userboxes, maybe excepting the most basic political views (liberal/republican/green) and clearly non-offensive stuff (this user likes pie) should be nuked hard. However we have no such policy yet. I am just saying that we need this as policy, so as to avoid wheel wars, disagreement over what is "common sense", and other visious disagreements. Hope this clearifies things.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a blanking template warning by User:BorgHunter was highly inappropriate and needlessly patronizing, as were his subsequent messages to you. Especially the alleged "personal attack". This is not the behavior of someone who should have administrator privileges. Thank you for being mature enough to not rise to the attacks, although I would have expected nothing else. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this conversation isn't a joke? In the even that it is serious, I endorse what KS had to say. Guettarda 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Humour drier than a nun's ... well, very dry indeed - David Gerard 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:test4-n|User talk:David Gerard}} --Deathphoenix 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ridiculous kerfuffle: a timeline

I seem to recall that you said you might try to get together a timeline for the latest userbox silliness. I've placed a general timeline, mainly concentrating on actions at sysop level and above, here. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the IRC log! That'll put timestamps to my perspective, including discussions of the ongoing forest fire in #wikipedia-en-admins ... TheLand quite thoroughly deserves a commendation for his attempts to defuse the tempers of all involved - David Gerard 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a quiet footnote: Paroxysm (talk · contribs), previously 24ip (talk · contribs) (see deleted talk and user pages) and a number of IPs, has a history of engaging in provocative edits. Maybe someone should drop a note to him about the purpose of this project. -Will Beback 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on a happier note

Oh, no, will the FBI be after me now? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO ZOE! You and David and Geni have nothing to worry about from the FBI. The FBI is a strictly domestic enforcement agency of the USA. It stays within the US boarders, and when it fails to keep its attendtion strictly within those US boarders, some FBI agent gets whacked really bad, so that they do not do that again.

Now that CIA, well, that is a another story. They have only a few convert agents in the U.K. Yes, they do sometimes assassinate people that they do not like. I wish that they would not do that, but they do follow the rules some of the time. And I think that we have already covert the fact that there are other organization represented by three letters (and it starts with an "I" and...) -- 68.121.101.234 08:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2006 warnings

David -- don't know if you saw this or not, but Music of Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the FA, got hit pretty hard with what looks to have been a bot attack, or at least a concerted effort by a few vandals: example accounts Gaimrocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Anneblagg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc, all with an edit summary "ON JUNE 6 2006 WIKIPEDIA WILL MEET ITS MAKER." Figured you might want to checkuser to see if they're using an open proxy or etc. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since I'm here, I've already had a checkuser run on it; they're coming in off AOL. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually off Netscape Communications, which is owned by AOL. AOL has recently started using the Netscape brand to sell internet access al a AOL, to people who don't want to be known as AOL monkeys. Same service, just different branding. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the users don't seem to know that; I got angry emails from people claiming to be on AOL. Maybe AOL just has them registered differently, but runs all the traffic through the same God-awful proxy setup? Essjay Talk • Contact 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know details or a timeframe, but I understand some of the devs will be having a Little Word with AOL about why continuing on the present path will see the whole damn ISP blocked rather too often for their comfort, if not ours - David Gerard 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For being a saint!

As promised via email, one barnstar for being a saint! Essjay Talk • Contact 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me ... I'll have to cuss and be short-tempered more - David Gerard 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed your rogue admin image; there is another one if you'd like to use it: Image:AABarnstar.png. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of upset Italians, I'll get upset Poles. Fantastic! *shudders* - David Gerard 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're right, we need a more NPOV abusive admin barnstar...I'll get to work on that! ;-) Essjay Talk • Contact 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I submit for your consideration Morwen's proposed Stamfordshire flag, an attempt at creating the most offensive flag possible - David Gerard 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She's missed a trick or two: I failed to detect any sign of an erect penis, not to mention that there's no picture of محمد: if you really want to be offensive, I'd have thought those would be near the top of the list. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence on Londoneye not in evidence

Apropos of above, I happened across Londoneye's user page, where there is a nice big fat notice proclaiming that she has been blocked as a suspected sock puppet of RachelBrown. Unfortunately the instruction "Please refer to {{{evidence}}} [sic] for evidence" proved less than helpful and I have not been able to locate where the actual evidence has been stored. As the most recent person to block her, and thus presumably one who knows where the bodies are buried, could you either update the notice with the appropriate location or let me know so I can? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, some IP matches in CheckUser. I'm now not sure about these. I suggest an unblock with a notice on WP:ANI or similar noting the unblock (as this will make sure interested admins are aware and keep an eye out in case our good faith should prove misplaced) - David Gerard 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, do you want me to try that? (I've only ever blocked one person, and never unblocked, so if you want me to do it, maybe you could check over my shoulder?) What was the rationale again: "we thought this person was a sock-puppet but were unable to prove it so we'll WP:AGF"? —Phil | Talk 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much. As far as I can tell, they reacted badly in a bad situation. We don't lose anything and could gain greatly from assuming good faith, and if it turns out to have been misplaced we can easily sigh and block again - David Gerard 23:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've unblocked her, posted a notice on WP:ANI, and emailed her. Let's se what happens… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rathbone

