User talk:David Gerard
|
|
D-S-L! D-S-L! RAH RAH RAH!
Past talk:
User talk:David Gerard/archive 1 (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)
User talk:David Gerard/archive 2 (1 Jan 2005 - 31 Mar 2005)
Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff, please mention what it's about in the header. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) need to be about ArbCom-related matters for me to do the check.
| Contents |
Explanation for revert?
I was just browsing the page on Amherst, Massachusetts and I noticed that you reverted my edit. The edit added new statistics to the Demographics section based on statistics published by the town and sent to residents (yes, I live there). It wasn't sneaky vandalism. Is the Demographics section exclusively for those generated automatically or something? LizardWizard 08:49, Apr 2, 2005
- Crikey, I don't even remember that one. I can only assume I hit the revert link in error. My sincere apologies! - David Gerard 11:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Scientology template
I hadn't realized the history, though I must say I don't follow the argument against having a "related" topics template in this case--I created it because I found myself wishing for one when navigating the articles. And the category listing is ill-organized and filled with links to marginal articles. I think the template is a good idea, in other words, and it seems to me like the downside of having it is rather slight, but I won't press it if the issue has been settled. Are you convinced that it was vetoed for good reason, and not because of a POV that wanted to minimize access to some of the critical articles? (I've run across editors that seem to be motivated by that POV.) BTfromLA 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS: You reverted a bunch of additions to L. Ron Hubbard that I made last week as well as reverting the template. Did you have some objection to those? BTfromLA 18:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I just hit revert on the template. Sorry about that.
- The template was removed by me after the category was created, so I don't think it was wanting to minimise access :-) Possibly we need more subcategories of Category:Scientology. A lot of navigation templates in general are a blight upon their articles.
- Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it was a natural category and not really suitable for a navigational template - the articles don't go in any natural order. Just because I think it might be beneficial for people to read articles on a particular subject in a particular way doesn't mean it's appropriate to try to push that with a template. Possibly the List of articles about Scientology could be more structured a given way. But it strikes me as inappropriate to push a particular way of reading in an article.
- If a particular type of article is particularly relevant in one article, I'd tend to think it probably belongs in a ==See also== or, better still, in a relevant paragraph in the article. - David Gerard 19:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I see the template functioning differently than you do. To me, it doesn't (or needn't) direct an order of reading, except insofar as the template includes "major" articles and omits others. What it can do is provide a clear, easily accessible outline of the related articles. I see from your link that it was designed to present a series, but it seems to have evolved into another, and I think valuable, function. (See, for example template:creationism). In the case of Scientology, I think a quick summary of related topics is very helpful, as there are many articles that people interested in the subject may want to explore, but which are not self-evident search topics (e.g., Scientology beliefs and practices, Scientology controversy, Religious Technology Center, Operation Clambake, Narconon... the list is long). Indeed, the Scientology operation itself is many-headed, and at times the organization has actively tried to blur the connections between executives, Hubbard, the Church, and the many affiliated groups. Why force readers discover these confusing connections only through links embedded in the article, when a useful outline can be made available on the same page as the article? As and far as I can tell there wasn't much of a consensus before the earlier template was blanked (one user who didn't object, nobody who actually agreed with you, far as I can see). Certainly there was no discussion before my version was blanked. I request that you reinstate the template and allow it to be considered by users on several of the key Scientology-related pages. I hope the fact that it popped up again spontaneously (i.e., I thought it was needed, not knowing of the prior history) might serve as evidence that it is premature to unilaterally delete it.BTfromLA 02:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite - it went through the TFD process in proper order (one of the early ones, may not be logged). Lots of people want templates that aren't necessarily a good idea, that's why we have a policy. If people want to search the topic we have a ... category - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- May I at least suggest that when templates that others may want to reinstate are voted deleted, that some sort of flag appears to that effect if someone tries to rewrite it. It was the first time I'd set up a template, and I wasted a good 90 minutes organizing that thing, only to have it blanked within hours. BTfromLA 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You got a point there. Hmm. - David Gerard 08:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pursuing this. BTfromLA 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Poll:_Speedy_criterion:_.22non-notable.22
Hmmm. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That could be one of the worst ideas I've seen in a while - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sjoukje Drenth Bruintjes
- Delete not notable. I am Dutch and I know quite a lot about cults and NRMs and I had never hears of her. Andries 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded - David Gerard 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David, you're Dutch? Wow, you sure fooled me! I thought you were from the land down under, not the lowlands! :-) JRM 10:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
X Window System
I strenuously object to the way you butchered my enhancements to the X Window System. You weren't kidding when you recently asked for help with the page and said that contributions would be edited mercilessly. Why on earth would you remove mention of X supporting touchscreens, for instance? You owe us all an explanation, starting there. Your edit amounted to vandalism.
And why would you remove any mention that application specific GUI's can be built with X primitives, virtually forcing people to infer that the only kind of GUI's that can be built with X are desktops and Widget systems? That is just plain WRONG. Are you really that ignorant? You should get used to the idea that learning is a better way to spend your time than teaching with regard to this topic since you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the X Window System.
I make a very good living by developing X apps, selling X solutions worldwide and pushing the X Window System to its limits. I know damn well what it is and what it isn't, what it can do, and what it can't do. I resent your hatchet job on my work here in explaining what X is.
