Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:40, 30 October 2005

I have recently become employed (fat contracts++), so you won't see me around as much. Boo to werk!

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

CheckUser is working again in MediaWiki 1.5 — so I'll have to find time to check the backlog. Note that as per m:CheckUser, I'll only do checks if there's a plausible link to an ArbCom case, past or present (there's no consensus to go further, and I'm wary of setting any bad precedent). Leave requests here, or you can frequently catch me on IRC or via email.

Sock check?

Sorry if this isn't possible, but could you see if User:212.101.64.4 is a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-? There's a current arbcom case rof Ril. And this anon's been badgering me on my talk page, and making personal attacks elsewhere and vandalized RFAr. It's this diff, where he comments on Ed's arbitration case and signs using the infamous four tildes Ril signature, that really makes me think it it. It appears to be a static IP as well. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 16:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How to add your photo to a wiki article

You have seen the picture, now here are the instructions Hello David. I would like to help others and to help myself by being able to write the article on How to add your photo to a wiki article. I can compress an image, and upload it, but at the moment that is as far as I can take it. This is for images from cameras which people are prepared to place in the public domain. I have read and tried but to no avail. The furthest I got was to create a link to my photo; it did not get imbedded in the article. I know the instructions are there somewhere, deep in the many pages of detail, but I keep stuffing up. I would like to have and write (or provoke the writing of) the BRIEF SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS for embedding a picture in a wiki article. I look forward to being experienced and useful and being a helper myself. Garrison Roo my email address is garrison at exemail dot com dot au One of the articles I have been working on is Lakemba, New_South_Wales. I am also the most involved in another non-profit organisation which uses wiki, and we are winging it !!

There's something somewhere on meta ... I'll see if I can find a moment to look around - David Gerard 16:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Not everyone shares your criteria for RFAs. I'm not even sure I do (depends on the definition of "crazy" and "stupid"). However, you are one of a few editors who had actually encountered me before my failed RFA, so I appreciate your vote of confidence all the more. Thank you. Rl 11:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When they say admin isn't a big deal, it really isn't. It doesn't require any more social skills than to run, e.g., a PHP-BB forum. You wouldn't want everyone having the keys, but it's not a special ability. If you continue to work at the encyclopedia and you're put up again in a few months, you'll almost certainly do fine :-) - David Gerard 16:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Houston IP block

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocked_proxy.3F, where your block of Environknot's IP is discussed. It's now been unblocked. In your opinion, was the unblocking a wise move? --Calton | Talk 02:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If it's not open any more, then it shouldn't be a blocked proxy - David Gerard 11:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joolz's RFA

Hey David, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LMC

Glad it met with wider approval. –Hajor 15:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheeseDreams sockpuppet?

It has been suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth that WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs) is a sock of banned user CheeseDreams (talk · contribs). Their writing styles seem similar, and they appear to edit from the same POV. If I'm not mistaken, every sockpuppet use adds a week to the ban. I'd appreciate it if you could check this out. Thanks, HKT ^talk 18:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check request

Sorry to bother you, but I don't know where one would formally request a sockpuppet check.

Can you confirm/match the IPs of the following?:

I believe them to be the same, and therefore probably using the same IP or open proxies, possibly one of these, which Zephram Stark has used for sockpuppet support:

Thank you. --Calton | Talk 00:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've already blocked Go Cowboys and Felice L'Angleterre indefinitely, and if Zeph does it once more, I'm blocking that account indefinitely too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Go Cowboys appears to be Zephram Stark using their work connection instead of their home one. As if it wasn't obvious from the edits themselves. Felice as well, amazingly enough. Of the IPs, 67.136 and 211.26 are highly plausible; 4.124 doesn't appear to be, nor 69.174, 72.11 or 64.114 - though if the edits match I'd suspect open proxies or similar. - David Gerard 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try one more? Professor Stevens (talk · contribs). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could try this one too: EKBK. --csloat 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've just blocked EKBK indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sockpuppet check request

This one is directly related to an ongoing ArbCom case. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision#Is AI's sockpuppetry to be found as fact? for further details, including a list of IPs. Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 14:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock check

Hi, David, are you busy? I'm wondering about several problem users, that seem to coalesce a bit sometimes. Other people besides myself have suspicions that they're the same person, please compare this WP:ANI entry. Anyway, here they are:

Imdaking, has the obvious sockpuppets User:Unike and User:Chriss P., and also edits from User:68.123.204.81 and User:68.126.115.13 (and so on from a whole range, I bet. :-()
Wiki brah, has driven Lucky 6.9 to distraction, please compare Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wiki brah. Note that his contribs list looks much less heinous than it should, as his specialty is creating lots of rubbish stubs and templates, which get deleted and disappear from the list.
LILVOKA, don't know about that one, but again compare the WP:ANI thread.