After the third complaint, I'm glad somebody finally did something. Thanks! Now maybe we can get some constructive things done with the respective articles. MSJapan 02:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be back as User:PM GL PA. Ardenn 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a cartoon anvil, piano and weight labeled "1 TON" in big letters just fell on him. Again - David Gerard 19:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he may now be User:Sunday_Service. Ardenn 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you semiprotected the Freemasonry page, it was after User:Sunday_Service made a destructive edit and before it was fixed. That should be changed back to the previous version and then protected. After you protected the page, User:Computerjoe reverted your protection, so you might want to correct him on that. Just a head's up :) Chtirrell 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please semi-protect Anti-Freemasonry? I suspect it may become a target as well. Ardenn 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sunday_Service's edits seem similar enough to me, but I'm not terribly familiar with Lightbringer's MO. I blocked the account 24 hours while it can be evaluated; David, if you think this is likely him, I guess you'd have to lift my short-term block [28] and reblock. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that agreeing specifically with a user who just signed up is a fairly good indication, qas are the immediate edit warring and cries of "vandalism". Nevertheless, what I'd like to request is some sort of IP ban, if at all possible. This has been going on for months, and every time an account gets blocked, a new one gets created, and it never seems to stop. Mediation never worked, Arbcom didn't work (except to allow automatic blocking on suspicion), and there's only so many times that things can go on before enough is enough.
Now, if I could RfA based on the need to police one article, I would, but that isn't going to fly at all. So, there aren't that many options available. MSJapan 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Sunday Service is coming in from a different country to Lightbringer. The checkuser list is very interesting ... I'll have to ascertain just what on earth that IP is for - David Gerard 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check user request (Freemasonry again)

I'm about 99% sure that User:Darth Dalek is User:Skull 'n' Femurs since you did the check on Basil I was hoping you could do a check on this guy too, (Skull 'n' Femurs has been blocked for sockpuppetry before) Thanks! Seraphim 21:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that he has actually has signed a post "S&F" before diff. Seraphim 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. For some reason, I had assumed that if Masons were going to do something underhand, they'd at least do a good job of it - David Gerard 23:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most of the Masonic editors aren't too bad, he was just out of control. It's not them as a whole :) Seraphim 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basil/Lightbringer again?

Can you check this user out? His edits & statements are very similar to Basil's:

User:Humanun Genus

Thanks. Grye 03:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good show, thanks again for checking that out... ;~) Grye 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irate

Still trying to make out I have vandlized things Dave naughty naught. You wont to stop lying, it not good for the encyclopedia, but of course that not you concern, it's the community anyway you position in it. How ROman still gibbering? Taught Jimbo how to look at the defintions not just the spelling of the word?--84.9.210.16 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone's ever pointed this out to you, but you don't actually make sense. Presumably the above is supposed to tell me I'm wrong about something. You frequently leave out words and letters when you're typing while extremely angry — perhaps if you go back and correct what you write, and don't do that any more, I and others might be able to understand you in more detail than that you're angry about something or other - David Gerard 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry I just cannot type or spell, never could. You'll note I don't write essay's. If you got that much you got it. Thank you for your reply. See you at my next blocking of my Shades.--84.9.193.70 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pressie

Have this. Because I said so. :) 86.133.53.58 00:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Sunday Service

Your block of Sunday_Service (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been overridden by Katefan0's previous 24-hour block, not only because you failed to unblock first but also because you blocked only about 19 hours after Katefan0. Please reblock. --TML1988 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger! I will check more closely. I will check more closely. - David Gerard 17:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request Lightbringer again

I'm pretty sure user:Humanun Genus is lightbringer, he registered today, and started trying to re-insert lightbringer's information, and already started attacking the masonic editors. Thanks :p Seraphim 03:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also his name is a direct reference to a denouncement of Freemasonry by the Catholic church written in 1884, which fits his MO (being catholic, anti-masonic and creating names that reflect this). He has picked up cronologically right where user:lightbringer -> user:Basil_Rathbone -> user:Sunday_Service has left off. Chtirrell 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His new MO appears to be to use open proxies. Keep me alerted, he'll be a useful open proxy canary ... - David Gerard 14:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anderson12 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Lightbringer. Ardenn 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts not allowed?