There are way too many people like you at Wikipedia who think that everything they don't understand or agree with is vandalism and that the only appropriate response that they need to exercise is to revert. Shame on you. GeneMosher 20:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Response on Talk:X Window System - David Gerard 12:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:Unreferenced
During the TFD discussion (now at Template talk:Unreferenced), the usage of this template was strongly favored by the "Keep" voters only to be used on the talk page of the article. Please consider following that, since this looks extremely unprofessional otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
- The discussion really doesn't seem to indicate that at all - David Gerard 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WP:AN/I#Apparent_vote_packing_on_WP:IFD
Wondered what you would make of this. Overt campaigning by targeted spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Personally I would note it on the vote. Vote-packing tends to be viewed in a very jaundiced way on VFD, for example - David Gerard 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Already did that.
- I'm going to raise a discussion on the subject of talk page spamming (including extensive posting of
identical"substantially identical" material in any talk space, not just user talk) on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). A hard limit of ten or so may be something that there would be general agreement on--that would enable an editor to raise an issue with his contacts or notify editors of a small set of articles, but would not permit flagrant use of talk pages for spamming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thanks on RFA
Thanks David; I appreciate the vote for my adminship. Oh, and I can completely relate to the "red-pencil hand twitch" as a lifelong editor myself. Happy editing! Antandrus 00:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mike Garcia
David,
Thanks for correcting my mistake. I could've sworn I read somewhere that his ban was by the ArbCom, but I knew in a vague way that Jimbo was the force behind it. Obviously what you say explains it much more clearly. I did think, however, that he had terms of parole or somesuch?
I've also already spoken to Danny; he has said he will "handle it", however there have been three problems that have been reported in as many weeks (the last, falsely, by Mike himself, where he accused another user of being a vandal without proof and then reverted his changes without explanation). I'm not so sure this experiment in rehabilitation isn't coming apart, especially given Mike's bullying behavior (he threatened an anon with being hounded out of Wikipedia by parties unknown, for example). I, however, have deferred to Danny, and therefore I'm only making enquiries and keeping up with the situation at this time, rather than taking any action. If nothing else it would be a shame if so many peoples' hard work and effort went to waste without completely exhausting all options.
Thanks again, and if you come across anything else pertinent, please let me know. Wally 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recusal reason?
You have asked me to recuse several times, but, despite me repeatedly pointing out you had provided no justification when you did so, you continued to ask providing no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. We are now down to just six arbs on the case, so I am definitely not going to recuse just for the asking (and never mind the horrible precedent that would set to be abused by some of our more creatively antisocial ArbCom defendants, as I'm sure you'll see if you look back through AC history). What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- All of your responses to my comments show that you're very terse with me. You tend to jump down on things I say, rarely giving me any comments in a neutral manner and never anything phrased in a positive way.
- Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&action=history&limit=100&offset=0) - March 4-6 - You sided with Snowspinner by reinstating a "Beyond policy" section. All of your reverts were to Snowspinners version, with no attempt at compromise. You misused admin rollback [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=10880850&oldid=10875449). Your talk page contributions were not helpful. Not until I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=11310637&oldid=10897238) a new version of it did the reverting stop.
- Considering that you wrote an injunction which implies that I improperly revert Wikipedia: pages without using talk, your failure to set a good example is worrying. In this instance, I did everything right -- encouraging discussion on the talk page, gathering opinion, and forming an agreeable resolution. This is actually very common with my editing. As long as this issue is presented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2/Evidence#Revert%20warring%20at%20Wikipedia:Policies%20and%20guidelines) as evidence against me, you are involved and have a clear conflict of interest.
- The whole issue with User:The Recycling Troll and the unblock you did for User:Ambi when I reported her for 3RR. I won't bother with diffs here, because the issue is that these are very recent events which I criticized your actions openly. It's too soon after, and there may still be some resentment there. Is it fair to me to take your word that there isn't, especially when you've proposed those baseless injunctions? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
- None of these are sufficient as recusal reasons, particularly when we're down to just six on the case. And mostly they come down to "I disagreed with you so you must hate me so you should recuse," which is not a recusal reason.