Imdaking and Wiki brah are extremely disruptive, 100% nuisance editors, in fact I've borrowed your phrase about "showing them the door" on WP:ANI to make my point. They really, really need permabanning, as they're wearing out good editors and giving wiki absolutely nothing in return. I can't believe there will be any difficulty convincing the ArbCom of that, but effectively keeping them out is a different matter, since at least Imdaking is using nimble dynamic IP's. If we should have the good fortune to find that the two of them are the same, and that all the edits come from a reasonably blockable range, well, that would be a big relief for several harrassed editors (Lucky 6.9, BlankVerse, Paul Klenk). Bishonen | talk 14:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the one that first brought up the question, I now think that User:LILVOKA is most likely not connected directly to the others, but I think there probably is a connection between Imdaking and User:TheDeletator. BlankVerse ∅ 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And also add User:Wikipedianinthehouse, who also signed up around the same time, and also seems to keep crossing paths with some of the others. I wonder if they are all some elaborate interlinking troll game. BlankVerse ∅ 20:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the very first edit by User:Wiki brah (see [1]) and a few other of his edits, suggests that there is a strong connection between him and another problematic editor, User:Pumpie. BlankVerse ∅ 11:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response to Space Opera article

Take a look at http://stopmidsentence.blogspot.com/2005/09/scientology-two-things-i-just-learned.html ... -- ChrisO 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one's a laugh as well - http://intepid.com/2005-09-10/14.59/ -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And more... http://www.livejournal.com/users/blizack/177566.html -- ChrisO 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber arbitration

David, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't touched this case myself, but I've forwarded your message to the AC list - David Gerard 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence, etc.

I'm sorry to bother you about a couple of things:

I've recently added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand, as it may affect the decision.
Also ArbCom related: I don't know if you caught my sock check request (CheeseDreams (talk · contribs)=WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs)?). (I guess it's likely that you did catch it and are dealing with a CheckUser back-log and other commitments). Baphomet is continually disrupting Wikipedia, and a sock confirmation would simplify matters.

I'd be grateful if you could look into these things if/when you get the chance. Thanks, and sorry again for the bother. HKT ^talk 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from the AI case, but I've forwarded your message to the AC list - David Gerard 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for CheckUser on User:Onefortyone

Please be advised that I have filed a Request for arbitration against User: Onefortyone (Previously and still editing as Anon 80.141.235.81 and others under a Dynamic IP) for repeated viloations of Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. As stated in my Request for arbitration, I and another User (Wyss both believe this person to be the sockpuppet of a signed in Wikipedia user created solely to make edits to half a dozen articles, referencing and linking then all to Elvis Presley. As such, please accept this as a formal request that you access CheckUser to review the past seven days of User: Onefortyone and in order to check this possibility. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations really make me smile. I don't know what this CheckUser is, but I agree to use it, so that everybody can see that I am User:Onefortyone using a dynamic IP address and sometimes forgetting to log in under my nickname. Perhaps you may also have a look whether there are further nicknames used by User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss who have frequently accused me to be a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator. Onefortyone 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of this page, you'll see CheckUser is presently broken - David Gerard 06:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand CheckUser is now working. Could you please advise on the matter regarding User:Onefortyone. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikipediaEditor

I left a fairly reasonable comment on this user's talk page to do with him having edited your user page, and got a mouthful of abuse in return. What's going on? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to react in unpleasant ways to people. I know there's a few admins this close to blocking him as an abusive POV-pushing troll and probably sock puppet, though I probably couldn't be bothered doing so myself (and me saying so is neither authorisation for or caution against such a move) - David Gerard 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 1.0 sifting

I'm a new member of the WP 1.0 editorial team. I have spent many hours going over all the ideas proposed on the Wikipedia 1.0 pages for finding acceptable articles, as I wanted to summarise the main ideas as a prelude to the team working on them (if they want to!). The idea of having general users do much of the cleanup and article selection work is (I think) one of the main ideas out there. The idea was proposed by User:Stirling Newberry for using tabs to facilitate the process, and I also like Mark Lewis's idea of having user's rate the article. These seem to have a lot in common with [/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Another_plan.3F_Exxxcellent. your views] (Let me know if you disagree!). I have a few questions about your approach:

Do you still advocate this approach? Have you made any changes since your original posting?
What should this project be called?
What progress (if any) has been made on this since March? I realise that things have been pretty much stalled, but if things have been achieved I'd like to know about it.
Do you have ideas on how to get "from here to there"? It seems that first we have to convince the community that it is a good idea, and second we have to get the people who write wiki code to write the code for implementing it. I'm very ignorant of this sort of thing, so personally I can't really help, I'm afraid!

I'll post things on the team page in a few days, feel free to edit things there as well if I've got anything wrong. Thanks, Walkerma 20:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check - Ray Lopez ArbCom case

Stirling Newberry (talk · contribs) recently filed an ArbCom request over the actions of Ray Lopez (talk · contribs). I don't know if ArbCom is going to accept the case or not, so whether this passes your test of 'plausibly related to an ArbCom case' is up to you.

Anyway, Stirling Newberry reported that someone was forging his username and defacing images. Turns out it was a lookalike account name (StirIing with a capital eye) that made the changes. I've blocked the imposter, but it might be worthwhile to try a sock check between the imposter StirIing Newberry (talk · contribs) and the accused Ray Lopez. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Theresa Knott indefinitely blocked Ray Lopez two or three weeks ago. Obviously that reduces the urgency of my request—though evidence of abusive sockpuppetry certainly would lend added weight to Theresa's block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling is REALLY PISSED OFF [2], and I'm not surprised. Sigh ... losing Stirling to the trolls is a major blow to Wikipedia IMO - David Gerard 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amin123 (talk · contribs), Aventura (talk · contribs), 154.20.105.198 (talk · contribs)

David, could you please check to see if these are the same individual? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu in a rather odd context

Check out [3]. Weird, but I think possibly meant to be tongue-in-cheek. :-) -- ChrisO 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That famous galactic overlord! - David Gerard 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another...