You mentioned on User talk:Boxes that pure role accounts are not currently allowed on en. Since when is that true, and where noted? Thanks :) +sj + 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Things purporting to be pure role accounts are routinely taken out and shot as trolls - David Gerard 08:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia and userboxes

On Jimbo's user talk page, February 6, you described the use of userboxes on the German Wikipedia:

The way it works on de: apparently is that they only have userboxes for Babel and where you live. Everything else is in userspace. (e.g. note that all the really silly ones on my userpage are actually subst:ed)

I guess I'll have to go and look at the thing myself, but in essence my question is this: does German Wikipedia have transcluded templates in userspace that many people link to just as they do on en to userboxes in template space, or are the boxes mostly inline (subst'd or copied)?

Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes which is about having trannscluded userboxes in userspace, proclaims the following:

  • Jimbo thinks it's a good idea.
  • The German Wikipedia did it, apparently

I queried both of those on the talk page on February 9 [29] and never got a satisfactory answer. The claims are still on the project page. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that about de: by Jdforrester at the last Wikimedia UK pub meeting in January. (This is when he told me he invented the Babel boxes and is very sorry indeed.) So it's second-hand from him, and he would be the one to ask directly - David Gerard 16:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Freemasonry Fun!

Here's a great one for ya. Skull 'n' Femurs is back (they weren't socks they were just other masons on his same IP), and he is actually admonishing other masonic editors of the freemasonry page for discussing freemasonry with non-brothers diff and is insisting that all his vandalism he is doing because the Ancient Charges instruct him to.

I have no idea what to do with this, so i'm looking for input :). Needless to say I removed his little tirade from Talk:Freemasonry because it had nothing to do with improving the article. Looking forward to your responce on this one :p Seraphim 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I expected better from a Mason ... he's stated an intent to vandalise, so I'll be blocking. You shouldn't remove his rant completely — it's good to show his view and intentions clearly - David Gerard 12:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zogu block

Hi David, I noticed you blocked Zogu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zogu blocked indefinitely). I have no opinion about the technical side of the issue (using zombie PCs and all that). However, about his substantial involvement in Talk:Arvanites, which you describe as trolling, may I ask you to reconsider. It is true that Zogu has been involved in an intense and long-drawn POV dispute over Arvanites and Arvanitic language, which has led to page protection in one case and a currently ongoing revert war in the other. This was heated by mutual distrust and often, I have to say, by rather more aggressive behaviour from the other (Greek) side than from his. I am currently involved in brokering a compromise, as a kind of informal mediator, on the Arvanites page, and that negotiation is, I feel, in a constructive but critical phase. In my impression, Zogu has been one of the more constructive participants in the debate, at least during the last week while I've been involved. If you look at the following of his edits, he was the first to actually make a compromise proposal ([30]); his later contributions were often much more focussed and to the point ([31], [32], [33]) than some from his opponents (some of which really could be seen as trolling, see here: [34], and his very controlled response: [35]). His contributions are sometimes hampered by his less-than-perfect English, but I see a pattern of a serious, good-faith effort towards a solution. Can I ask you to give the matter another look? Thanks, Lukas (T.|@) 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he edited only using open proxies and compromised machines is an immediate indicator of bad faith ... I'll look further into the edit pattern - David Gerard 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your integrity.

Your vandalism of the Association of British Counties is a clear sign that you prefer your mates to accuracy. That the production of an encyclopedia is far less important to you than the preservation of your position in wikipedia.--84.9.211.91 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My integrity is fine, which is why I revert all edits by hard-banned users like yourself. Yours can be gauged from how you lie about your identity to keep editing on a site you were told to leave by the guy who founded it. (And I can tell you, a personal ban is a remarkable achievement.)
His dishonesty is available for anyone who wants the text of the IRC. Where have I lied about my identity? How does not doing what a deluded hippy, who is in the process of going from asset to ass, affect my integrity? Especially as one who so directly contradicts the motto on the fronts page that is Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.. A personal ban remarkable in it's meaninglessness. And one acheived without vanalising a single page.--84.9.193.158 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone except you. When you tell the founder of the site that his rules are stupid and you have no intent of following them, you're surprised that you're not welcome? - David Gerard 07:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So together with you corruption of the title of the section title, now reversed, your happy to repeat your lord and masters lies. You have seen the IRC I know. So I must conclude you are either being dishoest as usual or you don't know what the word abide means. Strangly the Wiki Masthead doesn't meantion anyone but me. So what you saying is that the Wiki masthead is lying then. You don't seem to have tacled the bit about the lack of vandalism. The promblem is Wiki's a crutch for you ego, nothing else, you aren't capable of treating it any differently from the things in the rest of your life, which you manipulate for you own benefit. Going to address any of the other points?--84.9.211.84 15:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So still now answer then Dave? Is it that you just bandy the words integrity arround without knowing what it means. Do you know an Aussie Journo by the Name of Roman. You seem to have the same type of rather wooly rightwing thinking and linguistics. Are you sure your not the same person?--Irate v 2 12:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you forget this is the bit your supposed to be explaining.
  • # Irate____ I will abide by the rules but I will not respect them.
  • # jwales then you are now permanently banned from wikipedia
  • # jwales goodbye
  • # Irate____ do you under stand what abide actually means. I know I can't spell but atleast I now what words I.m using mean.