- You may also note that if a case goes below six arbitrators, Jimbo reserves the option to (a) unrecuse everyone (b) call in new arbitrators as he wishes, because under six is too few. Are you sure you want this to happen? - David Gerard 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't make light of this. I am not saying that you just disagreed with me. I am saying that on one case, you were a direct party to at least one incident being called in question. You've also shown, by being dismissive of my requests to recuse and on other occasions, that you have too strong a desire to be part of this case and inflict punishment on me. I could also show that you have a strong friendly relationship with Snowspinner, another conflict of interest. As far as there being too few Arbitrators, you can ask Grunt to un-recuse (I don't really understand his reason), and we can wait until Theresa and/or Delirium comes back. Beyond that, I trust Jimbo. I don't see how you can expect that I will put aside my apprehension based on the quorom situation alone. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell
User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell&diff=0&oldid=12190358), just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Evidence&diff=0&oldid=12176066) because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell&diff=12190358&oldid=12190152). I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Question re. Instantnood vote
David,
Evening. I just have a point for which I'd like to request clarification regarding your vote to accept the Instantnood case which I felt would be better handled here. You mentioned that the content issue wasn't really a factor to you and cited Principle 7 in the WHEELER decision. Nowhere have I seen Snowspinner mention concern for civility — merely a complaint about the alleged drawing-out of process and "immun[ity] to consensus" — and indeed, he specifically notes that there is no request for a ban or severe discipline on his or jguk's part, which makes me wonder how civility is an issue, especially given that no one once uses the word. To me it seems an issue of consensus and procedure. Could you help me understand your point-of-view a bit more cogently? Wally 21:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As I stated in my acceptance, I found making thirty-five separate polls on one question indicated some severely problematic behaviour was happening at some stage - David Gerard 21:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
E-mail re: sockpuppet
Hi David, did you get my e-mail about a possible sockpuppet? Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry I didn't get back to you on that one. I want to look, but I've asked the AC if they think I should yet. There's lots of politics associated with me using the tool at all, so I've been ridiculously cautious in even looking. See m:CheckUser for heated discussion. I find the situation very annoying and hope to be able to be more helpful in more cases - David Gerard 21:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
change to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
Hey, I thought we were discussing changes to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes on the talk page before changing the article. Hmm, should I revert your change because you weren't following the rules, or perhaps because it increases the net verbage in the article (apparently violating your own rules)? Nah, I'll just post a note here and let you know I'm actually kind of amused. -- Rick Block 04:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vote pending
Can you please vote at Coolcat vs fadix at arbcom? Your vote is still pending. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"proportional representation" clause of NPOV policy
Hi David. As you probably know the global warming related articles become from time to time an unpleasant battle ground. In this case we have a complete disagreement about the interpretation of the proportional representation clause of NPOV policy. As you are a member of the ArbCom you probably have a lot of experience with such cases and thus I would be happy to hear your opinion on the matter.
The discussion is mostly between Cortonin and me (Marco Krohn) at the moment, see Talk. Cortonin's edit in question is [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&diff=12867411&oldid=12861705), with lots of additions of quotes of several experts and non-experts. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=12867411) is the version of the article by Cortonin.
In this case I do not think that the conflict will last longer, even JonGwynne (who in general supports Cortonin) used Vsmith version for further edits instead of Cortonins, but nevertheless it would be interesting to hear an experts opinion on this specific part of NPOV. best regards from Hannover (Germany) -- mkrohn 09:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, I don't know! I'm not going to call myself an expert on NPOV ... I'd say in general it really has to come down to a case by case editorial decision sorted out between the editors. That's not something that can be achieved by application of a mathematical formulation.
- As a non-expert reader on this particular subject, it looks reasonable to me to mention all POVs. They're certainly of interest
- As an editor, I know that representing a given POV properly will sometimes require more space than may be strictly proportional. An article should be well-written, not just measured according to proportional amounts of space. (This is writing, not just documentation.)
- Essentially, it's all an editorial decision and an exercise in working with people you may strongly disagree with.
- A possibly useful exercise: do another temp version of the article, where each side tries writing a fair description of the other side's POV.
- Thanks for your answer. I hope we solve the dispute quickly in the near future :-) best regards -- mkrohn 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- One of the useful benefits of Wikipedia editing is gaining a strong ability to see the other side of a discussion ... - David Gerard 11:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template_talk:Cleanup-importance
Thought you might be interested. See also discussion on WP:AN/I concerning User:Grace Note. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppet theater
I've posted a summary of the current findings and some additional evidence at WP:ANI#User:Amerinese, User:DINGBAT et al.. I'm not sure if that's the best place to post it, because of its potential repercussions on the Instantnood et al. case. --MarkSweep 21:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- It definitely belongs in the Instantnood evidence, even if Instantnood isn't involved, because it's part of why it's such a contentious issue (and why voting is considered harmful in general). When you spot any more around this case, please let me know - David Gerard 00:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've linked the report on AN/I from my section of the Instantnood et al. evidence page. Regarding other sockpuppets, I've outlined my conspiracy theory as part of my posting to AN/I. I'm fairly certain that User:BlueSunRed is another sockpuppet of User:DINGBAT. --MarkSweep 00:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I blocked the three known socks, I haven't gotten an email asking for the real one to be unblocked ... the user doesn't seem to have tried to edit again, at least not using an IP used by one of those names in the past week - David Gerard 00:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Range block
Thanks for your reply on Incidents, I need to range block 85.206.193.X to 85.206.196.0, but I don't know how to make it that specific--nixie 02:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- That'll be two blocks: 85.206.193.0/24, 85.206.194.0/23. There should be a calculator for these things somewhere on the web ...
- In this particular case, take care: a whois on 85.206.193.0 shows that the actual IP range is 85.206.192.0-85.206.207.255, or 85.206.192.0/21, which seems to be a Lithuanian Telecom range, and something about it makes me suspect it's dynamic - don't block unless you're around for a while afterwards to unblock in case of collateral damage David Gerard 08:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Sick of the socks
Hi there! I'm somewhat disturbed by the tendency of some users to create socks to make a WP:point, or to insult others (e.g. User:Smell Etitis). I'm not sure if this is recent or not, but it seems on the increase. Since this seems likely to be done by established users, I thought it might help in such cases to get an IP check, and warn or temporarily block the original user for vandalism. I realize that's not currently policy, but would you think it a good idea if I created a discussion page to attempt to make it policy? If so, then I'd also like your opinion on a good way of wording it. Yours, Radiant_* 13:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- There's strong resistance to the idea of widespread checking (see m:CheckUser), and it really is an art, not a science - there isn't really a way to automate the procedure and get a meaningful result. I won't be pushing for it excessively strongly myself, but in the case you mention I can see it possibly being accepted to some degree - David Gerard 17:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- In the hopes of it being accepted to some degree, I have created Wikipedia:Sock_puppet/Proposal. Radiant_* 14:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration case against LevelCheck
Hi, regarding the arbcom case against LevelCheck: recently, he's returned to editing after a 9-day hiatus, and immediately commenced disrupting again (see List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"). In light of this, I hope the arbcom will take a look at my request for a temporary injunction. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. I've just emailed the AC list to see if the idea will fly - David Gerard 07:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about this?