Repeating (you might have missed this interspersed above): Could you try one more? Professor Stevens (talk · contribs), compare and contrast with Zephram Stark (talk · contribs) as above. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could also take a look at EKBK (talk · contribs) in regards to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked Professor Stevens. I'm minded to block EKBK too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the sockpuppet blocked but not Mr. Stark himself? --csloat 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of 23 Sep 2005, arbitration has been requested against Zephram Stark. One of his suspected sockpuppets EKBK (talk · contribs) has made a statement supporting Zephram. Carbonite | Talk 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, while you're at it, same editor, same possible sock: Black Angus (talk · contribs). Note that he's carefully removed comments critical of ZS. Note also that ZS's RfA has the votes now to enter arbitration. Thanks for the unpleasant detective work. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check

Not involved in this RFAR, but the edit war just popped up on my watchlist. You may want to sock check FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs) and Labgal (talk · contribs) for User:24.147.97.230 in this case. Really, the edits make it obvious. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA. I'll try to do my best with the old mop. -R. fiend 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture from the wikimeet

Image:David gerard and akardy at london wikimeet sept 05.jpg - stuck on commons. Secret london 00:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 09:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

David-- Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I realise that JETFA might seem vulgar to some, but that's one of the reasons I named it JETFA instead of spelling it out. And in fact, when I think of it, I actually think of "Frickin'", so it wasn't so divisive. And while some of the criticisms on my RfA have been a bit more than "gentle comments", I appreciate everyone's remarks. This has been a very eye-opening, encouraging experience. I almost think everyone should be required to go through something like this to help highlight areas of that person that could be improved. Once again, thanks. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Dear David. I know that you say that you don't normally take this kind of case, but on the other hand it does not hurt to ask. Genyec is a sockpuppet created only for an oppose vote on rfa. I'd love to know who among our ranks is able to sink so horribly low, because I do not think s/he should get away with this.--Wiglaf 17:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. You will be unsurprised to hear it doesn't match anyone, and that's because it's a dynamic dialin IP. Yay. - David Gerard 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David! I really appreciate that you had a look :-).--Wiglaf 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Uh David? Why did you add Geogre's image to the AFD page? He participates a lot at AFD but I don't think his image really belongs there, does it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image of a Wikipedian on the prowl out to carefully kill things that must be killed!

You can be sure someone will say it's "too frivolous" or something - David Gerard 12:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's too frivolous.
Also it verges on a personal comment.
Also I cannot see any possible way in which it can help AfD.
Also you seem to have started a little bit of an edit war, since SPUI has now reinserted the image.

How long before someone puts User:GRider's Godwinian image up there, I wonder? Really, David Gerard, I expect better from an administrator. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it belongs on CSD more - David Gerard 18:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see that it had Geogre's blessing... well, foreknowledge... well, anyway... I guess my remarks above are a tad on the stuffy and humorless side. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time, have a look at this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I see this is going to run and run - David Gerard 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question about edit histories

Dear David, I wonder about a technical question. Some time ago, User:Coolcat moved the page Skuld (the Norn) to Skuld (Oh My Goddess!), and made Skuld into a disambiguation page. Tupsharru notified me about this immediately, but I neglected to look into it due to exhaustion from Wikistress. When I finally looked into it, I moved Skuld back to where it used to belong as an article on the Norn Skuld. When Coolcat objected to this move, I asked him to file a move request, which failed [4]. Now, everything is back to status quo, except for a vital thing, most of the Norn's page history is at Skuld (Oh My Goddess!). Since Tupsharru who is a user in good standing has insisted that it be fixed, I have to ask you if it is possible.--Wiglaf 13:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an admin can do a pile of messing around with histories, versions, etc. It's a long-winded PITA, but it's quite doable. I don't have time at this moment, but if you can find a handy bored admin ... try on IRC, there's en: admins galore on #wikipedia - David Gerard 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin. How do I do it? Ok, I can try to rearrange so that the original page is named Skuld, but then some of the edit history will belong to the Manga thing.--Wiglaf 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you ...

David, you recently blocked Dervish Tsaddik/Tsaddik Dervish/##.##.##.## for "sockpuppetry." There does not seem to be a Wikipedia policy against sockpuppetry, but rather a provision under "Disruption" that "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently."

Was there an accusation that DT/TD was being disruptive? I don't think that was the case; DT had noted at one point that his girlfriend was a longstanding Wikipedia editor -- it may be that he and she just, for whatever reason, decided to use permutations of the same name. What was the underlying complaint against DT/TD?

Thanks.

Marsden 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in this. While Dervish Tsaddik is an, er, opinionated editor, I didn't see any evidence that he was using sockpuppets to violate wikipedia policy. Could you explain more fully your reasoning here? john k 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaddik Dervish and Dervish Tsaddik are the same editor. He also used the IP to pretend to be yet a third person. He knew damn well what he was doing too - David Gerard 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite responsive to my questions, David. You use the word "pretend" to describe the actions under this IP, but the word, while mildly accusatory, doesn't mean very much in this context. In what way was Dervish Tsaddik/Tsaddik Dervish/## being disruptive or violating Wikipedia policy? I note that -- under yet another name, in case you're feeling ban-happy -- Dervish Tsaddik has indicated that indeed "Tsaddik Dervish" is the username of his girlfriend. If "he knew damn well what he was doing," and he intended to deceive people into believing that he was more than one person, using the names "Dervish Tsaddik" and "Tsaddik Dervish" would seem to be an astonishingly foolish choice -- I myself have to look back to be clear which of the names is him and which is his girlfriend. What do you claim he so knowingly was doing? Marsden 14:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was this supposed sockpuppetry used for the purpose of voting, for deception and impersonation, or for circumventing policy? I don't think this is at all obvious. This ban seems unjustified to me. I'm going to unban him. john k 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry check