--Irate v 3 14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this performace art?

While I've observed in the past that you consider civility to be optional when defending Tony, this exchange is surreal:
Pardon? "Stipulate - to make an express demand or arrangement (for), as a condition of agreement." What are you saying? brenneman{T}{L} 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It means he's agreeing with you, actually. You could at least pretend to AGF - David Gerard 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd ask that the Arbitrators remind David Gerard of the requirement to be civil at all times and to refrain from personal attacks. brenneman{T}{L} 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out your lack of good faith in a civil answer is a personal attack? - David Gerard 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from a combination of myopia regarding your own comments and enmity towards mine. Tony used a word that, to my understanding and that of my compact dictionary, didn't make sense. I asked for clarification. You respond with a farsical claim that I've failed to assume good faith in that question. Combined with the broadside you launched in the request for injuctions, your tendencious interjections are, in fact, an attack. If I may quote Tony Sidaway, "Please, please refrain from spilling bile like this."
brenneman{T}{L} 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorrow

Check out these edits to my Talk page: [36], [37]. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday's massive Squidward vandalism and 203.186.238.128/25 range block

As you may be aware, we had several bouts of "Squidward" vandalism in the past couple of days, culminating in a fairly massive attack yesterday. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Squidward_vandal.

There were three earlier attacks the previous day on a smaller scale, but in yesterday's attack the vandal made more than a thousand edits using more than a hundred anon IP addresses, all within a ten-minute period. It mostly used open proxies (which have all now been indefinitely blocked), but also used a large number of addresses from 203.186.238.128/25, which seems to be an ISP in Hong Kong.

Although each open proxy IP made several vandalism edits, the 203.186.238.128/25 IP addresses each made only one edit. So although the 203.186.238.128/25 IP addresses make up a significant fraction (about half) of the total IP addresses used, vandalism edits from this range only make up a small fraction of the total vandalism edits.

I'm not sure what happened. Either the vandal is a client of the ISP and carelessly used his own ISP's addresses in addition to open proxies, or perhaps the ISP itself carelessly configured those addresses as proxies allowing abuse by non-customers.

The 203.186.238.128/25 range is blocked at the moment, but we already have reports of collateral damage (see User talk:Rayleung2709#helpme). I'm not sure it's safe to unblock and have asked him to contact his ISP (the contact info can be looked up as usual at http://www.apnic.net/ WHOIS).

Since you have some prior experience dealing with ISPs, and have some stature as former Arb Com to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, could you take over this dossier, possibly contacting the ISP and unblocking the IP range when you see fit? -- Curps 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

Could you have a look at User:LukasPietsch/Anon, documenting another possible open-proxy case that may be related both to the Squidward case and the Zogu case we talked about yesterday. Thanks! Lukas (T.|@) 10:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry article - accusement of sockpuppetry

Hi. You been quite helpfull with socks on the Freemasonry article, so I figured I could ask you. Grye publicly accused SeraphimXI to be a sock of the banned Mahabone. I looked thru the 'evidence' he linked to, and I can't really see anything - perhaps you could take a look and possible do a check-user? I'm afraid we're starting to see socks where there ain't no socks. WegianWarrior 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not related in the slightest :-) Please try not to get too jumpy! I think I'll be asking other admins for help on this one - I only have close knowledge of Lightbringer, and seem to find myself cleaning up a mess I don't quite know the Wikipedia history of well enough ... - David Gerard 11:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appriciate your help. Thank you. WegianWarrior 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up so quickly. He was trying to retaliate against me for "trying to Change this interwiki redirect into the article it never was. Which I am proud to admit i'm guilty of :p Seraphim 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I thought she might be sock of Mahabone because, besides statements, I was using a library computer & it would only show SeraphimXI's earliest edits to be the 7th, the day after Mahabone's last.
  • Now, about SeraphimXI's editing on Jahbulon: She kept reverting the article from a redirect to wiktionary, repeatedly, then placed a total POV & ill-cited section at the top. It doesn't look to bad right now, besides being a stub.
  • Now, about SeraphimXI's editing on Freemasonry:
    On 29 January 2006, SeraphimXI made the following statement about their experience with Freemasonry: "I came here randomly, not knowing anything about the masons..."
    About 12 hours later, added added NPOV disputed and merge tags to the article.
Why? & How? How can someone Possibly learn enough about anything in 12 hours to add these tags? Unless is was ridiculously POV, which it was not. This is pretty much vandalism, as far as I can tell.

