User talk:David Gerard/archive 4

1 Jan 2006-30 Sep 2006

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The user's unblock request has been granted. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool :-) Sorry I didn't get to this myself in any orderly time - David Gerard 11:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you have a link

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

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

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)

*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)

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)

Bronze Plaque

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

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)

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)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

DO IT! PLEASE! Just a Simple Matter of Editing ... - David Gerard 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

timecop

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

You'll have to appeal to David Gerard on that one. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. It was to calm down Bensaccount - David Gerard 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IRC and wikipedia are independent. You can have diferent wikipedia and IRC usernames however people generaly prefer having idenical IRC and wikipedia usernames. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

-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:

• April 18 to 19: 82.41.101.67
• April 19 to May 10: 81.156.177.21
• May 14 to May 21: 81.156.180.122
• May 22 to June 5: 81.156.177.151
• June 10 to July 27: 81.156.176.226
• July 27 to August 7: 81.156.176.160

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

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)

And I see The Epopt agrees on the RFAr - David Gerard 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Here are some nice little pieces of evidence:

• How many users incorrectly write "r.v." with a period when reverting someone, when the term is an abbreviation for a single word and simply "rv" is the standard? CheeseDreams did routinely ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), so does -Ril- ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]).
• How many users write "P.s." in edit summaries, and unusally always have the 's' in lower case? CheeseDreams did ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), so has -Ril- ([19], [20]) - SimonP 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Domo Arigato in advance

More suckpuppy checks... I am still waiting for the earlier checks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Impersonators

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

• Hexagonal (talk · contribs)
• InTheJungle (talk · contribs)
• Mike K. Martin (talk · contribs)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

• Please investigare. Also whats up with the hexagonal guy? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

At least the German of Muhamed is very bad. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He can't even spell my nick correctly. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sysin (talk · contribs) seems to have simimlar edit summaries. Can you investigate this one too. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs)

• I am curious who this person is. He/she is blockable with that username but I am curious who he/she is :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• I am not sure what to make up from his/her note. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Erwin Walsh (talk · contribs)

• Check contributions. A hihghly inactive editor seems to know my departure rather too conviniantly. Since he is very happy about my departure (even though I had no disputie with him that I can see from his contributions) I believe he may be a sockpuppy of Davenbelle or who knows. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also his only activity seems to be VfD voting prompting sockpuppy susppicions further... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actualy I am convinced this is a vote only account as per [24]. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Erwin Walsh/Vfd/ Deletionist too, thats all he does, gets articles vfded for deletion. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh. Thats all I can dig up I think. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the load

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

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 Cat^Talk|@ 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

***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 Cat^Talk|@ 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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 All^T|@|ESP 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for answering my comment, David. // paroxysm (n) 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to pay me more - David Gerard 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So can I consider you permamently recused, then?  ;-P -- ChrisO 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, does that mean you can get involved?  :) (j/k) --Modemac 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(mutter) yeah probably (mutter) - David Gerard 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as I don't have to. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, or you will be blocked for a brief period. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 All^T|@|ESP 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Interesting that when I delete BS advertisements, some people complain that I am not following process, yet it is OK here.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 All^T|@|ESP 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 All^T|@|ESP 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Humour drier than a nun's ... well, very dry indeed - David Gerard 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:test4-n|User talk:David Gerard}} --Deathphoenix 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

on a happier note

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

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)

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 • page moves • block user • block log), Anneblagg (talk • contribs • page moves • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Barnstar

For being a saint!

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I think he may now be User:Sunday_Service. Ardenn 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Forgot to add that he has actually has signed a post "S&F" before diff. Seraphim 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Pressie

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

Your block of Sunday Service

Your block of Sunday_Service (talk • contribs • page moves • 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Zogu block

Hi David, I noticed you blocked Zogu (talk • contribs • page moves • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Amorrow

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I appriciate your help. Thank you. WegianWarrior 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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 • page moves • 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Urgent CheckUser request

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

Er, probably no-one looking at the queue *blush* I'll clear it now - David Gerard 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Steve Summit (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 16:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 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)

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)

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)

Shut up, you 1.1, out-ethics conspiracy[43] kook. Has homeland security contacted you yet? --JimmyT 10:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Flu!

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

No personal attacks

Particularly on my talk page [44]. Just don't. - David Gerard 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Blanking talkpage

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

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

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)

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]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hipocrite. You forgot Chtirrell [56] Imacomp 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Checkuser request for Current arbitration case - Melissadolbeer

Hi,

are either (or both)

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

any of the following:

• SallyGold (talk • contribs)
• Dwho (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.97.230 (talk • contribs)
• 203.144.210.225 (talk • contribs)
• 164.164.127.55 (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.184.118 (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.97.116 (talk • contribs)
• Ghpbermuda (talk • contribs)
• Jlchan (talk • contribs)
• FarSd (talk • contribs)
• Mikefar (talk • contribs)
• Poorman (talk • contribs)
• Goodboy (talk • contribs)
• Teenangel (talk • contribs)
• -Teenangel- (talk • contribs)
• Angel77 (talk • contribs)
• -Angel77- (talk • contribs)
• Watcher1 (talk • contribs)
• -Watcher1- (talk • contribs)
• -Johnny- (talk • contribs)
• Kendea (talk • contribs)
• Mathman (talk • contribs)
• Paulya (talk • contribs)
• Melissadolbeer (talk • contribs)

?

(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)

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)

"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)

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)

Wikipedia article

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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. (usurped) 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. (usurped) 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)

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)

Arbitration

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Cat^Talk|@ 02:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_by_user:AKMask

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

Hi

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

Running for admin on meta

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

User:MARMOT

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

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

? about Terryeo's RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyde and SPUI

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

• -1 Flamebait Cyde Weys 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • -1 Unfair

Meta adminship

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

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

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

MARMOT

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

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

Thank you

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

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

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

I know you've removed it...

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

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

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!

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

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

Well, this one looks like he might be a different person, unless the guy is really clever. Suspicious timing and similarities, though. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello David. ROGNNTUDJUU! told me you did not answer his email? To be honest this whole thing annoys me a bit. Writing an encyclopedia online seemed like a cool idea to me, but as it turns out there all kind of nerds around. De mortuis... 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing Barnstar

Please would you kindly remove the missing barnstar, as it is an identifier for those who haven't received any barnstars. Deryck C. of WP:KC, 04:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite

Here is your invite to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers. Martial Law 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see someone actually bothered releasing an en: Wikipedia CD that just starts with a couple of thousand hand-checked articles. It makes the whole idea seem less fearsomely huge - David Gerard 19:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks (from someone)--BozMo talk 09:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthoer sockpuppet check

I got another one for you, this time for a user blocked for a month whom seems to be evading the block (for personal attacks and incivility/trollong).

User in question is: Diyako (talk · contribs) whom changed his username to Xebat (talk · contribs) and now is suspected to have the sockpuppet alias Zanyar (talk · contribs). Zaynar's edits closely resemble of Diyako's and

There is an ongoing infestation on Kurd related articles so it might be a meatpuppet.

Some evidence:

Users first edit was to Kurdish celebration of Newroz (an unlikely hit of a first search and an article Diyako to say the least was very active). Also this edit is intriguing.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiEN-l mailing list

Hi David, Sorry to pile another request on your plate. I recently re-signed up to wikien-l but by default new posters seem to be moderated. I think my posts my have disappeared into the rejected pile amid a flood of spam (or have been left lingering in the queue). Would you mind moving me to the approved list? My email address starts the same way as my user name i.e. pcb21@. Thanks for your time, Pcb21 Pete 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Pcb caught up with me on IRC. But others annoyed with our occasional laxity to the queue ... please do bug me, Mark Ryan or Fuzheado as needed! - David Gerard 01:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

History undelete please

Hi - you're apparently offering undeletion, according to Category:User_undeletion. I'd be interested in seeing the previous history or text of the Sadness article if possible. I'm adding something on representation of mood in art to the page which it now redirects to, so it might have had useful sources. Here's the AfD entry Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadness Thanks if poss. Cedders 09:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The history is still there! They just made it a redirect to Depression. Here's the last version - David Gerard 11:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think I was confused by the outcome of the vote. --Cedders 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

PowerShot

Thanks for adding all the powershot camera battery types. It was a good addtion to the article. I think there might need to be an analogous article created for the A series cameras. -Ravedave 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm specialising in the Ixus, but hell yeah! - David Gerard 01:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Haathi Mere Saathi

Restore the deleted edits to that article. (unsigned comment by Holkinjai (talk · contribs), 20:20, 15 April 2006

DAVID GERAD?

Are you the wikitruth person?

Wikitruth

The following appeared on the Wikitruth site:

Ow! Do you know how much a Slashdotting hurts? A LOT. Over 25,000 hit this poor box! Summary: Wikipedia has problems and we think we can only criticize it from an external site. The WikiTruth will be back soon!

Until then, support your local hacker convention: defcon, hope, phreaknic, notacon and shmoo!

And for Jimbo's sake, listen to some independent Hacker Media!!!

Thanks for being patient.

-- David Gerard and the Wikitruth.Info Staff

[ta_bu_shi_da_yu] wha?! DavidGerard formed Wikitruth?!
[ta_bu_shi_da_yu] what on EARTH is going on?

(Come join us on #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net. Until the Slashdot storm passes)

I suspect that this is a massive troll. Can you confirm? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me - this is the first I've heard of it. I can think of any number of pissed-off trolls it could be. One site has two sockpuppets of one troll arguing on my talk page ... - David Gerard 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be the work of Lir, like everything else is - 1. the writing style. 2. the writing style 3. the writing style 4. apparently I'm the source of more of his misfortunes than Raul654 is. I understand Lir got banned from Encyclopaedia Dramatica after he got severely moderated on Wikipedia Review. (Where he bitches chronically about my writing on Uncyclopedia.) C'MON ADAM, TELL THE WIKITRUTH! WHAT DID YOU DO TO PISS OFF LJDRAMA? - David Gerard 06:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I'm adding my own two cents on Wikitruth, at http://www.modemac.com/wiki/Wikitruth -- if you or anyone else wants to contribute to this outside page (completely independent of Wikipedia), please feel free to head on over. Praise "Bob."  :) --Modemac 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Script

Does this look odd to you? [58] -Will Beback 06:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea, ask a dev, which ain't me ... otoh, knowing Jarlaxle, he might honestly have thought putting code into a page would make it runnable - David Gerard 06:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 06:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies David, I thought you were a dev. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

need help from someone with checkuser rights an extensive policy knowledge.