Hi. I wonder if you could investigate something for me in regards to a matter that is now under arbitration. Would you be able to check if any of these IPs are sockpuppets of each other, or could be coming from the same user:

Thanks for any help you're able to provide. Eleemosynary 01:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what the result of that check was? I have not been able to find it anywhere and that would resolve this situation once and for all. Thanks!Gator1 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw socking on one of the IPs (see block log). Still investigating - David Gerard 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whre do I find the block log and which IP was it? Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.Gator1 14:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Ipblocklist - David Gerard 14:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this is all very new and confusing to me. I saw where 64.154...was blocked as being a sockpuppet of some other users, but did you discover that Bigdaddy was the same as any of those users, because he's blocked too and I'm just tryign to figure out where an IP check was done that matched him up to one of the sockpuppeting IPs. Thanks and I'm sorry for being a pain.Gator1 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi. as I'm still really sure I'm not bigDaddy, could you please provide your info/opinion on 67.124.200.240. People are taking your statement here and declaring it some kind of "proof" against me apparently. 67124etc 04:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Gerard. Thanks for all your help in this matter. Some more evidence has evidently been unearthed here. What sockpuppets won't do when exposed, huh? Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gerard would you please respond to our inquiries? The 64.154.26.251 account that I use is being accused of misuse in a manner in which I do not understand. Can you please explain your blocks so I can either return to using it or stop using the account so I can be out of the shadow of suspicion? On October 4, 2005 about 10:30 (UTC) you blocked three users: BarneyGumble, PaganViking, and LEONARDWATSON for infinite time. All three users were accused of sockpuppetting the other two accounts, all three were accused of sockpuppeting 64.154.26.251, but only one has an edit history. You have been unavailable for comment for a half a day now. I have no idea when this sockpuppeting happened. This week? Six months ago? A year? I have occasionally looked at the 64.154.26.251 history page, which belongs to a network I share, and saw no talk page references that would indicate any kind of edit disputation or elaborate back and forth discussions, other than my own very recent ones. I am responsible for roughly 75% of the edits of that user ID. I have certainly never seen the names BarneyGumble, PaganViking or LEONARDWATSON before today. Another user of the 64.154.26.251 account has come forward wondering why someone (user:Fvw) has blocked it (the result of a different accusation which can easily be proven false), and started a new user ID. Is he about to be blocked for infinite time as well? When can we begin to do the work to disavow whomever sockpuppeted at this earlier time and clear our names? 216.119.139.73 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Mr. Gerard, here is an investigation that may be of interest to you. Thank you. (The "shared network" gambit must be a tiresome one, by now.) Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make false statements about me without evidence, do it on your own talk page, and I will contradict you man to man. Don't start fights on other people's talk pages. 216.119.139.73 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's a true statement. 2. Evidence has been provided; you've just chosen to ignore it. 3. I'll let you know that on the appropriate page, which is this one. 4. I'm not starting a fight, just pointing out you're another tiresome, silly sockpuppet that BD777 is unsuccessfully trying to trick the arbs with. But, boy, the overtime you're putting into this one is entertaining! Eleemosynary 10:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about any of these until a recognizable common pattern of editing can be identified. Fred Bauder 12:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sortan

David

Interesting (albeit ultimately non-useful) sockpuppet check on Sortan. Interestingly, Sortan commented on WP:AN/I about me very quickly after I'd commented on it about him, but in such a way that he wouldn't find the comment by looking at my user contributions (as I was logged out). Whoever it is is probably a relatively prolific user, and also has WP:AN/I on their watchlist, jguk 19:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Hello, David Gerard. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My term runs out end of this year.
Nope. I signed up for a year because I had a good grasp of my attention span ;-) In any case, I'm presently marked inactive owing to work pressures and just a bit of burnout.
It's worth doing, but crikey it's a lot of work and involves dealing with a lot of utter stupidity.
It keeps a lot of rubbish out of Jimbo's in-tray, so he can get on with other things. It gives us a mechanism to get rid of the truly poisonous or the truly clueless.
It's not scaling too well - as the wiki gets more popular, the number of editors and hence the number of problem children goes up in proportion - and we're burning through arbs at a horrendous rate. It gets some people thinking in terms of taking editors they're arguing with to the authorities rather than actually trying to work with people they disagree with. (The AC Is Not Your Mother. It's the last resort, not the first.)
I would wave a magic wand and make the statements and evidence submitted more concise, well-written and clueful. Unfortunately, many problem editors (particularly those too clueless to work with others) are weak on precisely these points.
Not at all. It's a messy job, but it's got to be done.
"You have not understood the depths of human stupidity on Wikipedia until you have tried to sort out some of these things."
It's difficult and stressful. You have to be extremely clueful, be seen to be extremely clueful, and have a skin like a rhinoceros. Everyone will want a piece of you.
Not sure. The process needs streamlining, but it's not clear how to.
Mostly, I think. We need to work faster.
The most frustrating thing is dealing with cases which should never reach the AC and which are really Foolishness vs Foolishness. The really enjoyable bit is making Wikipedia a better place to work by ejecting the really poisonous troublemakers.