I would say I'm sorry about the sock tag, btu I'm not, as there's something dishonest about this editor's identity & patterns. Humbly & humbledly signed, Grye 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velela and Stemonitis

Hi David,

Sorry to bother you but this Velela affair isn't dead yet. In my original email to you on this (posted at User:Snottygobble/Email), the accounts that I asked you to check against User:Velela included that of User:Stemonitis. You never mentioned Stemonitis either way in your response, and I was never comfortable that you had actually looked into it. Now after I thought this affair was dead and buried Stemonitis has appeared on my talk page to defend Velela (see User talk:Snottygobble or User talk:Stemonitis). This has increased my discomfort. Before I take the discussion with Stemonitis any further I would appreciate it if you would confirm to me that he is not a sockpuppet of Velela. Snottygobble 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway admonished on use of adminstrator's_powers

I find it rather amusing. In the webcomics case, I drafted quite a lot of the final judgement, including an admonishment to Aaron that he "be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy". This contained the sentence "While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent." Since then on at least two occasions Aaron has sought to find a way to apply very similar phrasing to his criticism of my actions. This is one such. I am inclined to take it as a compliment to my superior drafting skills. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

See, that's what I mean when I say above that you really aren't understanding WP:POINT - it's about doing things you don't want to happen to make a point - David Gerard 13:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Such as three times undeleting a page [38] that you agree hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, because you don't think the fellow who deleted it has shown enough respect for the community? [39] ;) --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Ionian theory

I have promised an anon that I would look at this deleted article and see if it can be salvaged. Please undelete as User:Pmanderson/proto-Ionian theory, and leave me a message when you have. Thanks. Septentrionalis 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (Knowing the ways of anons, the capitalization may be non-standard.)[reply]

My first requested undeletion! It's at the location you asked for :-) - David Gerard 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember This?

[40] I wonder what's happening to this place. I wonder if people can still disagree with others at the rate we're going. I wonder what you thought, and whether or not we were still friends, like back when you made that edit, despite the fact we're on different sides of the cabal fence now it seems.

I figured i'd check. And if you have to hate me now due to my beliefs(I hope that isn't the case), that ideals are bigger than people, I can accept that and I wanted to thank you for your kindness back then when I needed it. Karmafist 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Manifesto idea is horribly ill-conceived and an awful idea, but I don't think badly of you personally!
I should outline my problems with it on the talk page. They pretty much go: (1) Wikipedia is a project with a community, not a community with a project. (2) In the US Constitution, the purpose of separation of powers is specifically to keep government from getting too efficient; in a project with a focus, that's grossly counterproductive. (3) I notice that most of the people signing the manifesto are in fact people who've come on board in the last few months, i.e. relative newbies. I'll think of more, put them on the page and stop being snarky. I'm sorry for offending - David Gerard 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Didn't Offend Me

If anything, I was afraid I had offended you(apparently i've offended Johnleemk by having a different viewpoint) just by believing in ideals rather than people. That would suck, because i've lost alot friends due to disagreements since unfortunately, beliefs are a strong part of who I am.

For what you said there, let me give you my opinions...

  1. It's a chicken or the egg paradox. Wikipedia would have never become what is has become without the community, ancillary wikiprojects like Esperanza not only add character and focus to what can be a very frustrating situation in article space as well as often providing a valve to get rid of some stress that occurs there as well. Without the community around it, it's my opinion that Wikipedia would basically be a more advanced form of USENET. I'm afraid it's on its way to that if things don't change soon.
  2. I disagree, the purpose of separation of powers is to avoid what unfortunately is happening now -- one branch overpowering and drowning out the other two, putting people who disagree with that branch tough out of luck. Karmafist 17:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. That's part of what I said above, i'm not particularly concerned on who signs it instead of just getting people to sign it. All of the nastyness has occured within just a few hundred people, while there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians. Just because they don't know what's going on doesn't mean they aren't interested or can't add viewpoints that may help the situation. I also fear that the atmosphere within that few hundred people is too toxic right now to get anything done.

I hope we don't fork, but it may come to that within the next year or two at this rate.