I recently received a message at [59]regarding some sockpuppetry. the user want me to email him the IP address of someone defaming him or something. I am just a humble editor with no aspirations towards any sort of administrative role on en. As one of the go-to guys on wikipedia, I figured that you might be able to help the gentleman. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

another RfA question

I detect no arbitration committee action thusfar on Terryeo's RfA which was opened April 3. Are the parties involved expected to propose remedies or otherwise do something to push the ball forward? Thanks. BTfromLA 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that the arbitrators are moving forward with an injunction at this point. BTfromLA 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-David

Hi. I placed myself up for constructive critisism on WP:ER. I'd appreciate it if you could comment there. As a senior member of the community, I think your word would be good for me.-Zero^Talk 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Saw something you'd appreciate

http://tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=641

had me laughing... figured you could appreciate a little scientology humor.  ALKIVAR™ 18:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock on Freemasonry

Hi David, I think we have yet another instance of a User:Lightbringer Sock on the various Freemasonry related articles. In the past this Long Term Abuser has used IPs from Shaw Communications in Calgary (the IP usually starts with 24.68.2....) this time he is using 24.64.223.203. I ran a search through Arin.net and this is also a Shaw Communications IP. His edits such as this and this fit the "lightbringer pattern" ... trying to delete the statement that "Freemasonry is less of a Secret Society and more a society with secrets", trying to omit reference to the Holocaust. Please check it out and block/ban if I am correct. Blueboar 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:David Duchovny

Hi David--I saw your comment to User:JuliannaRoseMauriello asking him/her to choose another username. I had wondered about that issue with another user, User:David Duchovny, but wasn't sure where to ask about it. Do we have a general policy that users shouldn't take usernames of other people? Thanks. · rodii · 13:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We sure do. Wikipedia:Username says: "Do not use the real name of well-known figure, especially one still living, unless you are that person. Registering a username of a notable figure, and then performing disruptive edits in that "name", or in an attempt to discredit it, will likely result in an immediate, indefinite block. Impersonations of figures who are household names, such as "George W. Bush" or "Winston Churchill", etc., will be blocked on sight." The same applies to picking a name as a tribute. Basically, we have lots of people of varying degrees of fame who do in fact edit on the wiki as themselves. So pretending otherwise is a bad idea. That being the person's real name would be suitable as a reason, of course: I blocked someone who picked the name "Doctor Mengele" saying I'd unblock if he emailed a scan of proof of last name and of his doctorate ... he picked another name - David Gerard 14:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see someone else has warned him, and left the WP:U link on his talk page for me to follow. I guess we'll see what happens next. Thanks for the response. · rodii · 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

zomg survey

Hey David,

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear what you've got to say at User:Linuxbeak/Wikimania_2006/Wikipedian_Survey. Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seoul Jjang

You blocked Seoul Jjang on the 28th but see last entry at User talk:Seoul Jjang. Is User:Sean Black masquarading as an Admin? I don't see his name on the Wikipedia:List of administrators, and it is not my understanding that non-admins can block users.--FourthAve 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• See #593 on the link you gave. :) FrankB

Hi! Just wanted to thankyou for a good belly laugh in (Gator1 Incident), re:

"I'd add mine except I get far more of them already than I can deal with ;-) Perhaps we could tag it with WP:BADCOP and WP:WORSECOP - David Gerard 21:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks! I needed that! FrankB 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request if at all possible

Hello David, I and a couple of admins have a sockpuppet theory and Wikipediatrix mentioned that you would be the man to discuss this with. Last months both she, I and at least half a dozen other users received from JimmyT a barrage of very serious abuse, personal attacks and wrongful claims of wiki rule breaching (so that our talk pages could be covered in pages of WP:NPA WP:Civil and vandalism warnings which according to wiki policy we aren't to remove). These were all fuelled because of edits to Scientology related articles as he is an admitted scientologist and objects to wikipedia policies regarding POV edits. He was subsequently banned indefinitely. JimmyT claimed to be American. Within days it continued (allbeit in a slightly different and certainly more toned down way) from a new user UNK - again an admitted scientologist claiming to be from Korea. About 2-3 weeks ago he too was banned indefinitely as it was found he was a sockpuppet of JimmyT. Now, "coincidently" we have another admitted scientologist and "friend" of UNK; Nikitchenko this time claiming to be a Russian based artist who was born in Japan (strange but that's his story) and, again, both wikipediatrix and I (moreso than the the others this time) are finding ourselves targets. Again, more subtle but consistently being hassled about every edit, calling mediation committees, and generally making life difficult. To me it all seems too coincidental - especially as he says he lives in Russia but wrote on my talk page that he is a close friend of UNK's, who was allegdedly Korean. Are you able to assist in an IP search or point me in the right direction? Those editor(s) again:

• JimmyT (talk · contribs · count)
• UNK (talk · contribs · count)
• Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · count)

Thank you in advance, - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

David apologies I missed the note at the top and have listed at requests for checkuser. Sorry for not reading more closely! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, David Gerard/archive 4, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's alternate account

Have you seen this yet..? -Zero^Talk 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On User:Zmmz's behalf

This user is requesting to be unblocked, primarily because they weren't warned about their behavior. I don't disagree with your block, but I do think that it's a bit strange you didn't even leave a block message on his talk page explaining the block and whatnot. Considering the user is also involved in ongoing arbitration, I figured I might ask you to take a second look if you got a chance. --InShaneee 05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am second abakharev 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• • David, please look on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#ser:Zmmz and User:David Gerard? I was really at lost what to answer to Zmmz and decided to unblock him so he could work on his arbCom case. If there is a need to block him, please go ahead but leave some clue on the User's talkpage what he is blocked for abakharev 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 0.999... equals 1

I find your assumption of bad faith and attempt at personal attack by claiming I took the article to AfD to make a point and was disrupting wikipedia highly objectionable. You were violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by making such a baseless claim. I DO consider that article to be unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. In future I will appreciate it if you refrained from making such claims. Thank you. Loom91 06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering I linked in my response to the wikien-l post in which you said why you were doing it, I suspect you have a bad case of WP:OWN concerning the deletion debate - David Gerard 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to make false allegations. I don't believe you will be able to point me to a post where I said I was putting the article on AfD to make a point. Neither have I made any claims to own the deletion debate, I simply started it and subsequently objected when you made false allegations against me. Loom91 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Return of User:Irate

Hi. Today we have had a number of incidents on UK articles, most likely caused by socks of User:Irate - I've left a notice at AN/I, and as you have previous contact with this user you may wish to leave a comment there. Thanks for your time, Aquilina 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I see you believe that "userboxes should burn in hell". Take a look at User:Ldingley. There's a bunch of Russophobic hate-templates. I believe such pages bring WP into disrepute. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

I've had a change of opinion on this. Because of Gibby's relentless incivility and personal attacks on other editors, and his edit warring, but in particular because of the unbending nature of his approach to subjects on which he has strong feelings, I think it may (either now or soon) be time to consider invoking the General Probation in his case to ban him from Wikipedia completely. I don't think he's shown any sign of trying to work with other Wikipedians, and instead he's treating Wikipedia like a corner of Usenet. I no longer cling on to the hope that he has both the capacity and the will to reform.

KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

I'd be interested in your opinion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this on WP:AN. I'd like to see if there are reasonable objections before pressing ahead. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:1.0

As you're "envious" of dewiki, mind having a look at this discussion and giving us your comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Humble request

Would you please give GraceNote permission to use your name to make a point on his user page? I offered that he could use mine, but in this edit, he thought your name made the point better. Thanks. --Rednblu 07:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, thank you! You are a beautiful Querulous. --Rednblu 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA nom

If the offer still stands (in 6 days) I would love to take you up on your offer, # Not yet. I will nominate you myself at the ninetieth day - David Gerard 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC), to nominate me for adminship. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodness yes. Make sure you have answers for the querulous closely interested persons who dissect the previous nom as if another three months never happened - David Gerard 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have them ready, though I assume people will add extra questions after the nom starts. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sense of humour

See, I knew you have one ;-) -- Grace Note.

Block that sock! - Lightbringer again

David, accordinmg to this RFCU, we've got another LB sock Newmason (talk · contribs), but nobody has blocked him as of yet. Could you do so? Thanks! MSJapan 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. *zap* - David Gerard 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but we got another one -User:Naturalism IS satanism. Can we reblock the IP please? MSJapan 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser has proven we're dealing with Lightbringer here. A block would be much appriciated. He is also working from 24.64.223.203, but it seems that IP is shared with legitimate users. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 05:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cash for Comment

Care to have a peruse over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia? User:Wickethewok really seems to have an axe to grind. Brother William 11:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems perfectly sincere but with a bad case of WP:OWN of the deletion debate. Looks like a keep to me (all the deletes are "because I haven't heard of it," which is the usual meaning of "non-notable" on AFD), I've added a note to this effect - David Gerard 11:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's over 5 days old so closable, so I closed it "keep". First deletion debate I've ever closed! I'm sure I'll now get pissed-off people stopping by here because I read the discussion instead of just counting votes ... - David Gerard 11:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jamal Curtis

Can you check that user? There is evidence he is a sockpuppet of User:Dzoni. Jakiša Tomić 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is his another sockpuppet: User:Cetnici. Jakiša Tomić 08:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sory for distubance. I read WRCU and I think this is obvious case so you don't need to check him. Jakiša Tomić 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Odious users

I have brought up a contentious sentence of yours about consensus for banning odious users at the village pump. Would you like to comment? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(facepalm) There's no casually obvious statement so obvious that it can't be bent into weird shapes by a really determined process obsessive. I've commented on what I thought I meant at the time - David Gerard 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed

Dear David, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards,--AndriyK 11:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Critique

You are priceless and very funny I find. --Rednblu

It's funny because it happened - David Gerard 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But the song lyrics are a work of art. --Rednblu 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not until I find a good rhyme for "cabal" - David Gerard 23:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Walthamstow town hall image

Only just bothered to log in today and read your message.