- David Gerard 14:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK meeting

Hi David, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio ^@ 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BUGGER. I am booked out. Meh! - David Gerard 11:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Wik account

(feel free to move to WP:AN/I)

Neolithic (talk • contribs)

reverts John Vanbrugh just like User:Rivarez
edits Iraqi insurgency in a similar way [6] as NoPuzzleStranger [7]

Also, it's a taunting anagram/pun of my username. :) -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barneygumble

I have been contacted by a user who was a party to a mediation I once presided over requesting to know why he was blocked by you. I realise that you are busy but I would appreciate it if you could get back to me about the specifics of why User:Barneygumble was blocks. Perhaps I could be of asistance in helping you resolve this problem. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you are responding to other queries I must insist that you respond to mine. If you do not I will have no alternative but to unblock User:Barneygumble. Please respond as soon as possible. -JCarriker 01:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia

Hi - just thought I would let you know that you are quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald lead Icon (Technology) article on Wikipeidia. --User:AYArktos | Talk 21:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, a reprint of the Guardian piece ;-) Thank you! - David Gerard 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paper version acknowledged that the piece was syndicated. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 08:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blow me down! It worked! Thank you :-)

Dear David: Well, I must say, I didn't think I had a hope in hell of reaching admin any time soon - but your nomination, and the community, have jointly proved me wrong against all the odds. I must confess I am quite flabbergasted that the RfA passed; I can only assume this is Xenu's doing! :-) I am most deeply honoured; I am much indebted to you, my good sir, for the trust that you placed in me in making the nomination. I promise I shan't let you down, and shall take great delight in being able to do my best to keep the wiki as detritus-free as possible. I look forward to working with you in the future, both in WP:SCN and in hounding down wikiparasites. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please ban http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:!!!!!!!!!!!!David_Gerard_is_a_pedophile_who_has_AIDS

☺Adam1213☺|talk 18:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:MARMOT

He manifested again. We need an IP check to calm the phear. ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 18:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request for user check

Please check if I am a sockpuppet as soon as you can, and if possible do it today because I think I'll take a wikiholiday... I'm involved in a RFArb case and in edits at Arvanites. Previously on WP:ANI two other users had agreed to be checked against me, but there's also a user who did one edit, received a warm welcome and disappeared. I'm user:Matia.gr, the two who had agreed to be checked before (but may have already left the project, I still wonder if I'm too old for all these) are User:Chronographos and User:Theathenae and the one-edit guy is User:Thrakiotis. If you have already checked that before please let me know of the results. Thank you very much in advance. +MATIA ☎ 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

likewise

So it's true. In that case I would like to ask your help on a check that could solve an ongoing edit war. The IP adresses that must be checked are the ones of User:Birkemaal and User:VMORO. Thanks in advance. Miskin 13:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik sockpuppets

Heya, could you look what IP addresses Wik is using? It'd be nice to know whether we need to get rid of the autoblocks associated with his blocks quickly or if we can block off certain small ranges temporarily, etc. Thanks. --fvw * 23:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lately he's been tending towards using open proxies, with a particular fondness for holes in the Saudi Arabian proxy network (those being hard to block more than a short time). In general, they can be left unless there's collateral damage. Is anyone keeping a central list? I've been finding he's a good open proxy canary - David Gerard 05:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I run an open proxy blocker bot, so any open proxies that aren't currently blocked would be great clues to me. If you could put them on my talk or mail them to me that would be great. --fvw * 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Tribune

David, This is Richard Mullins. I'm a reporter with the Tampa Tribune newspaper. The good people at Wikipedia suggested I contact you. I'd love to hear what interested you about Wikipedia. I'd love to know how often you work on entries and what your particular area of interest is. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the accuracy of the system and what you think of errors added to the entries. My e-mail is rmullins@tampatrib.com and my phone number is 813-259-7919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.1.207 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandove89, Maoririder, etc

There's a notice on this blocked editor Sandove89's user page stating:

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log

Are you aware of any arbitration committee ruling or fiat from Jimbo ruling that this editor should be blocked indefinitely? I suppose it just boils down to "Some admin decided to block him, so there."

While we're here, if possible, could you perform sock puppet checks on the suspects in the User:Maoririder case? I'm pretty sure Lucky 6.9 got at least one wrong, and gave the user the benefit of the doubt).

The alleged socks are:

Sandove89
Riverofdreams
Cursa
Newsreporter

Bare IP numbers associated are apparently 130.111.105.203 and 130.111.96.164

The editor that was blocked by mistake, and later unblocked, was Inquisitor911. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser on vandal socks

Hello,

Can you run checkuser on some of the recent vandalbot socks and perhaps close some open proxies? Thanks. -- Curps 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fuck me sideways ... that vandalbot really is going for it, isn't it. I'm at work right now (just checking in), but for prompter action this is probably time for a mention on Wikitech-l and on #wikimedia-tech , for a dev who has access to the database. If they get interesting results, please get 'em to drop me a line too - David Gerard 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is, history and logs are flaking out. For a long time (maybe still?) you couldn't get a history for WP:AN/I or a newusers log listing. It's hard to block what you can't see.