Anyway, thanks for your friendship, hopefully we can build some lines of communication between the divide between the haves and the have nots that seems to be growing over the past few months. Karmafist 17:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Userboxes

What is your opinion of the userboxes I put on my userpage? I have five of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin and RC patrol ones are relevant, the Babels are relevant, the LN one is on the "workplace decoration" level IMO. I have no problem with it. If you had 100 "workplace decoration" userboxes, I'd think it sucked ...
If you mean in relation to proposed remedy 6, I'm not entirely convinced that remedy is even a great idea myself; I wanted to try writing an extreme version and working down from there. (I shall claim this is not a POINT violation, but proposing a POINT violation to make a point.) However, I do think switching userboxes from default-allow to default-deny is a good idea. Possibly functional userboxes (admin, RC) might be good to have on the "allow" list.
Note that my own userpage would need changing under my proposed remedy ;-) - David Gerard 15:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Fontaine

You said (and I think I knew) that Fontaine is a university address - university of the West of England, yes? If Barbara_Osgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at the same place I think a quiet word in the right ear might be justified. They are both playing silly buggers with us. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amorrow's stalking of Ann Heneghan continues

See this, as well as 71.141.107.144 (talk · contribs) - that first edit summary could also be taken as a threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also 71.140.39.89 (talk · contribs) it would seem. -- Curps 05:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Are you around? Alison and I are talking about your availability on Skype, but you're the better person to answer the question...

James F. (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Skype, no, and am unlikely to become so :-) - David Gerard 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Powers

I saw your comment on Karmafist's page. You say, "in the US Constitution, the purpose of separation of powers is specifically to keep government from getting too efficient"? I don't think so, my friend. The separation of powers operates as a system of checks and balances: it is designed to prevent the government from getting too corrupt or stupid. Total inefficiency in government is achieved in all sorts of different ways, but not by the separation of powers. ElectricRay 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost story

I've drafted a story about the UK chapter's incorporation, which you're welcome to review at User:Michael Snow/Wikimedia UK chapter. In particular, please correct any American spellings I may inadvertently have used, given the subject matter here. Also, I wasn't always sure to what extent some people want their names connected with their Wikipedia identities. Anyway, if there's anything important that you think should be added, go right ahead. --Michael Snow 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine to me. Note that everyone's real name is on the forms at Companies House and hence public information - David Gerard 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent CheckUser request

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Morven's taken care of it - David Gerard 10:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Reviewers

David, i'm a bit stressed, so I might be a bit more blunt than i'd like here(knowing that i'll always respect you in one form or another due to the fact that I think at heart, you are a good person), but let me say something.

I don't know if i've told you before, but I have Asperger's Syndrome. That gives me a different perspective that has given me a few tenets that I try to live my life by. One of the biggest ones contradicts something you said on my talk page...

No one is ever irredeemable if they want to be redeemed.

And I say that because I have thought I was irredeemable and worthless and hopeless many times in my life only to be helped by someone else who believed that I was worth something. I see that feeling of hopelessness that I once felt in them. They're angry, but they don't know what to do other be angry. I gave them an option: be constructive. If they don't take it, and you're right, that they are just fuckheads, the worst that I can say is that I tried and gave them an idea to get away from just bitching about how things are.

This may be over idealistic, but my dream is that one day all of the people within the "aristocracy" here, and those people on there can say "You know what? Fuck the past, that's the past. We're going to disagree, but that's irrelevant. Adding to this wonderful project is bigger than any of us, and if we split the difference between us, we'll get as objective and balanced as we humanly can and Wikipedia will be better for it."

And as paradoxical as it may sound, recognizing how this place doesn't work and being open about those facts is vital to that goal, because we can either be up front about them, or they'll fester as resentment in the shadows.

Often, I feel like i'm the only one that can accomplish this because i've been on both sides of the fence. And ultimately, I feel like I have to do it if Wikipedia is truly to remain what we want it to be instead of just becoming another Britannica or Encarta (let me ask you, would you expect a fair portrayal of Bill Gates in Encarta? I am horribly afraid that people will see this place like that before too long.)

Once again, i'm sorry if i've jeopardized our friendship, but that's what I believe, and you can dislike me now if you want, but i'm still going to believe it, at least until I can find something better to believe in than trying to bring out the best in people whenever I can. Karmafist 13:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. I need to get around to diving in on the Manifesto talk page to talk about the issues. I just don't think WR is a good place to find clueful people ... - David Gerard 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be, but sadly to say, clueful people seem to be in rare supply nowadays. As stupid as it sounds(this is just a website, blah blah blah), but I had nightmares several weeks ago about Jimbo after the Wheel War-- I was a wiki addict and he was that evil guy from Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal video, threatening to cut off my supply in some dark alley or something. I dunno. Nightmares are wierd, but from the people i've talked to, both on and off wiki, i'm not alone. Nobody should ever get hurt, psychologically or otherwise, from Wikipedia, unless they're a public figure and they deserved it.
Ultimately, I wish I had the discipline of CBDunkerson because I personally become lose all sense when around those who are hurting people(such as with Pigsonthewing). I've gotten better, but that thing with Jimbo that day, i'd do it again in a second. Joeyramoney was an innocent there, and that could have been you, or somebody else(even Jimbo) who was a victim of the circumstances around them. If I can't stand up for what's right and help people no matter the circumstances(even disagreeing with Jimbo), well then, I never deserved to be an administrator in the first place. Karmafist 03:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Example Of What I'm Trying To Fix With The Manifesto