Yeah its okay, at least there won’t be any copyright issues now. --Nabs 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Richard Branson" sock puppet

Hi David. Thanks for blocking the "Richard Branson" user. I noticed you created a category for his sock puppets - I created one earlier at Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Universe_Daily. My notice on the Richard Branson username being a sock puppet of a serial sock puppeteer is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_username.3F. Thanks again, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAAA!

AA, AAAAA!

A AA AAAAA AA AAAA AA AAAA. AAA AAAAAAAAA, AAA AAAAAAA AA AAAAAAAAAA A AAAA AA AAAAAAAAAA, AAA A AAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AA AAA AA. AA AAA AAAAAA, A AA AAAAAAAA AA AAAAAAA A AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAA! A AAAA AAAA A AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAAAA, AAA A AAAAA AA AAAAA AA A AAA AA AAA. AAAA AA AAA AAAAA? AAAAAAAAA (AAAA AA A AAAA) 02:14, 9 AAAA 2006 (AAA)

Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames

Greetings, friend - since your name comes up as a target more than once on the list, I would appreciate your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames. BD2412 T 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A gift

For when it all gets a little too much, relax and take solace in the fact that the Cabal carries compensations. robchurch | talk 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson civil case not settled

[60] says that the estate have not received any of the settlement - i've updated Lisa McPherson but lots of other scientology articles make reference to her case being settled (such as Scientology and the legal system) - how should they be updated to reflect this? --84.12.189.210 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just update them with a reference link noting that they are settled, though the settlement has not yet been paid - David Gerard 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wild Cherries

This Melbourne band from the late 1960's is up at articles for deletion along with its members including Lobby Loyde. I have tried adding references to the article as best I can. From my layman's knowledge of Australian rock, Lobby Loyde is certainly notable and it seems this band was as well. [61]. I would be grateful for any advice you could give me. Capitalistroadster 13:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Email?

I have a serious article concern with sneaky vandalism. I'm reluctant to paste details and evidence here, as that will help the vandal. Can you let me know a suitable way to contact you otherwise? Many thanks. I'll check back here for a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email | contribs)} 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You can email me at dgerard@gmail.com - David Gerard 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You have mail. Many thanks for the prompt reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email | contribs)} 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wild Cherries AfD

I had some questions about things you said about WP:MUSIC. I'm confused what you mean about it being US centric. I could see it being biased in favor of industrial countries that have more internet access, but it seems like Australia would be in that category (though google has an obvious recentism bias, as you pointed out). I was also wondering if you could point me somewhere to read about the history and controversy over WP:MUSIC. If it's just buried in the talk archives, say so and I'll go find it. Thanks.--Kchase02 T 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of records for "significance" is US-centric - significance is much lower for Australia, which is a much smaller country. Most of the controversy is in past AFDs - where WP:MUSIC was introduced as "no no it's an inclusion guideline, we'd NEVER use it as an excuse for deletion" and is now being abused as an excuse for deletion - David Gerard 15:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to review comment by Terryeo

David, Hate to bother you with this, but I wonder if this would be considered a personal attack, it is from Talk:Altered_texts_in_Scientology_doctrine#Guardian.27s_Office:

"The creepy tactics you describe Antaeus are exactly what Joseph Stalin employed during his purges in the old Soviet Union. Now they are being used by David Miscavige in the cofs.--Fahrenheit451 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a comment ! Whew, really contributory to the article too ! Why don't you discuss parallells to Stalin at alt.news.scientology, rather than here? Or perhaps in some of your Clambake.org esseys? Here, we work with previously published information. Because books, newspapers, government reports, etc. have not compared Miscavige with Stalin, articles can't contain such personal opinion. Oh, btw, its 900+ OT VIII's now, heh. Terryeo 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"

Terryeo is falsely accusing me of writing "Clambake.org essays" and his comment is uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me more like an assumption of bad faith. I note that Terryeo appears to have systematically assumed bad faith of almost any critic of Scientology contributing to the pages. Assumption of bad faith isn't a personal attack per se, but it can certainly lead to one slipping into such - David Gerard 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review an deletion made contrary to consensus

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that Wiktionary provides a better alternative than long lists of cities, though unfortunately this isn't as widely known as it should be. See for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paris#Translations. -- ChrisO 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Medals

Yes, it's mine, as seen via a scanner plate... I've probably had a fairly interesting external life but fortunately it's been under the radar, as it were, so no WP:V for you! ;-) -- ChrisO

Need Help with Dragonfiend

Hi! I noticed you were involved in the RfA with Dragonfiend, so I thought I would seek your advice. Several roommates of mine have noted that Dragonfiend seems to be deleting any and all references to Okashina Okashi (OO) (my webcomic) from Wiki in general, using the justification "removing references to deleted article." The article in question was deleted via AfD, so I can understand some of Dragonfiend's edits, where she's eliminated some Wiki links and removed disambiguation links. But is an article being deleted from Wiki also cause to delete entries were referencing the comic name is beneficial to the article? For example, the Neon Genesis Evangelion has a section on popular reaction; a comic from OO was used to illustrate the point to help reference the statements made [62]. However, Dragonfiend removed said example [63] rather than simply de-wikifying the link as is more normal.

Most troubling, my roommates have told me she seems to ignore whatever justifications are presented to keep the references to OO. The Megatokyo Main Characters page, for example, lists Dom and Ed, two characters who are also in OO. Mentioning their presence in OO is important for the same reason you would mention a character in a novel appearing in another series under that character's profile. However, Dragonfiend completely cut any mention of OO from the page [64] [65] using the above reason. When my roommate said: "Adding back non-wikied mention of OO, since it's important to note for encyclopedic reasons places where a given character appears, including other webcomics," and restored the edit, Dragonfiend ignored him and deleted it yet again [66]. He's posted a note on the article's talk page, but she has yet to respond.

A similar case exists with Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki, where she insists on deleting the fact that OO paid homage to SGVY; such a mention is important given that the influence one webcomic has on another helps establish its notability. [67] Even when one of my roommates said: "A comic being referenced by another comic is important," he was ignored. I've tried engaging her in talks before, but she refuses to acknowledge her own instances of uncivil behavior (such as using the word "vanity" as a slur in AfD discussions, then saying it's justified since she thinks the article is vanity, either not realizing or refusing to admit the rhetorical implications of repeating a single word over and over as an insult).

My question is: does an article being deleted mean that any reference to the subject of that article is eliminated from Wiki completely? Or is it all right to mention in an article an item that, while NN on its own, intersects with a notable topic? If the latter, can you please tell Dragonfiend to stop removing every mention of OO she comes across? She hasn't proved this vengeful against any other deleted webcomic articles in the past, so I'm beginning to wonder why I'm receiving such special across the board deletion treatment. If this is standard Wiki procedure, I'll feel a little better and tell my roommates to stop getting into revert wars with her. Thanks! Xuanwu 08:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I don't care...

Davey crack corn and I don't care, Davey talk nonsense and I don't care, Davey break articles and it pisses me off, he really ought to know better. I don't give a flying fart if Wikipedia is Fark, Slashdot or the bloody BBC, civility be damned, if you wish to tromp about as if you know better than the next man, you better fucking know better. You don't, or you would not have made an incorrect edit twice. Feel free to learn about a subject before you go talking about it. I didn't revert your nonsense in the beginning, it could have been one of 3 other people in the house - but they were completely right and you a total fool. It's dumbasses like yourself that make editing articles here a painful experience. Janizary 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

mboverload@ hands Janizary and David strawberry lolipops

Template usage for sections common to two articles

Hello, a question has come up in TfD about a complex table used in two articles. The table was in template space, then moved to article space. Help:Template seems to say that a section common to multiple articles may be either a template or in article space, but Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Since you wrote the latter phrase back in March 2005, I was wondering if you could shed some light on the situation your phrase was supposed to address? Thanks. Gimmetrow 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on Terryeo's discussion

David, I request you take a look at this discussion. It looks to me like he is falsely, uncivilly and not assuming good faith in an attempt to invalidate an edit I made. Talk:Suppressive_Person#The_.22Cross-Hatting.22_paragraph Also, this looks like a personal attack to me Talk:Altered_texts_in_Scientology_doctrine#Alterations_in_Dianetics:_MSMH.3F--Fahrenheit451 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Tony Sidaway took care of this matter expeditiously. --Fahrenheit451 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More Imacomp and Skull 'n' Femers Sockpuppets

Freemasonry has had more problems with sockpuppets of Imacomp and Skull 'n' Femers. All the evidence is listed here and the block status of all his socks are listed. The most recent problematic sock is user:mousescribe. I know you've delt with him in the past so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :) Chtirrell 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if you'd like to take a look at this

• List of sexual slurs
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (2nd nomination)

In recent months, some good cleanup work has been done, and some...not so good. I showed up a couple of weeks ago and found that several editors had for some months been robotically removing any item without a reference, even common, almost universally known terms. For instance, one editor (Will Beback) removed "fudgepacker" and "pillowbiter" several times, and another (Aaron Brenneman) removed queen, fairy, pillowbiter, bitch, cunt, cock-sucker, and whore. Dyke and faggot also seem to have been removed at some point. Those editors performing removals seem to have made little or no effort to obtain or request references for the items removed. Most of the items were removed without notice and without any challenge on the talk page.

These removals were easily repaired by providing references, fortunately. But I've found it somewhat dismaying that even common words were being removed without notice or discussion. Surely this is not what our Verifiability policy is about.