By now I presume someone has notified the developers. -- Curps 16:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note on wikitech-l and wikien-l - David Gerard 16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! I'm surprised you supported! I thought my "deletionist tendencies" would scare you off, LOL! Take care & thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser policy-thingy

Just in case you don't know, fvw has started a policy proposal on Checkuser at Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy proposal. I didn't see your name on the talkpage, so I figured I'd tip you off. You are the one true Checkuser-dude I mean :P. If you did know, feel free to ignore this gkhan 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I should have informed you, sorry about that. I'd just spammed it to so many talk pages already I felt worried I'd be RfCed if I didn't stop :) --fvw * 12:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

Hello agian. I need the help of an admin at the moment; and you the one I recognized on RC. An editor keeps loading up Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion with rambling, incoherent personal attacks, such as [8] Ordinarily, I know that these people are best left ignored. But what Silverback is doing on multiple pages is starting to look like the kind of obsessive stalking behavior that warrants admin attention. If you have time, please take a look. Regards, 172 | Talk 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted this on WP:ANI (which is unfortunately locked at present as a vandalbot target) - David Gerard 13:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. 172 | Talk 13:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I remain highly cynical on this, David. El_C 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check request

I would appreciate if you could see if NightmareGuy (talk · contribs) and DreamBoy (talk · contribs) are socks of Gimmiet (talk · contribs) (a reincarnation of Gabrielsimon, returning after being tempbanned by the arbcom). Gabriel/Gimmiet has a strong animus towards DreamGuy (talk · contribs), the user who the previous two were created solely to harass. I doubt that they are the same, because the former two lack Gimmiet's typos, but some users have suspected a connection nevertheless. Thank you. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question regarding CheckUser

I was told that CheckUser is ineffetive for a user which didn't edit for some months, because the logs would be already deleted.

Q1: Is this correct?
Q2: But, if this is a blocked user, wouldn't his IP be stored indefinitely for the use by the AutoBlocker?

Pjacobi 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yeah, it works off the recentchanges table. This nominally keeps data for 1-2 weeks, though it might be more depending on disk space and what the devs feel like.

2. Apparently not!

Check meta:Help:CheckUser, which I just started yesterday - David Gerard 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You finally did it, Damn you all to hell!"

Looking at the deletion debate for Albert M. Wolters (unanimous delete) and the lunacy that passes for an undeletion "debate" on VFU, I undeleted the article as a slam-dunk keep whose undeletion was only being opposed out of a misplaced obsession with process. I mean, if we're going to be deleting articles like this, it's a bit pointless pretending we're writing an encyclopedia at all, we might as just call it the "let's just choose a random article every week and kill it" game, and hence my Planet of the Apes quote above.

It's a good article about a famous guy, it's just that there are enough deletion-happy individuals around that such facts don't count for much. Well my mad excess of inclusionist lust bought the article another run at AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters (second nomination)

Your scrutiny (and vote) would be much appreciated. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article is deletable, it's time for us all to pack up and go home now - David Gerard 09:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If in doubt, don't delete" principle sneakily removed

Aaron Brenneman couldn't resist giving away the fact that he'd sneakily removed, from the deletion policy, without discussion, the small paragraph at the end of the opener which says "If in doubt, don't delete." This has been part of Wikipedia deletion policy for eighteen months, since it was added by a non-logged-in editor and then edited and compromised to its current wording by Theresa Knott. I have restored the paragraph. Please keep and eye on the deletion policy. There are some unscrupulous people around who find the current policy inconvenient and would do anything to traduce it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote please?

Sir, with your Albert M. Wolters comment in mind, would you please look at the article my wife and I wrote on Michael E. Berumen, which is up for deletion, quite unfairly in my view. Thanks. icut4u 18:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Check Please

As you may or may not be aware, User:DG has been making vandalizing edits recently. He has vandalized Otherkin several times now, and has also made a [vandalizing edit] to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is_Not. Both have since been reverted.

However, the nature of the edit made to W:WWIN (flaming User:Gimmeit), when combined with the targeting of Otherkin and the initials DG, have made me suspect User:DG to be a sockpuppet of another user, User:DreamGuy who has been an active editor on Otherkin for some time and writing from a very antagonistic viewpoint, and who also has a history of edit warring with User:Gimmeit there.

I realize this is a serious accusation, and others have suggested that I should simply WP:AGF of User:DreamGuy, however it seems too much of a coincidence for a reasonable person to accept that an experienced editor with the same initials would come out of the blue to pick a fight with another editor they had no history of fighting with, much less also begin trolling an obscure topic such as Otherkin, when there is no apparent previous history of trolling by User:DG. Either way, a simple check of the IP addresses involved would settle the matter, and I've been told that you are the only person presently empowered to do so. I've also been told that you are likely not to take very seriously a request to do so, but I thought the matter worth taking my chances. Would you check, please? Jarandhel (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just noticed your policy about only doing such checks if they relate to an ongoing arbcom case. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Jarandhel (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed by User:DreamGuy that there is currently an [arbcom case] that could be considered directly relevant open against him; he has also said that he is in favor of me approaching you with this, though he has indicated as well that you are unlikely to take me seriously, and has indicated that my entire case is based on two initials being the same which you happen to share as well. I think there is more to my argument than that, particularly given the past history between the users User:DreamGuy and User:Gimmeit which is apparently the basis for the ongoing arbcom case, so I would like to repeat my earlier request for a sockpuppet check; I hope you will agree with me, but I understand if you think the evidence is too slim to act upon, even by checking IPs. Jarandhel (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it some time soonish ish - David Gerard 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. Jarandhel (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a request from +MATIA

I've previously requested to be checked if me and three other editors are sockpuppets of each other. Today that I've returned here, I saw User:Thrakiotis and User:Theathenae, being labeled (by a certain user) as sockpuppets of a banned swedish user, but no evidence supporting those "labelings". Did your user check support this "labelings"? Please let me know as soon as you can. Thank you very much. +MATIA ☎ 10:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IgnoreAllRules