15:41, 12 May 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:Maggie311" with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Sock puppet with same operator as GRider) (unsigned, written by 209.102.126.140)
- Yep. I'm 99% sure who it is, and they appear to have been smart enough to cool it from acting in quite such a lame manner. I'll still be watching, however - David Gerard 10:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell - editing the "proposed decision" page
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration), diff [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=13691758&oldid=13691743), please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- David, I can see no evidence of the rule you invoke, nothing that says "Only members of the ArbCom can propose a principle in an arbitration". This seems like a bad rule to me: It would be silly, if it existed. Why did you just not vote against my proposed principle? I note that the other issues I have raised in the place to which you have moved my proposed principle remain unanswered. In these circumstances, that you move my suggestion where you have, can have no other effect than to make me feel censored or at least unheard. That, surely, is not your intention? So: Replace my proposed principle and vote on it. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 19:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- The bit at the top of the page that says "Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on." Since that's obviously not clear, I'll modify the template accordingly. Proposals from others should go on the proposed decision talk page - David Gerard 19:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- If the wording had the meaning you insist upon then the writer could have phrased it better. It says nothing about who the author of the proposed wording is. And you "fix" to the wording remains imprecise. I have changed the page to reflect the meaning you want. In the interim I note my other point (above), that my proposals on the talk page are seemingly unheard, remains unanswered. Courtesy demands you at least say you are not going to address the issue. Paul Beardsell 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason you have given for my (Paul Beardsell's [psb777's]) block is invalid. I was not warned not to edit the page. I said there was no rule. David edited the page presumably to make the ruling plain. He failed to do so. I made it plain in a simple edit. My entirely sensible edit was revoked returning the page to a state where the "rule" does not appear. It's very Catch 22. I cannot edit the page because of a non-existent rule. I put the rule on the page. I am blocked for editing a page for which there is no rule against editing where my edit is to make the rule plain! With or without warning it is just silly. But there was no warning of a block. All that was ever said was that the page would be protected. Paul Beardsell (psb777)
- Considering the circumstances - that you edited the page directly, then I asked you nicely not to, then you claimed you had a right to, then I emphasised you didn't, then you did it again anyway - I think it's highly appropriate. I really don't see what part of "don't edit the decision page, edit the talk page" is unclear.
- I've unblocked you now - please don't do it again. Talk, propose, etc., on the talk page. - David Gerard 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Your summary unfairly misrepresents the situation.
- I added a proposed principle.
- You said there was a prohibition on me adding proposed principles.
- I said where?
- You and Ambi said it was plain.
- I said where is this made plain?
- You edited the page intending to prohibit ordinary users adding proposed principles.
- Your edit did not do so.
- I made an edit fixing your prohibition - I wrote what you meant.
- You blocked me falsely claiming I had been warned I would be blocked.
- I had not made an edit of the type you claim is prohibited - I had added the very prohibition you claim I ignored in making the edit!
- You reverted the page to it's imprecise version.
You should now do what you tried but failed to do: Make the prohibition plain. If no one responds to the issues I raise on the Talk page I will not use the Talk page. How can you reasonably expect me to do so? And I refer you to the "courtesy" issue, above. Paul Beardsell 22:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- As you can see, your proposal has in fact been answered on the talk page. The answer so far is "No." Edit the decision page again and you'll be blocked again - David Gerard 22:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- But if the policeman is unreasonable again then we will, err, err, see him be unreasonable again! I suppose an apology is out of the question? I am unsure what you have shown other than you will not be corrected by me. Have you made the prohibition plain yet? Are you saying Ambi speaks for you on the issue of the principle I propose? Paul Beardsell 22:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration
I'm considering requesting arbitration in the case of Mr Tan (talk • contribs). I've not really been involved in an arbitration (or mediation), and though I've read all the information about the process, I'm not sure that arbitration is in fact the appropriate step. I'd be very grateful if you could have a quick look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, and the main articles involved (Zanskar and Tsushima Islands), and tell me if there's any other less drastic route that I could go down. Many thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Haven't forgotten you - will look when I have spare moments - David Gerard 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I now realise my mistake. Don't worry about it... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Trey Stone
I've got an interesting conundrum for you. You may have heard of a fellow called Trey Stone, who in the past has used sock puppets. Not so long ago someone brought an RfC on him citing his incivility, strong advocacy of an extreme rightwing, or rather anti-leftwing, political stance, and edit warring.
I got an email timed from him at 03:18 UTC this morning, 17 May, pointing out that expiry of his block is overdue. I think he's referring to this one:
- 12:47, 15 May 2005 BrokenSegue blocked "User:Trey Stone" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Contras)
Well according to Special:Ipblocklist there is no current block on his username.