More recently, Aaron has proposed a merge to Sexual slurs. On the face of it, this is a good idea. The article could do with a good preamble, and the short article at that location is a reasonable start, However I'm concerned about the manner in which this merge has been proposed. Brenneman apparently believes that the list article is unencyclopedic, and I think that it is reasonable to infer that he may intend to get consensus for the merge, and then remove what he has described as "trivia" (that is, a fully referenced list of sexual slurs). This places me in a bit of a quandary--what is on the face of it a reasonable idea may be about to be abused in order to justify the removal of referenced material from Wikipedia (cf: Robert the Bruce arbitration, principle 6). The removals of common terms in past months give me cause for concern that the intention here is not to improve the quality of information on Wikipedia, but to remove information.

Another thing that concerns me is Aaron Brenneman's comments, which appear to me to be poisoning the well. "I'll skip the niceties: Can I ask that Tony and JJay make their case for not merging as clearly and concisely as possible? The pseudo-fillibuster style that is sometimes employed tends to crowd out the voices of other editors." [68] (note the presumption that I am opposed to merging--I had explicitly stated that I was not) and "I'd prefer to let other contributors make themselves heard, and ask that you do the same. Just for once be a bit quiet and listen, ok Tony? " [69] Coming from that editor, the characteristically graceless and insulting words perhaps aren't quite so surprising. But they still took my breath away by their bad faith. When one also sees that I had at that point made but one single comment of 27 words, explicitly expressing my lack of opposition to a merge, and JJay had made a 14-word comment, Aaron's behavior is especially worrying. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Journalist contact

Hi there - cheers for the heads up, the guy managed to track me down and email me. Gonna give him a phone after dinner. Thanks again! Nach0king 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Check User

Is it possible to know the ip for a username before the one week period? --Lanov 11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone may check before then if they notice the request. (I haven't been monitoring the page in question - I've been doing Foundation/UK stuff and article writing of late, not a lot of en: admin work.) Note that revealing an IP publicly is generally unlikely - David Gerard 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Check User Abuse

You still owe me an apology for abusing your check user tool against me without any legitimate reason. Especially since I'm here longer than you, that was totally uncalled for. -- Dissident (Talk) 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making no sense whatsoever here - David Gerard 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to this. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I fear the answer is "too bad." Your privacy has not in fact been violated and you don't get to demand no-one looks. I could have said nothing and had people presume you were Marsden. - David Gerard 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to simply asking? Are you're saying that all of this is just for show? Nobody said outright I was wrong for bringing up the issue. Instead actions like that of yours gave me the impression that some kind of "signal" was given to me, one nobody had the guts to make explicit. And that's worse than any unreasonable policy that is at least visible on a page. So, if you have a problem with anything I say or do, please say so upfront. Until then I'm simply going to assume that I committed no wrongs whatsoever for bringing up the case of Marsden, that you and certain others were wrong in treating me the way you did over it, and that no one had, has and will have the right to use Marsden against me. Period. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:RFCU was to get the requests off the checkers' talk pages, for the convenience of the checkers; that it exists in no way implies it's mandatory. I don't have a problem I can think of with anything you say or do (I don't really have any idea who you are), and still don't understand your presumption of bad faith. I haven't said (and don't think) that mentioning Marsden was wrong, nor does saying that you aren't Marsden somehow say you are. I get that you're upset, but am not understanding how this complaint is logically grounded — you haven't really stated a claim for which relief can somehow be granted - David Gerard 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that, regardless of whether any actual damage was done by using the checkuser tool, that the fact remains that there is a policy to prevent frivolous use of it. That means that either I somehow became fair game due to my actions or that the tool was abused. If it's the latter then you're in the wrong and I'm hoping that you can at least acknowledge that to prevent further bad blood. If it's the former then I must conclude then that it's possible to get checkusered for things that in themselves are not necessarily considered wrong. But even then, it was still a rude thing to do without first asking me or simply checking my contributions. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo snippet of possible interest

When will this stuff end?--Fahrenheit451 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Terryeo_possible_attack_again

welcome to Wikinews

Wikinews:User:David Gerard, if u need the welcome template message, u can find it here. Doldrums 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:-D - David Gerard 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Interview

Hello and thank you for your message. I have read the interview and got the same feeling, he's actually thinking of "English Wikipedia". From my experience in the Czech Republic vast majority of passive users (or just only visitors) use English Wikipedia. Many people I know have bad experience with the Czech version so they use only the English one. Personally I think Czech version is of very low quality and sometimes silly. I am sure he know there are other languages variations of Wikipedia but he have the same feeling as I have, English Wikipedia is a kind of a flagship of Wikimedia Foundation. I think your answers were proper to his questions. As far as I know Respekt, I think it wouldn't be presented as an interview. It would be presented as a short analysis with your quotations. Should I contact him? - Darwinek 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted him. He phoned me today, we had a nice 30 min talk. The article about Wikipedia will be published in next Respekt, this monday. - Darwinek 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Will logic prevail

I read your comments on the Tron Guy article, and seeing as how you are a Wikipedia guru I would value your feedback at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Hall. RFerreira 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding acceptance

You stated: I don't know how to get Terryeo to accept we're all here to be encyclopedists, but he'll need to. I have always expected nothing else than we were all working toward creating an ecyclopedia which is useful to the common person. I have never understood why some editors would not accept my statements when I say that I edit here without the permission or knowledge of any organization of the Church. Time after time I point out that WP:RS is being violated, even being defied. I am convinced that if Wikipedia policy and guidelines are followed and implemented then the articles of my attention will become good, useable articles. We may be worlds apart in our understanding of the subjects, but about Wikipedia and the presentation of information, we are in agreement. With the exception that Wikipedia policy and guideline is not followed by many editors in many of the Scientology series articles. Terryeo 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Publisher for Version 0.5

David,

I know you've had a long association with WP:1.0, and as we get close to producing our first English test CD (besides the SOS Children's CD) I'm wondering if you know of any suitable publishers. We hope to release a CD of around 1500 articles this autumn. Thanks, Walkerma 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Girl With A One-Track Mind

Sorry about that. I was aware of the possibility that my move might have created them, but to be honest my simple mind doesn't understand them, and so I was hoping that some other kind person would sort them out. I have read the WP page on them and I still don't understand it. BTW, I hope you don't object to the move itself. I just thought it looked better in upper and lower case. If that's against policy, please feel free to change it back. --Richardrj 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them now, but it's entirely possible I've messed them up. Perhaps you would be so kind as to check whether I've done them right? Thanks very much. --Richardrj 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mutiny (band)

This band is listed on Articles for deletion. Their article claims that they are an Australian punk-folk band who first formed in 1991. It is claimed that they have released an album and played at Glastonbury. I was wondering whether you had any knowledge of them. Capitalistroadster 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Degree of sensitivity"

Good work on the WP:BLP "nutshell." As BLP stands now, it's mostly about eliminating unsourced negativity in order to discourage lawsuits. That's fine as far as it goes, but "degree of sensitivity," seems to want to go further. Unfortunately the term lacks a definition, so editors have to rely on their own "feelings" about "sensitivity".

Insensitive articles can work to our detriment by unnecessarily enraging people. Please, somebody, more clearly define "a degree of sensitivity," and give us a few examples Lou Sander 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Degree of sensitivity" appears to have been an innovation by SlimVirgin. Unfortunately, it basically tries to push a Sympathetic Point Of View. Which is not NPOV. - David Gerard 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For third parties reading this, the above is not true, as discussed on the relevant talk page. WAS 4.250 13:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake apparently. My apologies to you and Slim - David Gerard 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy

A while back the privacy of Jimmy Wales' daughter was violated on wikipedia. Be aware of a certain sensitivity some might have on making light of privacy needs of nonnotable people. Deleting addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, social security numbers, auto license information, etc might seem "paranoid" but it is not. WAS 4.250 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But she's not notable herself. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough to rate an article in Britannica then yes, everything you said is true. The problem is the semi-noteable or just barely noteable who get an article here but in no other encyclopedia (that isn't a mirror of this one). We have cases of porn stars bios with both their real name and their real birth day (source: legal documents) removed for privacy reasons by the highest Wikipedia authorities (who will indef ban you if you try to put them back). I don't think you should have to be a porn star to be deserve privacy for nonnoteable details of your life if you are barely nateable. WAS 4.250 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But as it was phrased (badly), it appeared to mandate removing all birth dates unless utterly justifiable. Which is just stupid. - David Gerard 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CVU logos?

[70] Whats up? Why the rush? Is there a risk of lawsuits or something. I find this distasteful. This issue is to be taken to the board, nowhere else. --Cat out 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it was more "what on earth". Looks like it's in the Commons process tho - David Gerard 09:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Votes

You're able to change your vote if you like. :-) AaronSw 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:REDUCE

Your one liner intro was pretty much spot on. Thanks, Ansell 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Process essay

I think you've done well with that one, David. It's well-written, to the point and good! --LiverpoolCommander 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though see the section below for why I despair of words working - David Gerard 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Red Bee

In light of this guideline{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29], I'm wondering why you changed the article name. CovenantD 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "The Red Bee" right there on the Hit Comics #1 copyright violation ... I, like most editors, haven't read the Manual of Style from cover to cover, so your question's implicit assumption that I should have before editing seems most peculiar. I don't even know all the stub types yet. It's a good thing there's nothing stopping you from moving it again. Go on, be bold. Red Bee (comic superhero) or something would be the obvious choice (given that the media company, having until recently been part of the BBC, is about 100% more likely to be looked up).