I had to laugh when I saw this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that your supreme power is unchecked my any sense of responsibilty. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so do you know who it is or not? What "responsibility" would you be speaking of? Please answer the first question first - David Gerard 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be fucking coy. If you have something to say, say it. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You share a proxy for a large organisation with him with you two as the only users on it, and he has a fondness for the same pages. Assuming in good faith you're not him, you'd either know who it was or not. The hostility of your responses don't make any sense unless you actually are him. Are you? If not, why the immediate hostile responses? - David Gerard 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've never assumed good faith that I've seen,
There was only one page on my watchlist that was vanadlized, so I'm not sure what "fondness for the same pages" is about,
So the section at the top of this page "plausible link to an ArbCom case" should be amended with "or something to do with my mates"?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding another Recycling Troll incident counts. So far you're saying nothing to make me assume you're not him, and this is part of your personal animosity against Tony Sidaway. So was User:IgnoreAllRules operated by you, or not? - David Gerard 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Recycling troll"? That's a pathetic excuse and you know it. At least have the courage to come out and say, "Yeah, I checked the proxy despite my own guidelines." Honesty is a shared responsibility.
I have no personal animosity, I don't actually know any Wikipedians personally. Where I have animosity is contributors whose heads are stuck so far up their own arses that they reckon that the standards of behavior don't apply to them. And this includes you and your shiny proxy machine.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to say "yes" or "no" is the most glaring thing here. It appears your main problem with the checking is you were caught - David Gerard 08:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid. Of course it was me, I had thought that was a bit obvious. Did I even once deny it? 180 seconds of bad behavior, switch main personality back on. I was quite prepared to admit it to anyone who had simply asked, accept some loss of respect, perhaps a block even. But your flagrant abuse of the authority given you far outweighs my burst of childishness. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In which case my response must be: This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a game of Nomic. I suggest you go and write something - David Gerard 09:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please move on? I have my own personal animosity etc. but this is not going anywhere good... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost

Hello, David Gerard! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A possible sockpuppeting from a new/old user

Hi David. I am sorry to bother. Could you please check this? User:Halabi with contribs [9], User:Aleverde with [10], User:58.84.83.2 with [11] and User:OceanSplash with [12]. The 4 are using the same rant and non-stop personal attacks (religious hatred) since a few days now. Thanks in advance. -- Svest 00:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up [reply]

My RfA

Although you remained neutral during my RfA, I truly appreciate the time that you took to make your voice heard. It appears that I was able to gain a consensus from those who voted and I promise to do a good job using the keys to the janitor's closet. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. As long as you remember that mop is loaded, you'll be fine ;-) - David Gerard 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

supplement to Checkuser: "revealuser" or rIP

I'm sort of floating an idea, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#.22Rip.22ping and ToSsing major .28Willy-style.29 vandals. -- Curps 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check

Can you see if User:Metalmaverick is the same as User:219.65.248.34? If so, we've got a 3RR violation. If not, damn...I was hoping they would be. Cheers, Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 11:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MATIA

Hello again. Check WP:AN#.2ATroll_users. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 19:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want to leave these nice people alone? and stop spamming random talk pages with the same nonsense, over, and over, and over again, ad nasueum?--anon editor 01:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted

Salve, David Gerard!
Thanks for your note about my RFA vote. It was perhaps an intemperate remark on my part. I've been in a bit of a snarky mood at times lately, getting frustrated with some of our fellow Wikipedians and I surely could have phrased my comment better. Do let me know if I can help with your articles. My interests can be seen here. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 13:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment

I am disappointed by the apparent fact that you refuse to even consider criticism of what appear to be your closets friends on the Wiki, in particular Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway. If people have issues, they should talk about them, lest they fester and grow worse. R adiant _>|< 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore that I love everyone. Even you. I still think the RFC was ridiculous, though, and you'll note I'm far from the only one - David Gerard 10:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then how else would you propose such disputes be resolved? Past talk page interactions and mediation have hardly been fruitful. Surely you're not proposing that this be dropped on RFAr? R adiant _>|< 10:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that RFC is going to resolve anything? It's already devolved into the inclusionist/deletionist war, and having a nutter [*] like Agriculture as the second certifier pretty much kills its credibility.

If you REALLY want to resolve it, do something like pop onto IRC. Tony's there a lot. He's really a pretty reasonable fellow. Talking in real time helps a lot - David Gerard 11:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[*] insert hue and cry at such language below

Frankly, yes, I do think that the RFC may resolve something (but hardly everything). For one, it allows people to vent their feelings and find out if others agree. For another Tony did post an apology. I do not agree with Agriculture's statement, nor have I asked him to certify, but please note that there are five other cerfifiers who aren't nutters (speaking of which, do you really want me to point out the nutters who endorsed your outside view? :) )
I'm not on IRC a lot, mostly for lack of time (I should, in fact, be studying right now). But while I'd like the opportunity to talk some things through with Tony, this really isn't a dispute between him and me. There has been a lot of grumbling about him, including people who call him a troll or demand his immediate deopping (both of which, for the record, I emphatically disagree with). But yes, I brought it into the open. If people must shoot the messenger, let them. R adiant _>|< 11:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where valid, the criticism was actually pretty mild. Like many other editors--like you, in fact--I can be uncivil. But I tend to be involved in controversial areas where consensus is not obvious. I've got a very good record of getting it right, but this kind of activity does mean that I tend to lead the consensus rather than lag behind. Undeletions are a case in point--I've hardly ever undeleted an article for it subsequently to fail AfD. There are some editors who don't think I even have a right to do that, but they're wrong. The undeletion policy gives me that discretion.