This is a good example of what I'm trying to fix with the Manifesto. Djr had consensus to pass after 7 days, but it was left open for a few more hours, and a slew of oppose votes came in. Whether or not there is a causal relationship between that being left open just a bit longer and him being heavily pro-userbox may be in dispute, but the perspective of a correlation between the two is definately being seen by people. Ultimately, it seems that all of our processes are being replaced by an authoritarian chilling effect, like when Kelly Martin blocked Grue basically for just speaking his mind at that rfa. And like i've been trying to say, today it's in user and project space, tommorrow it's in article space, and once articles become a place that is determined by intimidation, Wikipedia won't be able to fix the perception of bias that comes from such behavior. I'd do anything to stop that from happening David, please help me. I feel powerless in this. I know you're busy, but let me know how we can get some discourse going between the two sides rather than this endless escalation of arguments over stupid little boxes. Karmafist 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A point of style

David: When I revert the work of others and then re-apply that work upon further consideration, I try to comment my work with "rv myself". That way, I avoid misunderstandings about the work being re-applied under my own account. With that simple acknowledgemen of "rv myself" I avoid the appearance of trying to take credit for the work of others. Specifically, I am referring to your recent contributions to Bias and sensitivity guidelines. That last change had no comment on it and it took me several moments to recognize that your actions were in good faith. AWM -- 71.141.230.44 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I was reverting some Andrew Morrow edits, which I usually do by hitting the lot then putting back the good ones - the idea being so others who are chasing the same vandal or troll don't inadvertently do the same revert. Doing a rollback on myself is probably a good way of indicating it - David Gerard 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT misquoted again

I moved an article, in good faith, to an ill-chosen title a month ago; it was deleted there - I opposed the deletion. . Ultramarine is now shouting WP:POINT up and down as a justification of his verbal recreation of the article. For example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ultramarine. Could you say something about this, again? Septentrionalis 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*thud* *thud* Ok - David Gerard 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Septentrionalis 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this....

Could you please see here for a vandal/sock that I think is going to become a problem if not dealt with? Thanks! MSJapan 01:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also add this to the list as well. MSJapan 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mailing list

Someone on Village_Pump/Misc suggested you might be a person to ask about mailing list moderation. I made several posts several days ago that were acknowledged as requiring moderator approval, but they've neither been rejected nor (that I can see) posted. Is the moderation system backlogged? --Steve Summit (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, probably no-one looking at the queue *blush* I'll clear it now - David Gerard 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Steve Summit (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! *pint* - David Gerard 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch(talk) 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB

You've removed the blue tick from WP:WEB, but not from WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC, WP:WINI or WP:PROF. I'm just curious as to why you picked that one page to remove the tick. I invested a lot of energy mediating a compromise between the various camps involved in debating that page, and it took a good few hours to write and longer to get accepted. I advertised the page and my rewrite right across wikipedia, so fair play, I'm probably biased. But given you only removed the tick from one notability guide and given most of them are non-commital in their application:

  • WP:PROF states there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion
  • WP:MUSIC states This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable.
  • WP:FICT declares It is not official policy, but should be helpful for making a decision on keeping, merging or deleting of fiction-related articles.
  • WP:CORP declares This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use

I find myself asking why you removed the blue tick from just that one page. I don't wish to apply a bias on your part, but the events certainly leave me puzzled. Your edit summary, not even close to "most". Remove policy tickmark illustration - it's inaccurate doesn't appear to offer me any help in understanding your actions. What is not even close to most? Like I say, I advertised this high and wide; it's been in use for long enough to justify the tick. This just seems unfair to me. Steve block talk 16:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a sockcheck....

Through recent discussion on Jahbulon, I'm starting to get suspicious of User:SeraphimXI's motives. She can't seem to stick to a position, does not understand how to evaluate sources, doesn't seem to know what NPOV is, and when you ask for a rational statement, you get back circular logic. Recently (as in today) she has started to seem more and more like User:Lightbringer in statements and usage (albeit without the caps). Could I get a sockcheck on that user, please? MSJapan 05:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to understand that someone can actually edit pages from a neutral perspective, on one hand I get accused of trying to push that freemasonry is satanic, and on the other hand I get yelled at for including information that shows that freemasonry is not religious. If you want check my IP against all the other users you can think of that have ever touched the freemasonry articles. They are simply trying to bully me into leaving the articles alone . Thanks for clearing me in advance :P Seraphim 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anderson12 is a Lightbringer sock

He's got the same forget-me-not edit that has been added and removed many times before, and he then cited Ardenn for a 3RR for reverting him, which is pretty good for a "new" user, I must say....