My apologies if not having memorised the MOS seems strange to you, but that it seems strange to you seems strange to me - David Gerard 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an essay I'd like to run past you. Aren't you glad you won't be bailed up for biting a newbie! - David Gerard 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you renamed it because there's a media company with the same name, and you were unaware of the MoS guidelines on this. That's all I wanted to know. CovenantD 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still amazed you went and found a MOS reference but didn't bother looking at the move log or the disambiguation page the move log mentions - David Gerard 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Article for wikinews

i know nothing about how wikinews works.. but i see that you author for it... please make an article for http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/15/school.bombs.ap/index.html Lordkazan 15:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy opinion

Hallo, I'm one of the contributors over on your Policy Essay. On an unrelated note, I've been following some of the discussion on "cool down" blocks over on AN and the Blocking Policy page. As I thought about it, it occurs to me people call them "cool down" blocks simply because the current blocking policy reads like Martin Luther's shopping list. I don't think admins need to be traffic cops quoting chapter and verse of penal codes, so I whipped up a simplified version of the policy as a suggestion. Since I'm a fairly new editor, and I hate the idea of leaving things lying around Wiki waiting for people to rally and vote, I prod'ed it to self-destruct in case no one thinks anything of it. Well, no one's thought much of it so far (or at least, no one's said anything), so I thought I'd ask you and see if it's the sort of thing you think is worthwhile, and stands any chance of being factored into the actual policy page. I dunno...I like simple, even slightly vague policy (as opposed to finely detailed, straight-jacket policy), to give admins the room to actually think about what they're doing. So if you get a chance, let me know what you think, and thanks for your time. --InkSplotch 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Glancing at it. I noted it on wikien-l as well - David Gerard 09:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ariane Jackson

I thought I should mention that you didn't actually complete your sentence at OT VIII. It starts "Ex-members who have done OT VIII (e.g. Ariane Jackson" but the sentence doesn't actually finish before or after the reference. I'd finish it myself but I don't know what you were trying to say. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Duh! Fixing - David Gerard 09:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

chick corea

Hello

can you please review the Chick Corea wiki entry, there appears to be blatant use of this profile to publicise scientology. The page now has a direct link to the German scientology website as well as a scientology video. I find this objectionable.

Please take a look.

Thanks

damian

I'm no fan of Scientology by a long shot, but I skimmed the article and couldn't see anything that jumped out as objectionable at all. It looks okay to me by section size proportions. I suppose I should read the talk page and history in detail. Where are the links you're speaking of? - David Gerard 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Milton Keynes in popular culture

Since you are clearly a mainstream editor, I don't understand your edits to Milton Keynes in popular culture. Noel Edmunds is just one comentator, I can't see what makes him deserve top billing - especially when bullshitting about a place that he admitted never having visited. Secondly, the subject is much larger than the Writers and Artists section. Finally, surely you know about category nesting? So I've reverted. If you disagree with my argument above, please discuss before reinstating. --Concrete Cowboy 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he was responsible for one stereotype. It is a very dated one. --Concrete Cowboy 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not dated in my experience. Read talk pages before blind reverting for small-town boosterism - David Gerard 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché. I've deleted the 25 year old comment by this C-list celebrity from my user page. But it is not "blind reverting". However, I'll try a different tack. --Concrete Cowboy 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Space_Dog_Laika_on_a_postage_stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Space_Dog_Laika_on_a_postage_stamp.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually Russian, it's Albanian, so it should be killed anyway - David Gerard 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Interest?

Seen this? Care to comment? --198.185.18.207 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Supported - David Gerard 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! --198.185.18.207 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Geni's really pretty good value IME. His main defect is not explaining his reasoning until prompted - David Gerard 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had only asked you if you cared to comment because I had just finished reading some old mailing lists where you two have disagreed. I think geni is extremely valuable as a contributor, but comes off as brusque and snooty a lot of times, and I think therefore would be a poor choice as a crat (as newcomers, and oldcomers, often see them as a more visible ambassador of WP). But your opinion is valuable. Thanks again. --198.185.18.207 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we disagree lots, but his opinions always have something behind them ... when you can get them out of him - David Gerard 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good advice

Had to drop a line, having just read your User page and seen your exhortation to wikify. I actually implemented the same strategy a few nights ago, although as a culturally-deficient Yank I substituted Camel filters and cheap beer.—Nate Scheffey 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Camels are strong enough. Filterless, I hope. I've had to give up smoking, which has sent my cleanup rate through the floor. Bah! - David Gerard 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CLUE

Thought you might like this one :) >Radiant< 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

Hi! We welcome your opinion, or participation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines where we are attempting to develop useful guidelines to help solve a variety of problems. Atom 15:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Negative or Controversial Content

In the first sentence, shouldn't "the biased or malicious content" be "biased or malicious content"? Lou Sander 14:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

uh, duh! Thank you - David Gerard 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A really sad edit

Sad because it's probably required. - brenneman ^{L} 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll note the document is very harsh on wikilawyers - David Gerard 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Nutshell

The nutshell you used at this page was out-of sync with recent changes to the policy. Also it contained more information than was in the policy box. I tried to reword it. However my version failed to demonstrate consensus, so I remove the nutshell to the talk page until we can develop a more acceptable version. Just wanted to keep you informed of what happened and why the nutshell is momentatrily missing.

As long as I am here . . . I know you read my attempt at impproving the Wikisource policy. If you cannot think of anything useful to say don't worry. But do you think my new draft was an improvement at all? Or did you find it worse than the current policy? Thanks for taking the time to check it out.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I suffered a rush of blood to the head and mass-restored deleted nutshells. I'll stop by the talk and apologise. This is what I get for not reading first. - David Gerard 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser list

On your userpage, you reference a list of stewards for people to contact with checkuser requests. I went through and corrected any inaccuracies I found in m:Template:CheckUser list earlier today, so it should be accurate enough to refer to. If nothing else, the automatic links all are verified to be working just fine. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done - David Gerard 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD: Error Code Purple

I read your rationale on the talk page for this article, but I really just don't see the place for the article in the project. Therefore, I started the AfD process. In light of the attempt on your part to explain why you began the article, I felt I should notify you of the process so you may add your input in that forum. Erechtheus 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanitas vanitarum

If the goal is to deprecate the term "vanity" within Wikipedia (which seems like a good idea based on your comments) I'd say a good place to start would be to rename "vanity guidelines" to "conflict of interest" or somesuch. Of course the page still needs a major rewrite, but it's a start. >Radiant< 11:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Trouble is we already have one of those and the merge will be complicated. Yaaaaaaay! Thankfully it's pretty clear to all that calling something "vanity" is actually defamatory unless you can be sure they were actually responsible, and in the UK at least you'd actually have to be able to prove it. BEST AVOIDED, REALLY! - David Gerard 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to merge. C of I was a proposal of some sort with little interest, so I just moved it out of the way. I suppose we could update "personal attacks" and "civility" to mention this as well, but then that makes the likely fallacious assumption that people actually read those pages on a regular basis. The next best solution I can think of is WP:TROUTwhacking people who (ab)use the term. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA used to be really short. I wonder how long the sentence "You can call a spade a 'shovel', but don't call it a 'fucking shovel'" would last in the civility guideline. In any case, no-one points at them. Rather, they say "Assume good faith!" if you suggest an AFD nomination was clueless. Or maybe it's just me and I need to learn Smarmy Point Of View - David Gerard 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there's a vexlit somewhere that will respond that according to section 3 paragraph 8 of the AGF policy your complaint is improper and therefore considered vandalistic. Or somesuch. It's all those needless and misunderstood caveats that make the 'pedia such a confusing place, and you can't legislate Clue anyway (speaking of which, there's some talk on iirc the civility page to officially outlaw sarcasm). Well anyway, I did a google through wikispace and removed the term 'vanity' in a bunch of places, including a beginner tutorial. Hope it sticks. >Radiant< 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you included a good edit summary and a talk page note, it should stick. Go back and check in case someone argues.

I can probably take credit for the outlawing sarcasm one - I blew my top at someone on WT:BLP and instead of calling him a blithering idiot quoted Uncyclopedia links. I suppose next time I should just go for it - David Gerard 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have observed that wtf in general is followed by fts, although it need not be. Metarhyme 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I should point out that a certain user is very upset that the term "vanity" was removed without a prior community discussion. >Radiant< 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Practical process

I agree so much with your essay, which came like a breath of fresh air to me; and I was relieved at your contributions today to Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources (though I disagree with the singling out of one name).

I’m relatively new and (like your “Kid”) I’ve earnestly read the policies and foundation documents, none of which sanction the reverting of good-faith edits or the tyranny of consensus in the slightest: quite the opposite. I do not see why these reverters are so reluctant to engage in normal editing process, by which I mean constructively working on a policy or article through an evolving sequence of edits, a cooperative venture which in my opinion can be trusted to produce net improvements over time (though we will sometimes go one step back to go two steps forward). Editing is dynamic: even a good-faith bad edit can move things forward if it prompts a creative response from the next editors. Reverting, however, is reactionary, especially when it invokes the consensus of some witenagemot that once met in the hills. qp10qp 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA situation

I'd like your opinion on this one... Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Editcountitis redux. It's only a partial solution but it'd be a step. >Radiant< 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Block history needs investigating

Hi there. I was looking at some old VfD stuff, and came across User:GRider, and via the two Requests for Comments (1, 2) and the Arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider) I ended up at this user's block log. I see that after the ArbCom ruling there was a series of blocks for breaches of the ArbCom ruling, and then you used an indefinite block on 4 May 2005 with the note "sockpuppet - see AN/I". I was surprised then that User:Alkivar later unblocked him on 1 February 2006. I do note that GRider has not contributed since 27 April 2005, but thought you should be aware, in case something has gone wrong here (is there any way to put block logs on a watchlist?). Anyway, I'd be interested in a link to the relevant part of the AN/I archives, if you can find it, as I'd be interested in the other accounts involved in this sockpuppet business. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Removed some vandalism at Image:David-gerard.png. Carcharoth 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I wonder if you've read this section yet? I notice that both you and User:Alkivar are around and editing, but haven't responded yet to the notes I've left on your talk pages. I'd be happy to take this somewhere else, or just drop it entirely if someone could find the time to explain to me what happened with this blocking history. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GRider was the sock of another user who's since behaved somewhat better. Alkivar knows the user in question well and is mostly clueful, so I'd assume he knew what he was doing in such a case. As long as it's not actively a problem, I'm not inclined to treat it as a problem - David Gerard 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. Carcharoth 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for offering an opinion in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I do appreciate your support, and intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia. --Elonka 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That blog post of mine

Hi David, and thanks for the comment you left here. I was actually just settling down for sleep when my computer chirped to signal a new email, which turned out to be it's way of saying "wake up! Something that can wait until the morning has just happened!". Of course this meant I had to get back up and respond. :)

Generally, I'm very impressed with the way Wikipedians handle RC patrol and other, similar tasks. The job is made significantly easier by software like AntiVandalBot -- and its helpful warning messages -- and generally I think the work that the patrollers do is done well. On the other hand, with so many patrollers and so much work to be done, it really is hell to make sure that the work is done well, speaking from my experience in patrolling, back when I had the time. I can't think of any way to really remedy the problem, despite the enormity of the problem, and I'm glad to hear that you and your colleagues are as aware of the problem as I am.

