User talk:Mackensen

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

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

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

Arb Comm on Kinsella, etc

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

Indeed.

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

The Original Barnstar

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

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

An RFCU decline

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

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

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

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

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

RFCU Skipsmith

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

Hi Mackensen

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

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Report at WP:AN/I

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

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

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

Something to modify at RFCU

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

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

Disruptive behavior

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppet checkuser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CheckUser on User:Science3456

Hi Charles,

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DrL#DrL

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

Neh?

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

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

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

User:MARVEL again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone using a proxy service

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

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

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

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

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

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

For confirmation:

168.143.113.52

network:Org-Name:Anonymizer

network:Street-Address:7525 Metropolitan dr Ste 306

network:City:San Diego

network:State:CA

network:Postal-Code:92108

network:Country-Code:US

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

An AMA request has been made involving you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

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

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

Theory of everything (philosophy)

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

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

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

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

Ping (RFCU)

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

The {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} template

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

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

Roitr

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

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

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

Citation templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfA on SynergeticMaggot

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Check User

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

Desysopping

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

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

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

RCU on DrL

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

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

My RfA and your vote

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Hello,

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

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

Minnesota State Highway 33

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

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

CU

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

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

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

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

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

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

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

Disraeli - Jewish?

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

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

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

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

Request one more checkuser

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

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

WP:RFCU#UberCryxic

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

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

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

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

AN thread about bad things

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

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

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

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

The Nathan affair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something peculiar

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

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

Nathandotcom

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

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

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

Merrimack, New Hampshire

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

Thank You

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