But as it happens, there's a recent autoblock that looks very interesting:
- 03:00, 17 May 2005, Petaholmes blocked #22627 (expires 03:00, 18 May 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "KapilTagore". The reason given for KapilTagore's block is: "3RR violation".)
I don't know this user KappilTagore, but by coincidence someone put a note about an RfC on KapilTagore on my user talk page this morning at 00:27 UTC. The statement of dispute is as follows:
- KapilTagore makes crude, vicious, and foul-mouthed personal attacks on other editors with whom he has disagreements. He trumpets his political beliefs across Talk pages and in edit summaries and engages in futile revert wars.
This sounds oddly familiar. They both seem to engage in ideological battles with Viajero and both edit Fidel Castro.
As contra-indication, Trey Stone claims to be a student at Occidental College (see his user page) and in a recent edit summary KapilTagore claims to live in Colombia [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia&diff=prev&oldid=13646817). Other than the Fidel Castro edits, their paths don't seem to cross much. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- FYI, their paths just crossed here: Regime~history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regime&action=history), too. — Davenbelle 07:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- There's an AC case active on Trey and he's known for sockpuppetry, so I looked these two up. Trey is on DSL in the US and KapilTagore is indeed in Colombia. Unless there's something deeper going on. Does the writing style match? - David Gerard 11:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hello, may I dip my oar in this discussion? That the two are the same is an interesting conjecture which hadn't occurred to me. Linguistically, KapilTagore appears to have a native-speaker command of English, but he makes subtle idiomatic errors and does not seem to understand the force of vulgar language; his English, IMO, is that of someone who grew up speaking it, but has probably lived much/most of his life in a foreign country. These linguistic defects I don't detect in Trey Stone. That being said, I don't consider this definite evidence that the two aren't the same, but it would be sockpuppet artistry of the highest order if they were.
- By way of clarification, may I also add my differences between these two users and myself is not so much on ideological grounds but simply on account of their atrocious, antisocial behaviour. Thanks, -- Viajero 12:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
You'll not be surprised to learn that I've decided this was just an intriguing coincidence. Both happened to be blocked at roughly the same time, not that surprising given their behavior. I still don't understand why Trey was unable to edit after his block expired. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion principles poll
Dear Mr. Gerard,
Would you please give your opinion on the Wikipedia:Deletion principles poll recently created by Neutrality? Since the recent drama on 'is WP:POINT policy' (for which I'm unfortunately responsible, and rest assured I won't be doing that again) it seems it may not be a good idea to get a Wikiwide poll on such questions as "all schools are notable, support/oppose/abstain". Several users have tried to address this with Neutrality, but xe has not responded. Since I do believe the discussion at Wikipedia:Schools is making progress towards a compromise, I'm afraid that a yes/no vote would once more factionalize the matter and impede progress. Or maybe I've completely misunderstood the matter. But either way I'd like to hear what you think of it.
Yours, Radiant_* 07:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
KaintheScion/ElKabong
Hello. Annon IP 129.7.35.176 keeps on deleting/altering your fact that those two above users are sockpuppets. Is there a way we can prevent the IP from doing that again? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- ElKabong admitted in email that IP was him. Looking into it now - David Gerard 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Meta-templates again
Just reposting since I didn't see a direct reply on the talk page:
You say the developers consider meta-templates to be a disaster. As part of the ArbCom there was supposed to be a "referral" of these issues to them. Are your comments related to that referral? Can you provide some evidence of their disapproval and the details of what is actually wrong? I haven't seen this clearly spelled out anywhere since the ArbCom. - Omegatron 15:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:RFAr clarification. Jamesday and Tim Starling have pointed out the problems with them at length - the Tim Starling one is on the current version of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, in the intro. Meta-templates where the templates inside don't change don't have the problem, of course, and that's why it says "avoid" rather than "verboten" - David Gerard 15:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Editing heavily edited pages
Just a note to remind you to please be careful editing heavily edited pages like WP:AN/3RR. This edit by you (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR&diff=14213483&oldid=14213088) deleted the comments of another users. I find it's always best to go into the history and do a diff after I commit an edit, and make sure it did what I thought it did. Noel (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry about that! I think what happened was that I wrote my comment, then hit 'backspace' to correct myself ... so it saved my edit as relative to the version that I started with. I shall take much more care with that - David Gerard 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Steve Albini
Good, brief, edit, thanks. --- Charles Stewart 13:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Unblock characterization
David, I'm not following you — I mean, I think I do, but you seem to be on the wrong track. How am I characterizing your unblock as anything but a genuine move you thought was the correct one at the time. Without getting into Sam Spade's sincerety and doubts thereof: I see you hearing his explanation that he was working towards a comrpomise (by virtue of my compliment), which wasn't the case, but is totally understandable for you to think that it was. Is that not a fair characterization? At the event, I was just asking your opinion, in light of all the new information you were not privy to at the time of unblocking Sam Spade. And if you do think that 'certainly' was not sardonic, well then, I disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. It's relatively immaterial in so far that I don't see you actively opposing the re-block by unblocking again; thus, I take no issue with your actions. Note that English isn't my native tongue, I learned it about a decade or so ago, and I still have difficulties sometimes effectively nuancing my thoughts, so you have likely simply misread me. Best, El_C 14:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Please inform
Dear Friend, please inform me where did I break 3RR rule? This is a mistake. I would like kindly to ask you unblock me. Best regards. Zivinbudas 00:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
BeBop
BeBop is not a troll or vandal. BeBop sits on the speedy delete category and salvages articles (only about 20%, the rest really are crap). People with a deletionist agenda don't like that. As speedy delete is the death penalty for an article, BeBop errs on the side of keeping articles. Too many articles marked patent nonsense are NOT, specifically by the articles that defines patent nonsense.