Thanks again for the reply. It was refreshing to hear your thoughts on it, and to know that the problem is known about.

Cheerio, Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your asssessment of my credentials

In case you miss this in that mess of a DRV page: I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to post my personal CV in a conversation with strangers on the internet who are fond of personal attacks and incivility including comments about how deleting articles on trivial webcomics make them feel like killing people. Since I have no intention of making appeals to my own authority, what do I gain by posting my credentials? Will the personal attacks suddenly stop? Will I sleep better at night knowing that people who harrass me know where I work and go to school? Are you going to start going around saying "Keep, Dragonfiend is an expert" and "Delete, Dragonfiend is an expert"? Really, if I actually thought it would make my life easier to give my academic and employment history to complete strangers on the internet who harrass me and talk about killing, well I'd proabably do it. But my instinct for self-preservation sort of rules that out. If David, you actually think that learning more about my academic and employment record would help you stop making ad hominem personal attacks, then maybe we could solve this through mediation somehow. -- Dragonfiend 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can list the edits that you consider constitute me making ad hominem attacks on you, please do so. In the meantime, you made personal attacks on Phil in response to me noting that he is an academic expert on comics; and it doesn't matter if he were to be determined to be a thoroughly reprehensible Wikipedian and eat babies, he'd still be an academic expert on comics. He can prove it. As such, I eagerly await you proving your assertion of "super expertise" - David Gerard 01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

An example of an ad hominem attack would be [71] where you do not address my argument but rather attack my credentials, saying that I am not "an actual expert." This would be an ad hominem attack even if you did know anything about my credentials and had decided that I am, as you put it, a "nonexpert." Your statement that you are eagerly awaiting my credentials -- does that mean you've accepted my invitation for mediation? -- Dragonfiend 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between being an expert in a subject, and being an expert on what one should expect in an encyclopedia. I'm sure I could find a respected music writer who believes all these cool unsigned artrocker type bands should be in Wikipedia, doesn't mean we have to instantly agree with him. The assertion that anything which has appeared published online as part of Keenspot, Dayfree Press, Graphic Smash etc. is inherently notable is definitely not set in stone and finds many detractors. I remember way back in Wikipedia time when I actually bothered with webcomic guidelines and remember an example quoted of Big Dick's Ball, which appeared on one of the networks for a tiny amount of time. Phil was the only one who believed that it was notable, and were that link to turn blue, I would argue with it straight away. Claiming that every webcomic which appears on one of these networks is inherently notable would be the same as a blanket "every book published", "every signed band", "every beer from every brewery" clauses. When you boil down to things like notability within the webcomics community, it starts to break apart, where do we stop? What about things notable to the furry community, or the computer games community? For example, I can assure you that there are millions more people familiar with de_dust then there are with Girly, de_dust is incredibly notable to the millions of Counter-Strike players.

This is mostly academic though, I agree with Phil on this case due to the third party independent sources offered. It paints a picture that Girly is indeed a heck of a lot better than the rest of the webcomic dreck. Various comixpedia sources, a websnark thing and a WCCA nomination might not mean much separately (indeed, I have expressed my thoughts on the triviality of WCCA nominations on various occasions), but together I think it works. I do respect the views of experts on Wikipedia, an example of which is seen at Talk:Eiffel (programming language) where the inventor of the language had to fucking jump through Wikipedia hoops just to get code examples in the wikiboxes highlighted in blue, but I just feel that the importance on credentials have been exaggerated and distorted in the DRV.

On an unrelated note, I also spotted you in the Telegraph Magazine article. Good going. - Hahnchen 02:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also delete Big Dick's Ball. Then again, it doesn't seem possible to write more than a stub about it with existant sources. (And that's before you even raise the spectre of reliability...) Phil Sandifer 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you? I can't be bothered to cycle back through reams and reams of worthless Wikipedia talk pages, but I do remember an incident when we were all debating Big Dick's Ball with you on one side and everyone else on the other. Maybe this change of heart shows why we can't just rely on credentials. - Hahnchen 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I did support its notability. And I do think it passes notability. I just don't think it passes writability, which is also important. :) Phil Sandifer 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen: Yes, Girly is far better than 99% of other webcomics that get deleted with absolutely no fanfare. But one of the problems with the idea that "It's been part of Keenspot plus it's been written about by both Websnark and Comixpedia plus it recieved one of the a 125 or so WCCA nominations given out every year, so therefore all that combined means it has attained encylopedic notability" is that these are not independent things. There are numerous subcultures in webcomics, and all of these things mentioned about this webcomic are part of one tiny (yet very vocal when it comes to promoting what they want to see on Wikipedia) subculture. Take Girly, for example. It was once part of Keenspot. Keenspot/Keenspace originally created the WCCA awards (they still host the awards, their Chairman is a Keenspot artist, Keenspot founder Chris Crosby's mom is a committee member) and the people who vote on these awards are still largely from the Keen subculture. The girlfriend/boyfriend team of websnark bloggers enjoys Keenspot comics and they also write for Comixpedia. Of the two Comixpedia sources in the Girly article, one is written by the creator of Girly and one is wriiten by Wednesday White from Websnark. So pointing out that this Keenspot webcomic has been nominated for an award created by Keenspot and that the Websnark bloggers have written about it on their own site as well as on Comixpedia looks like more than it actually is. It doesn't say that this has had any impact outside of its subculture. David: Sorry this has drifted to your talk page. My offer of mediation is sincere and still stands. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly puzzled by something - you're clearly aware of the history and politics going on here, but you're also continuing to refer to Girly as a Keenspot comic, going so far as to insinuate that its 2005 nomination for the WCCA was because of its affiliation with Keenspot. In truth, Girly parted ways with Keenspot in 2004, and it's quite erroneous to refer to it as a "Keenspot webcomic." Especially since it's currently affiliated with a different syndicate. Any particular reason? Phil Sandifer 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First, you creep me out and I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to just leave me alone. Seriously. I think you can make any point you have to make without making comments to or about me. Second, I clearly write above that "Take Girly, for example. It was once part of Keenspot." That it has left Keenspot to join a collective does not mean it has suddenly been wiped from the memories of all those in the Keen webcomics subculture. If I neglected to label it as a "former" Keenspot comic somewhere, I'm sure you knew what I meant since you are a total webcomics expert and I'm just an ignoramus with a total disdain for webcomics who makes insane claims and refuses to yield to those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic, or whatever. -- Dragonfiend 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am sorry that I creep you out, it does not seem to me to be a persuasive reason for my departure from the topic. So long as we both intend to involve ourselves in these articles - and we do both appear to intend that - we are going to have to work together on a level that extends beyond ad hominem attacks. May I ask the reason for your clear and deep distaste for the entire, as you put it, "Keen webcomics subculture?" (Which, as I said, seems to me very far from the most relevant portion of Girly's history or notability.) Phil Sandifer 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First. if you were really sorry about creeping me out you'd just leave me alone and stop your ridiculous pattern of incivility and personal attacks. There's no reason, for example, that you couldn't try to make your case that there is consensus for including articles on all Keenspot comics without referring to as "Bull" my demonstrably true statement that many Keenspot article have been deleted, and without your saying what consensus there is was created by my "shouting to get my way," and without your over-the-top claims that "Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it. That, despite this, you are unwilling to yield to those knowledgeable about the topic" blah, blah, blah. Seriously, you can comment on content without commnting on contributors, especially toward contributors like myself whom you have such a well-documented history of incivility and personal attacks towards. Secondly, the innacuracy of your assumptions about me could not differ more wildly from reality. I have no distaste for the Keen webcomics subculture. I am a member of it as well as many other webcomics subcultures. For example, you will find Sinfest (another former Keenspot comic) on my User:Dragonfiend#Some_articles_I_am_or_have_been_working_on. That I don't think every single webcomic I read would make for a good Wikipedia article should not be misinterpretted as a distaste for those webcomics. Now please, leave me alone. Everytime I see a comment from you I feel like I'm going to barf because it's going to be another profanity-laced screed about how stupid you think I am. So let's just try to comment on content, not contributors. Again, David, sorry for cluttering your talk page with this; my invitation to mediation on the topic of my expertise is sincere and still stands.-- Dragonfiend 05:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find your conduct on the topic of webcomics articles to be unfortunately bullyish, and find your inclusion standards desperately weird - you contribute heavily on topics from the Modern Tales end of the webcomics pool, but are harshly condemnatory of the Keenspot end of things. You're remarkably well-informed about the WCCA, but still make wildly odd claims about the comics you want deleted. It doesn't make sense to me, and I think it's destructive. I won't stop opposing you on these topics. But I've not made a single personal attack in the course of this debate. I've opposed you strenuously, and I think your standards are deeply wrongheaded. I'm puzzled and confused what seems to motivate them, especially since they seem so overwhelmingly biased towards the Modern Tales comics. Most of your contributions have been to articles regarding Girlamatic and Serializer. But both of those sites, in their entirety, rank in popularity far below Girly, and even below Checkerboard Nightmare, which you nominated for deletion: [72]. And that's Checkerboard Nightmare after the comic ended. It doesn't make sense, and it's generating a tremendous amount of ill will towards the project at large. I'm going to keep opposing it. I'm sorry if that makes you feel like you're going to barf, but, well, I don't think I've crossed any lines in this discussion, and I'm not going to accept the dismissal of my points via such an ad hominem attack. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That you think I'm a complete moron with insane claims and an ignorant perspective who ought to be banned from discussing webcomics deletion has been well-established with great profanity as has your belief that your assessments of my stupidity have never devolved into personal attacks or incivility. We'll just have to agree to disagree. And with that, for about the millionth time, just leave me alone. Feel free to try to make your points; there is no need for you to comment to or about me. Comment on content, not the contributor. Discuss facts and how to express them, not attributes of other parties. I don't think I have much more to say on this topic other than, again, leave me alone. If you can't figure out how to do this, perhaps mediation will help for you as well. -- Dragonfiend 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really think you have such a strong case of Phil's continued incivility, and consider mediation with him impossible, there is the ArbCom. From what you've said here, you should be able to present a string of convincing diffs with no effort. Mostly what I see here, though, is Phil trying to discuss the topic and you making an escalating string of personal attacks on him, even as you claim he's making them on you. Really, find someone you know in real life and get them to read over what you've written above - David Gerard 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have explicitly suggested mediation above, so, no I don't consider mediation with him impossible. My offer to pursue mediation with you, David, and you, Phil, are sincere. David, do you accept mediation on the topic of my expertise? Phil, do you accept mediation on the topic of how the two of us, after our past history, can get along while editing webcomics articles? (I'm actually not sure mediation is necesarry right now as this talk page seems to be going somewhere, but it would seem to be the next logical step if this breaks down.) -- Dragonfiend 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I raised the topic of expertise only when you did - you said "I am a Super Expert" and I said "OK, expert vs expert. What is your expertise?" You then appeared to bluster, so I asked again a few times. If that isn't clear enough, I suppose you could find a mediator to explain it - David Gerard 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the chain of events as far as the "expertise" discussion was more like this: At 20:13, 4 November 2006, you removed my placement of a speedy delete tag saying "rm spurious speedy - it's an expert undeletion." [73] You then at 20:42, 4 November 2006 left a message on deletion review about "Expert undeletion' - an academic expert on comics says it's notable, it's notable." [74] you then left another comment at 20:44, 4 November 2006 that "If an expert says "I'm an expert, it's notable," it's notable." [75]. Then I made my first comment related to expertise at 20:52, 4 November 2006 when I wrote "'I'm a Super Expert and I Endorse Deletion." [76] So, no, you did not raise the topic of expertise only after I did. In fact, my "Super Expert" comment was made only after you had made three previous references to experts. Does that sound right to you? Or do you still think we need a mediator to explain this chronology to me?