Could you please block him, and maybe re-set the semi-protect? Thanks! MSJapan 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed for 'Scratching'

Good day,

Recently, an unregistered user edited the article on Scratching, drawing attention to conflicting information contained within the article. After reviewing the article's history log, I discovered that one of the more salient contributions (which just passed the two-year mark) was made by you. As such, I thought it appropriate solicit comments from you, simply because of your conversance with the subject matter.

The conflicting information — which is related to a personality known as DJ Q-bert — can be found in the section of the article entitled World of Scratching. Could you please take a few moments to examine the unknown user's remarks on the errant content? This is the last step outlined by the Wikipedia's Peer Review process, I have already completed the necessary preceding steps.

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

CheersFolajimi 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been one of my earliest edits ... I seem to have mostly refactored existing text, but added "For recording use, samplers are often used instead of physically scratching a vinyl record." I think I was thinking particularly of De La Soul talking on the BBC series Dancing In The Streets about how they did their records, showing their studio setup and how they set up a sample. I have no knowledge of what the anon is writing about - David Gerard 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely reply. Do you have any suggestions on wikipedes that I can contact who might be more conversant with this issue? Folajimi 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Checking on skull n Femurs

I raised this on RFCU as well, but since you'd dealt recently it might be worth letting you know. I think User:Imacomp is a sock, probably being run by Skull n Femurs who you recently dealt with. The suggestion is being met with return accusations but without substance, and being spread all over a number of pages which is becoming disruptive. It would be useful f you could check one way or the otehr. Thanks. ALR 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALR is carrying on a personal vendeta against me. Read talk page @ Freemasonry. Would you block HIM (over the Holocaust apologetics or just general bad taste)? Thanks Imacomp 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Imacomp has made a number of changes that are in line with debated ones that Skull n' Femurs made earlier (specifically the Forget Me Not issue), and has made accusations against editors not involved in the tiff between Imacomp and ALR.--Vidkun 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my computer and/or account now auto logs out from this site when I try to post, about every 3rd time. This looks like a virus, or some guy has planted code on my computer, and/or my account. Imacomp 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Just did it then!Imacomp 18:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I know you are out there based on a recent ANB/I edit conflict. :)

I know you are a busy man but if you have the time please check your IRC window. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should be home around 19:00-19:30 UTC - David Gerard 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need shoes to go with these socks....

Can I get a check on User:WMMrgn also as a Lightbringer sock, please? MSJapan 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as WMMrgn just accused me of being a sock of User:Grye, he's got to be Basil/LB. Gryew has never edited List of Anti-Masons, and I believe he's been AFK since WMMrgn showed up, so WMMrgn would never have dealt with him. Basil and LB certainly did, though. MSJapan 02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:ALR is user:lightbringer

ALR has now called me S'n'F?!? Please check him out, thanks. Note he has removed the "sock" tag twice, and 1st Warning message once, from his talk page. I have also had trouble keep myself logged in. Is this a Wiki fault? Thanks again Guru/admin. Book Mouse 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser / User:Striver

In re. the proposed checkuser for User:Striver proposed on WP:ANI -- I very, very strongly object to the way it was suggested.

In a message dated 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC), User:Hexagonal writes:

  • David, since you have CheckUser access, why not run a CU on him and see if we can't catch him using a sock? Blocking him for using a disruptive sockpuppet is much more straightforward than blocking him for controversial edits.

I don't have an opinion in the matter of Striver's theories and contributions to Wikipedia, but I do feel that checkusering someone for the apparent sole purpose of finding a more convenient reason to block them is inappropriate. I don't make policy here, and try to stay out of political discussion at all levels, but my experience in other sizable online communities tells me that the course of conduct proposed on WP:ANI is a Very Bad Idea for any community.

If User:Striver can't work with other users, they'll eventually get blocked one way or another. There's no reason to shortcut it, and since you didn't explicitly say that you planned to, I hope you agree.

Thanks for reading. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is very unseemly, yes, and not an attitude I'd like to see encouraged (if only for the selfish reason of reducing my annoyance quotient). Mind you, Striver's conduct so far is such that if there were any reasonable suspicion, I'd be inclined to check, and if it continues I may check to clear his name. Anything further, I hereby imitate a Magic 8-Ball. "REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN LATER." - David Gerard 22:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)" [41]. He's also calling in others to assist in the system-gaming. [42] -- 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[43] 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 [44]. 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.[45] 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. [46]

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:

[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] and scores more. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite. You forgot Chtirrell [56] 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. NSLE (T+C) at 01:52 UTC (2006-03-08)

Addendum, Tony Sidaway has removed the request as trollish, which it (probably) was. ;) NSLE (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)

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. RadioKirk 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 · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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 CatTalk|@ 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. [57]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=45367369"