The vote on RfA on Thryduff is valid. It is not a troll. If it is a sockpuppet, the owner of the sock isn't voting there.
Please re-instate BeBop. Shaking up the deletionists ire is not vandalism or trolling. Note Mel Ettis comments on the user page and comments on the RfA to LinuxBeak.
- 64.62.161.12 03:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I invite all interested parties to look at this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thorpe&diff=next&oldid=14447532) this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Champion&diff=next&oldid=14449104) this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CesarB&diff=prev&oldid=14448091) and especially this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thryduulf&diff=prev&oldid=14411008) before claiming that this user isn't a troll, and look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:D&diff=prev&oldid=14386365) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feydey&diff=prev&oldid=14411847) before claiming that he isn't disruptive. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I changed all the temporary diff links in the comment above into permanent diff links. --cesarb 16:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thorpe called BeBop a vandal. Return the favor call him stupid. tit-tat.
- Will Champion a member of the band Coldplay. Totally notable stub. That article needs de-POV, but it not speedy delete criteria.
- Pointing out CesarB marks non-nonsense articles as nonsense, in his RfA a valid comment.
- Made the same comment about Thryduulf that Everyking did in the oppose vote.
- Read the talk page on the delete template. It overused by innocently ignorant users resulting in articles that should go to VfD being speedily deleted. Seeing how admins speedy delete tons of stuff without reading it, it valid to move that template to a non-speedy category. I not the first one to bring this up on that page.
- Feydey took my genuine constructive criticism! What disruptive about that? I make technical mistake not knowing how to mark template in the edit. Mel Ettis fix, thank him.
What grudge you carry, LinuxBeak!
- Vandal wasn't the correct term. However, by calling him "stupid" you are in turn inciting a fight. That's trolling.
- Speedy deletion of an article that said, and I quote, "One of the fags in that shitty band Coldplay.", is totally acceptable. That's disruptive.
- The article was nonsense. You also called him "stupid". That's trolling.
- Quote: "Oppose. He is a brown noser. He'll get an admin because of it". That's trolling (not to mention childish).
- And what gives you the right to change where the tag redirects to? That's disruptive.
- The reason why you were telling him not to use the {{db}} tag is because you changed it to fit your agenda. That's disruptive.
- And the new one: You're evading a ban! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Poorly written articles, POV articles, silly articles, ARE NOT Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Shoehorn turned into a valid stub with 30 seconds effort, and someone else noticed it should be a redirect to an already written article.
- Will Champion Valid stub. It's POV -- then de-POV it, which I did.
- Everyking called him a brown-noser too. He's just more polite.
- No, Feydey misused the tag by any definition. Not mine.
- Go comment on the talk page of the delete template. Radiant, DropDeadGorgias, and others have all said it's being misused.
- ban evading: so is your mom.
Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal
Hi there! There has been some recent discussion on whether people should be held accountable for the actions of their socks (i.e. if someone creates a vandalist sock, the sock is quickly blocked, but should the original user be admonished?). I've put up such a proposal for public discussion at this page, and got quite a lot of supporting comments (in fact, the only opposition seems to be from people who think it's a good idea but redundant with existing policy). Since you're one of the main sockcheckers on the 'pedia I'll leave further decision up to you, but consensus seems to be that you're well within your right to seek out the main account of an abusive sockpuppet, if needed, and deal with that person accordingly. Yours, Radiant_* 11:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
RFC for troll
David: Please visit this RFC page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/64.62.161.12). I invite you to endorse it under Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution, but please keep in mind WP:NPA, even for those who are thought to be trolling. --W(t) 06:05, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
85.206.192.0/22 range block ?
Regarding your comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinions_on_hearing_this_matter_.283.2F0.2F0.2F1.29) on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, is there a technical way of blocking anonymous access only from an IP range, i.e. that would not affect non-anon users ? I know that even if it is possible, a desperate abuser could easily circumvent it with his sockpuppets. And this particular one here is desperate enough, I've been following him for over two months now and have seen dozens of various attempts to civilize him, all in vain. IP blocking is not effective as he is assigned a random address in the 85.206.192.0/22 range and apparently there is at least one other user using the same range (although not anonymously). Any idea how this should be dealt with (other than indefinitely protecting the pages in question) ? Wojsyl 05:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- MediaWiki bug 550 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550) is about this one. A lot of people like it, though Brion Vibber has questioned its usefulness on wikitech-l. At this stage, the answer to the feature request is "so write it" - David Gerard 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Cantus
Now that ths case is open, and because I know you're already aware of User:Pages, I'd like to ask you to perform some sockpuppet checks. This may take a while, but please check his main account, User:Pages, and any of the recent IP addresses he's been using, such as what I've mentioned before or in that 200.83.* range that NoPuzzleStranger reported . Hopefully you can find extra connections or maybe new socks we're not aware of.
Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Somehow I get the feeling it'll be another sockpuppet theatre. I shall be getting to this one when I can, you can be sure - David Gerard 19:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Attack of the socks
Have a look at the recent history of User:Jiang's user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jiang&action=history) and user talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiang&action=history) page: the sock attacks just keep piling up. This is getting tiresome. Do you think anything can be done? Maybe they are all coming from a common small IP range? Thanks, --MarkSweep 06:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
wikien-l
Making false accusations against me on the mailing list, where I can't even defend myself, is absolutely infuriating. I want an apology. Everyking 17:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, correction sent - David Gerard 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reverting Argyrosargyrou
David, you were asking earlier about the priopriety of my repeated reversion of Argyrosargyrou's edits via open proxies following his 24 hr block for violating the 3RR. This sort of situation is covered in the blocking policy, viz: "Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." (Wikipedia:Banning policy). -- ChrisO 22:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I can see a wikilawyer hairsplitting between "blocks" and "bans", but as I said this sort of reversion is obviously a good idea - David Gerard 12:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DNA vandal
Hi, there is vandal hitting DNA pretty hard, they use a unique username each time, could you check the IP for this user so an effective block can be put in place. Thanks --nixie 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can unless there's an ArbCom matter link. See m:CheckUser for the sort of concerns having such a power available raise in others' minds. So I'm keeping to AC-related stuff until there's a firm consensus to stretch it to other people. I'll see if I can find a hook to investigate on ;-) - David Gerard 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are three articles vprotected now thanks the the DNA vandal (DNA, organelle and chloroplast), it's flat out vandalism, nothing to quibble over. But I understand if your hands are tied. --nixie 06:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could you check an IP address, please?
Could you check to see if User:-Ril- is User:Lir or any of the platoon of sock puppets and anonymous addresses that Lir has used in the past? I know Lir used to post as User:Ril. RickK. 66.60.159.190 16:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to be anything to do with Lir. -Ril- appears to be exactly what they claim to be, someone really really heavily into Egyptology who has slight runins with others (see their talk page) and edits from one DSL IP (which surprised me, because I know that ISP to change DHCP IPs quite a lot).
- Lir's current MO is hit-and-run edits from assorted open proxies around the world. See User:Lir for the list. His last two edits to User talk:Raul654 were hit-and-run edits from wildly disparate boxes, but are obviously written by the same person. (If it were anyone but Lir I'd have considered plausible deniability, but he's such a liar and troll it fits right in with his way of doing things. Wikipedia continues to gain from his absence.) - David Gerard 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. And thanks for fixing the quote, it used to work. I wonder what happened? RickK 23:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Another address check
Could you have a look at User:193.29.205.252/User:Witkacy too? Given their revert-warring style and their shared fondness of the word provocative (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=0&oldid=14732529) there's rather a strong case to be made for a link, even without technical evidence.
While I'm here anyway: Do you think this would be accepted by the ArbCom as things stand (i.e. without an RFC or yet further warnings)? I'm not really involved in the case apart from it clogging up my watchlist, but I do think the sooner action is taken against this sort of behaviour the better. --W(t) 08:06, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Another GRider role account?
I've just come accross Bahn Mi (talk • contribs), whose contribution history constists almost entirely of school articles, listing school articles at user:GRider/Schoolwatch, school VfDs and pictures of schools. Additionally the username reads very much like "Ban Me". (copied to WP:AN/I) Thryduulf 22:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The wiki is currently too slow to use CheckUser much, but if it turns out to be the main suspect being a l@m3r then you'll see a remarkable spate of blocked accounts, kthx - David Gerard 23:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has been blocked. However I don't see any evidence that this user is being abusive. Seems to be performing good faith edits on school articles and voting keep on school-related VfDs, and that's no reason to block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it is GRider then its a violation of the arb-com prohibition on participating in VfDs. Thryduulf 08:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The sudden appearance and almost immediate engagement in school editing is suspicious, I admit--it's clearly somebody sock or "role account." I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt until it can be checked as it's clearly making good faith edits and undoubtedly improving the quality of many articles. The other behavior isn't abusive, as far as I can see, unless it's the same person as GRider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Environknot
Is he considered a sock puppet? Although I have not participated in the debates, I have read history statements against him. I have found that Kain and the like were abusive, but Environknot was not. It says on the ban that users may have the same IP ranges as other users. What is the chance that he is an entirely different person? Is it warranted to label him a sockpuppet, and is it warranted to add that he is an "abusive sockpuppet" on his user page when he has not shown himself to be one in his edits? Or maybe he has and I am not aware. I am interested because he considers edits in his user page to be vandalism, and my recent interaction with him has led me to believe him a good faith editor.
Thanks in advance,
Guy Montag 09:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Enviroknot = ElKabong = KaintheScion. But while he behaves himself (i.e. not spouting personal abuse under whatever name), people are mostly willing to put up with him and take his edits as they come - David Gerard 10:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should he still be labeled as an abusive sock puppet though? Perhaps he has taken the identity of Enviroknot on a permanent basis. Is this a particular policy that is being upheld, because his main complaint against any one right now seems to be that others are invading his personal user page. I just think it is cruel to not ban someone and then allow them to post with a stigma when they have (at least in my view) reformed.
Guy Montag 11:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Enviroknot isn't those other two users, Gerard just keeps insisting so because he needs someone to persecute and because he won't admit when he's wrong. Enviroknot is a good man who stands up against the large group of Islamists who are trying to fill Wikipedia with propaganda.