Yeah, David, the only reason why I popped up here was because of the "if an expert says it's notable, it's notable" comment. Something that I disagree with. - Hahnchen

Dragonfiend, I explicitly called you well-informed above. It's clear from this discussion that you know your stuff. I apologize that it wasn't clear earlier, but it was honestly hard to tell considering your seeming complete lack of awareness of the notability of, say, Checkerboard Nightmare. As you well know, you were called out a lot of places on that one, so I hope my erroneous assumption that you just didn't know what you were doing can be understood. You clearly do. But that still troubles me, because the course you're taking is so very strange. Yes, you've edited Sinfest, but on the whole, your edits strongly tend towards editing comics from the relatively unpopular Serializer and Girlamatic sites (Both of which, it should be noted, I strongly support including articles from) while arguing for deletion of things related to Keen. That doesn't make sense, and it's not argued out of ignorance, so what's your thought process on it? Phil Sandifer 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You explicitly called me well-informed above? Oh, I see it "well-informed about the WCCA" -- I guess I missed it because it was sandwiched between comments about my being unfortunately bullyish, having desperately weird inclusion criteria, how I make wildly odd claims, am deeply wrongheadead, etc. Is this supposed to be some sort of change in attitude from you and an apology for your previous incorrect assumptions and put-downs about my knowledge and credentials? If so, I would welcome it -- maybe you could rephrase it in a more clear way that doesn't include quite so much negativity? Are you actually retracting and apologizing for your comment yesterday that "Your disdain for the topic of webcomics has been made clear, as has your ignorance about it"? A sincere apology for that as well as the worse things you've said about me in the past year would go a long way towards making me feel like you are less hostile. And I'm not sure that I do understand where your erroneous assumptions came from -- after you discovered that we disagree on encyclopedia inclusion criteria for webcomics, you assumed I must be totally ignorant and disdainful of webcomics? That seems like an arrogant, disrespectful, and unfounded assumption to make. Seriously, how would you feel if someone assumed that you were completely ignorant of a topic just because you disagreed with them on one subjective aspect of it? I mean, you've had trouble with the very idea that we might both be "experts" -- how would you feel if I, based on our differences of opinion on content inclusion criteria, went around saying "I'm an expert, Snowspinner is a non-expert, my opinion counts more than 20 Snowspinners"? Or engaged in comments like your “Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, this debate pisses the hell out of me … you're out of your mind” and posting links to your comments on blogs about your belief that “The entire treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap right now. ... deletion on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap. ... this [is] utter shit in action ... [it's] the height of ignorance," and makes you really feel "Like killing." As I said to Eric Burns a year ago when he was joining you in making similar baseless attacks against me, an apology as public as the attacks made would be appropriate and appreciated. Also, it's somewhat ironic to me that you are suggesting my webcomics knowledge may be too Modern Tales focused. I believe your first ever comment to me was your criticism that "you are very, very far off base in your understanding of Modern Tales." Maybe if you'd engaged me in discussion a year ago, rather than jumping instantly to assumptions about how far off base my understanding is, it wouldn't have taken you an arbitration case (now that was "unfortunately bullyish") and a year of ill-will to realize that "I know my stuff." -- Dragonfiend 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Going left because of severe colon overload. I'm not sure what to say here. Yes, I've disagreed with you quite strongly. This is indicative of little more than quite strongly disagreeing with you. I assumed a lack of knowledge regarding webcomics because of statements like "This looks like just another non-notable webcomic, and WP:NOT a web directory." about Checkerboard Nightmare. It's an absurd statement - one you were called out for by multiple people. And, well, you weren't terribly forthcoming with your knowledge. You're still not terribly forthcoming - I'm quite upfront about who I am and what my interests and investments in this topic are. You... are not. And your investments are strange - you slam CxN for having low readership while promoting Serializer and Girlamatic, which have less. You created Drew Weing (389 unique Google hits) while dismissing Kris Straub (285 for Kristofer Straub, plus another 163 at Kris Straub. And that's "Kris Straub" -Kristofer). That I am perplexed is, I should hope, understandable.

I could go over the explanation of your greivances again, but I won't. Suffice it to say I find your accusations every bit as offensive as you seem to find me, and I find the continual assumption of bad faith quite upsetting. For instance, as I have said before, I never once posted the Websnark link as an attempt to get personal attacks against you through the back door. I had forgotten I'd made those posts, which I made in a moment of anger, in a very, very diffierent community than the Wikipedia one. I'm sorry that I bitched about you behind your back. You frustrated me greatly, I vented and forgot about it, as one tends to do when one is blowing off steam. The linking to Websnark has never once been intended as a way of repeating those comments, but as a way of pointing to the significant points made by others in that discussion. I continue to find it frustrating and hurtful that you consistently refuse to engage any of those points, fixating only on your assumption that I must have been trying to insult you personally when I posted that link.

I was not, and am not. I'm trying to understand your arguments and respond to them. All I seem to get in response is demands that I cease doing so, and assumptions of bad faith. That would merely be annoying if you seemed likely to depart the topic. Instead, you continue to advance this view and agenda I'm unable to understand while refusing to engage with any attempts to discuss it, deciding they must necessarily be in bad faith. They are not. I assure you, they are not. And if you are unwilling to engage with them at any level of assuming good faith instead of dragging up year old comments and assuming bad faith in them so as to take them as evidence of bad faith now, or, more frustratingly, to bring up David's comments as evidence of my bad faith, well... I don't know what to do. It's not an angle that lends itself to useful input in these discussions, and it's not an angle I find myself able to take seriously or to suggest ought to be taken seriously. And I'd like to take it seriously, because it seems passionate and intended in good faith. So, well, I'm asking you to help me do that. Phil Sandifer 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with some of your past assumptions (and that includes some expressed as recently as yesterday) is not that I believe they are in bad faith. I don't believe your bad assumptions were deliberate; I do think making such assumptions is a mistake, and you'd be better off if you tried to take more time and gather more info before making such assumptions about people. The manner in which you expressed those assumptions (through personal attacks and incivility) obviously didn't help things. It has made it to the point where when I get the little orange box telling me I have a talk page message my stomach tightens up because I'm afraid that it's going to be the start of another series of over-the-top attacks against my intelligence and knowledge. I apologize for expressing that in terms like "you creep me out" and "I feel like I'm going to barf," but I was at a loss to describe any better the damaged environment that some of your extreme comments towards me have created. This also has off-Wiki effects as well -- I was being encouraged to submit to the 5th Annual Conference on Comics: World-Building: Seriality and History, but when I saw that you were involved I backed out. Your recent change in tone may make things better. My encyclopedia content inclusion criteria is pretty simple: Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I can find these for Nowhere Girl. Sluggy Freelance, and Drew Weing, but not for Girly. That you have a different inclusion criteria that seems to include some blogs, popularity as measured through Google hits and Alexa ranks, or your own opinions as an expert are just things I hope we can just agree to disagree on. Hopefully we can, as I've suggested many times, continue editing while discussing content rather than contributors. -- Dragonfiend 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that you don't abandon the conference - it's a good conference, and I'd love to see some good webcomics papers (I'm not far enough along on my webcomics chapter to present anything of it, or else I'd fill that gap myself). As for the rest, is this a new thing? It certainly seems that your nomination of CxN was based on basic measures of popularity. In any case, I point out that the stringency of sourcing is a major reason why WP:RS is collapsing rapidly as a guideline, and is something that has been being worked on actively in terms of sources - measures that would note that, for instance, Eric was put in place as editor of Modern Tales, has written introductions to collections of webcomics, and is clearly an expert on th subject whose self-published comments are notable. This is, I think, a vital shift, as the previous guidelines (Similar to the ones you're arguing here) led to such ludicriousness as Spoo, a featured article that is based entirely on sources that nobody with any knowledge of Babylon 5 would doubt, failing to pass RS. And Jimbo has noted, though I'm honestly not sure where, that the definition of reliable source is different for different topics. I bring all of this up largely to underscore the reasons for my strenuous objection - because the viewpoint you're taking causes so very many problems in so very many areas, and does so in a way that, when applied aggressively (As deletion, removal of content, etc necessarily is), it drives away contributors. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion - Clock Crew

As an experienced member of the Internet Community, having owned a computer for over 9 years, and frequently hopping between hundreds of various internet communities, sites and forums over the years, I would say that the Clock Crew is indeed notable on the popular flash portal, Newgrounds.com. While, you may have never been to the website, or have ever even heard of it, knowing that you are apparently an old goon and a huge bureacratic jerk - you fail to realize that in fact - yes - in fact - that the Internet has a culture of it's own indepedent of whatever Classical music or balets that you listen to or watch. In fact, I'd testify that "All your base are belong to us" is millions times more hilarious than "[The Importance of Being Earnest]]" - And probably more culturally significant.

Newgrounds.com is a significant staple of that culture, and is one of the most popular flash websites on the Internet for original flash submissions and content - especially with younger kids and teens. Thus their slogan - "Problems of the Future, Today!".

Here is the one of the two sole Keep (and the only sensible vote mind you!) vote, written by an unknown user, I can't find his IP from the history pages of the delete page.

* Keep: Anyone been to ClockCrew.net recently? The Clock Crew is still very much alive and it has always been a phenomenon. Considering there are still Clocks posting on Newgrounds today, that the Clocks have influenced the creation of many groups and crazes, and that Wikipedia has documented far lesser known fads, I think this is a piece of history that should remain in the archives.

Wikipedia should be used a little more constructively, not destructively. It's always - always - debatable as to what is important and isn't. And I think that the Wikipedia audience and authorship is skewed more towards the academic/nerd crowd, so therefore, they're going to biased with all their professionalism bullshit, no? And I think that the essence of this very bullshit is why you guys swiftly declared by democracy the destruction of this page.

Hey, who needs book-burning?!?!?! We can vote out the books from our libraries!!!! This is a swift request to bring back the article in question, openly adressed to all who voted to delete the article. Reply to me on my talk page.--Mofomojo 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(what on earth? - David Gerard 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Regarding Generic Character

I notice that you have blocked him for Copyvio. Could you tell me what sort of copyvio it was? He made a number of edits to some Freemasonry articles, and I would just like to know if we need to review them. Thanks!

PS: While I'm here, I would also like to direct your attention to User:Dwain/Freemasonry_Page as to what I believe is a violation of the userpage policy. I have asked him rather politely to remove said page, but the demeanor he assumes on his userspace makes that outcome somewhat unlikely. MSJapan 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Expert Undeletion

Hi,

I've tried to have discussions with you before and it hasn't gone too well; you've said things that slightly irritated me, and I'm sure vice versa applies, if you even bothered to notice me. Nevertheless, today is a new day -- especially in my native US, where foolishness has been dealt a severe setback -- so, I'm in a very happy mood, and ready to try anything! :)

Regarding expert undeletion: Your own (and Phil S.') argument won the day at the Girly DRV, which I just closed, and I have some thoughts. Lawyers (I'm one) deal with expert evidence all the time, and I absolutely agree with you that it should be accorded more weight. When an expert shows his credentials and speaks reasonably, this occurs naturally -- unbiased people accept expertise, as long as the expert is genuine, and the recommendation not too far afield from common-sense. That said, the consensus of reasonable, impartial laypeople (called the jury) remains at liberty to ignore an "expert" if 1) the person's credentials are false or non-existent; or 2) if the expert's contentions seem truly unreasonable, particularly in cases where an expert might be biased.

Now, Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor a bureaucracy; and I would never suggest it should be. However, the principles applied by courts here are, I think, sound ones to modify to Wikipedia's benefit. If a policy/guideline on expert opinions is to exist, it should: 1) acknowledge the common-sense truth that people respect and and require expert input, and it should give experts authority where no reasonable unbiased laypeople can be found (ie., in AfDs stuffed only with newbies, SPA's, or admittedly-biased non-experts.) In short, in bad AfDs -- and there are quite a few of these -- it should be perfectly acceptable for a closer to defer to an expert, even in the face of a flood of unreasonable, biased laypeople. But, in good AfDs -- where reasonable Wikipedians show up and voice their opinion -- an expert can be "defeated" in the argument if the consensus is that his expert opinion is too far afield from common sense, or is itself riddled with bias, or is otherwise defective. In short, experts' opinions should be able to override "goofballs" (using the term loosely), but not sensible Wikipedians who disagree. Of course, in most cases, as at Girly today, sound expertise will win solid support among reasonable laypeople.

Does this sound like a fair formulation to you? Best wishes, Xoloz 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo crosses the line

Can you take a look at Talk:David S. Touretzky and User_talk:ChrisO#Request_for_a_comment? It's bad enough that Terryeo, already banned from editing Scientology articles, would troll by trying to elicit comments from two other editors about a libelous Scientology smear page against them, but his further comments to Touretzky regarding his alleged "terrorism and bigotry" are unconscionable, and, IMHO, grounds for a permanent block. This goes beyond mere trolling and personal attacks, and enters the realm of libel. wikipediatrix 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to second Wikipediatrix's comments, and to add a reminder that this is hardly the first time Terryeo has engaged in smearing the personal character of editors--he had a sort of "enemies list" of "suppressive" editors on his user page until he was pressured to remove it, and at one point he salted several links to the "wikitruth" stalker site that "outs" the identities of various wikipedia editors. His history of personal attacks (which verge onto threats or, as Wikipediatrix says, libel) combined with his regular disruption of Wikipedia policy pages and Scientology-related talk pages renders Wikipediatrix's call for a permanent block fully justified, in my view. BTfromLA 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just permablocked him. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:David-gerard.png

Needs a license ;) --Cat out 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL default when I uploaded it, darnit! I'll add a tag :-) - David Gerard 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Space opera in Scientology doctrine is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Antediluvian Rocking Horse

David,

As an expert in Australian independent music, I would be grateful for your input on this outfit. The Melbourne Age has published something on them [77] as has the Sydney Morning Herald. The Ollie Olsen article claims that they have collaborated with him. The article is currently listed on AFD as at 1 December. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

rename Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Since you commented "Would Space opera (Scientology) be a better title?" on the talk page for Space opera in Scientology doctrine awhile back, would you take a look at other possible renames currently being discussed there? Thanks. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR instruction creep?

Hi there! Given your earlier essay on nuking things from orbit I'd like to have your vision on this discussion where we consider that the 3RR may be more trouble than it's worth... (Radiant) 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're number 1!!

Thought you'd want to know. When you get a chance, would you mind oversighting out this revision of my talk page. The diff is mine, and this method is easier than me deleting it and clicking 399 restore boxes. Thanks!--Kchase T 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ero Goru

Ero Goru appears to have been nominated for deletion out of the blue as "fancruft" by someone who as far as I can see has only ever edited the artle to stick the "Nominated for deletion" template at the top. All the votes thust far have been to keep; this seems to be yet another example of what we've discussed previously - i.e. some blithering idiot who knows nothing about the subject in question nominating for deletion just because they've never heard of it before. Ero goru is a well-documented movement in Japanese culture, in art, music and fashion. It's not necessarily that well-known to non-Japanophiles though, so I'm uncertain how many others will necessarily see the nomination and vote. Do you suppose you could step in and close it as "keep"? Feel free to pick my brains on the subject at your leisure.... Arkady Rose 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Ero guro. It looks like a speedy close to me, particularly looking at the history, but I'll put a note on and wait 24 hours first - David Gerard 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

==Conflicting Rules== Hello, David Gerard. On my personal talk page (at GoodDay), there's a debate about 'blogging' rules on Discussion pages. Beardo, Zleitzen and Polaris, are in disagreement with me. My opinons are in the minority. Also see anon-users bloggin of Talk:Cuba, Talk: Fidel Castro for recent blogging (If you're interested). Again we need Clarification on Rules. Seeking your Adminstrator's opinon & your Users opinon. GoodDay 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought you may be interested

• [78] Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contesting Deletion of List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers

Hi, the article List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers appears to have been deleted despite consensus pointing to keep, thought I'd give you a heads up on it's request for undeletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers

Propaganda film sub-categories up for deletion

Hello, David - I came across your name in the edit history for Propaganda films (your amusing edit summary re pairing Michael Moore with Leni Riefenstahl caught my eye!), and I thought you might like to weigh in on some discussions re: deletion of several subcats of Category:American propaganda films -- namely, Category:Left-wing American propaganda films, Category:Right-wing American propaganda films and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films. (I nominated the last two subcats myself, somebody beat me to the first one.) My argument, in a nutshell, is that all three are poorly-defined, highly subjective POV magnets. All sorts of films are being dumped into these subcats and labelled as "propaganda" -- which I think ought to be reserved for a more narrowly-defined cohort of films.

If you are interested in adding your thoughts, you can join the discussions at:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Right-wing_American_propaganda_films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Left-wing_American_propaganda_films

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Craig Gingold

PS - Does alt.goth ring any bells for you?

Cgingold 15:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano

Hi. You posted your thoughtful analysis on the Giano situation on the workshop page of a case that closed a couple of months ago. I don't think it's going to be very conspicuous there, and technically I don't know if that page is supposed to still be edited at all. I think there is a more active discussion at WT:RfAr, the talkpage for the main requests for arbitration page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yeah. Ah well. Posted a pointer on WT:RFAr. Now to leave for a new year party! - David Gerard 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)