This comment was left by217.160.75.48, tagged by --Tznkai 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My RFA: Thanks
Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Racist edit
The persecution of User:Yuber is just another gang rape by Wikipedia’s Jews. They do this to everyone whom they disagree with. The Wikipedia Jews suck shit even more than the average Jew.--Jewshit 00:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I and Jayjg recieved a racist message from this user. Could you check if this is someone's sockpuppet?
Guy Montag 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
David Touretzky
I notice how an article on David Touretzky has popped up, evidently as part of yet another dead agenting attempt. Care to assist in cleaning it up and making it NPOV? --Modemac 16:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I recognised that name! Well he may well be just about marginally notable as-is, with all the hoo-hah down the years. I did a bit of a cleanup myself. I think of it as my first bit of clam chowder in nine years. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hip to this one. It's User:AI at work, who may be "anonymous.informer" from a.r.s, who may be Barbara Schwartz. If that's not a familiar name, don't worry, you don't want to know. The important thing I've done is add him to the relevant category, Category:Critics of Scientology. The article also needs to mention his DeCSS Gallery - David Gerard 19:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The most important thing is contribution from all viewpoints... - AI 22:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Dave, this is a bit overdue, but thank you for your support vote on my RFA. I finally have the time to properly thank everyone, and you're on the list of people that helped me become an admin. Thank you! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
LOST PASSWORD
Hello, your name is provided as a possible source for retrieving a lost password when no email contact was given in the original log in process. Is that something you can help with? 67.174.76.243 (talk • contribs)
Thanks!
- Me?? Sorry, I have no idea on this one! Who advised this? I should advise them otherwise ... - David Gerard 07:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BeBop sock?
62.253.96.40 (talk • contribs) is obviously the same as (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:62.253.96.40&diff=prev&oldid=15200643) MARMOT (talk • contribs), and their behavior appears similar to what is mentioned in the RFC on BeBop. Since I believe you were involved there, and you're pretty much the authority on sockchecking, I thought I'd let you know. Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
And another sock???
This is probably a false alarm, but User:Ambush Commander created a huge colored box to promote the Google Test and stuck it all over VFD. The last time someone did this, it was GRider with his tally boxes, and GRider has been known to attempt to discredit the google test by pulling it out of context. Like I said, probably a false alarm and a good faith but misguided effort, but FYI. Radiant_>|< 16:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind that, it was a good faith attempt. Sorry to bother you. Radiant_>|< 21:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Request for injunction
Sorry, dropped again - my ADSL line is very unreliable. :( Could you please consider either enjoining User:Argyrosargyrou or quickly processing his RfAr - he is causing chaos at the moment on articles related to Greece and Cyprus, through creating multiple POV forks of articles and exploiting sockpuppets on a scale I've never seen before on Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever come across one person with so many sockpuppets! Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&action=history , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Invasion_of_Cyprus&action=history and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul for examples of what I mean. As of tonight, I've begun blocking each new sockpuppet as it's created. As far as I can make out, he's using multiple open proxies to make the task of blocking more difficult.
One other datapoint - Googling for "argyrosargyrou" or "argyros argyrou" or "argyros george argyrou" shows an extensive history of extreme POV websites (with recommendations from Stormfront.org!) and Usenet posts going back to 1997. He's clearly a hardline long-term POV-pusher who's decided to try to make Wikipedia his soapbox. -- ChrisO 00:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Idiotboy who I blocked
Sweet. I feel empowered :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
QE2 VfD
Could someone who has not already participated in the debate please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada and determine whether or not there's a consensus. As far as I can determine, according to the consensus guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus the criteria has been met since there's a 2/3 majority to merge/redirect but since I've proposed the VfD in the first place it's apparently seen as objectionable by some for me to declare the now week old VfD closed and implement a redirect (the merge has already been done). AndyL 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The accuracy of your Enviroknot IP check
You recently did an IP check linking Enviroknot to KaintheScion. Enviroknot claims it was due to repeated power outages that caused him to be assigned the same IP address as Kain. Is this a reasonable explanation for the positive link between them? Ingoolemo talk</font> 02:23, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Enviroknot is talking complete dog bollocks - David Gerard 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How does harassing this user help resolve their behaviour? If they are insistent that they are not the other user, why can we not simply encourage them to dissociate themselves from the bad behaviour of the other users? And what does it matter if someone is a sockpuppet? It's only really an issue if the sock is being used to circumvent policy. If they're not, witchhunting and harassing them seem to me to be just as bad as the behaviour we are lamenting in the sockpuppet! It's surely the behaviour that counts ultimately. Grace Note 05:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's nice, dear - David Gerard 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello
I gather you are a developer. Is it possible for you to check to see what IP address is used by User:WeKnowItsYou, and who else uses it.
I suspect that User:WeKnowItsYou is a (highly obvious) sockpuppet created for abuse. I would like to determine whose sockpuppet it is so that I might bring a formal complaint against them for using sockpuppets abusively. ~~~~ 21:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RE: Your comments
I am concerned about what you said:
'MARMOT appears to have created a sockpuppet, User:Master Shredder, to vote against Weyes' RFA; this sort of thing is unacceptable; please do not do anything of the sort again, out of frustration or any other reason'
I don't know where you got the idea from, but clearly you are mistaken. There is no connection.
Marmot 23:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)