The undeletion of the Wolters article was a much bolder move, because it was a direct challenge to the broken VFU procedure. But again, it worked. There was a good consensus to keep, and a possible copyright infringement was addressed. Wikipedia is first and foremost about content; the very people who claimed that VFU would have restored the article in any case, had also voted prior to that to keep the article deleted on mostly procedural grounds. VFU got a shock, and I hope a salutary one. Most editors care very much about content, and the process-first ideas commonly expressed in VFU are clearly not shared elsewhere and have no claim to consensus; nor are they compatible with Wikipedia's undeletion policy. A job well done. I'd do it again if I had to. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute the fact that I can be uncivil. However, I do apologize for such things far more often than you do, and that makes a difference. Nobody really objects to your principle that good articles should not be deleted - however, people object to the way you go about it - first because of your uncivility, and second because if people are already discussing things, they do not like having their discussions ignored. In the Wolters case, VFU did end up with a substantial majority to undelete. So your shock was not necessary. And note that I did not vote to KD it on procedural grounds. The end does not always justify the means, especially if the end can be achieved through friendlier means. R adiant _>|< 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt that the publicity of the undeletion helped to sway the undelete vote; the same utterly mindless arguments to keep deleted, quite outside undeletion policy, were trundled out on the VFU thread right to the bitter end. You assumed that I was referring to you when I referred to Splash and Xoloz--I've no idea what you voted or why, indeed the link you give seems to suggest that you didn't vote on VFU at all. You claim that you apologise for your incivility more than I do; good for you, but wouldn't it be better if you were to avoid being uncivil? You say that "people" object to the way I go about dealing with the problems of VFU; obviously not very many do, we had an overwhelming keep on the AfD. You claim that the reason for objections is incivility; it obviously isn't. The first objection of those who object is that they believe that I ignore consensus. The second objection is that I disregard process. The former is proven false by the aforementioned thumping great keep, the latter is true. Broken processes that don't work must be ditched. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony was very much the opposite of "reasonable" on IRC. As I said before I have no respect, let alone good faith, for people such as himself. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, the fact of IRC was that you came to #wikipedia on what was for me very late a Friday night when I intended to relax and unwind in front of the television with my family around me, and a bit of friendly, undemanding chat with friends on IRC. Your presence was unexpected and unwelcome so I placed you on ignore and made no significant effort to interact with you. I even left the channel. Now anyone reading the above would think that I had harangued you with intemperate language, or worse. For the record, I didn't do anything in the least unreasonable. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help with a Puzzle?

David, I'm told that you can find the IPs used to create user pages. If this is so, then you can help resolve a dispute. Can you find the IP (or IPs) used to create the user pages user:Donald R. Alford, user:DotSix, user:Dotsix, and user:The Donald? There is an ongoing dispute over whether these are aliases of injoined user user:67.182.157.6. See [[13]] for details. If he created them, he almost certainly didn't use his main IP, but it might be probative to know if they were created with one of the AOL or Fidalgo IPs he frequently uses. (See here: [[14]]) Thanks if you can help. --Nate Ladd 17:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSort Project

Hey, I have started the WikiSort Project. Come on over and check it out.the1physicist 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for calming me down. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block, why?

I'm in a BAD MOOD! Why did you block MY IP address? The explanation you gave said something about a SuperTroll and some Vandalbots. What does that have to do with me? I don't vandalise or make bots, check my contributions. I have been at Wikipedia for months now and have never vandalised. REX 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't. More answer on your talk page - David Gerard 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I ask you something. Is it possible that I am being "stalked"? I use a firewall, which compiles a log that lists every "entry attempt" together with the "Source IP" and the time. I was glancing at it just now and I noticed two (there may have been more, I didn't check) attempted entries by IPs very similar to mine:

I find this very eerie, although I'm probably just being paranoid, but can this "SuperTroll" character be waiting for me to log into Wikipedia and then go to one of the pages I regularly go to, recognise my IP (as it's similar to his and the facts that our IPs are similar has been mentioned a lot) and attempt to gain access to my PC. Because I don't really know how computers work, this may all seem ludicrous to someone who does know, but tell me what you think. Should I be concerned? And if you know, what does TCP (flags:S) mean? Thank you, REX 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know MS-Windows firewall software very well, but I do know a lot of it greatly overreports and causes its users unnecessary worry. If anyone else reading this has any idea, please answer! - David Gerard 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

File:Missing barnstar.JPG

Have you seen this barnstar? It belongs to David Gerard, who is either the most modest Wikipedian ever, or the most underappreciated Wikipedian ever or both. There isn't a barnstar big enough, shiny enough, bold enough, or rare enough to express the respect I have for your efforts! Un focused 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm the first one to think you deserve a barnstar!

You must be:

1. The most modest Wikipedian ever, carefully deleting any trace of reward from your user page

OR

2. The absolutely most underappreciated Wikipedian ever, overlooked every time for a barnstar

OR

3. Both.

I'm going to find out which. Here is either:

1. More work to do to maintain your incredible modesty

OR

2. The first of what should be about a thousand awards for your tireless efforts here on Wikipedia.

There really isn't a barnstar big enough, shiny enough, bold enough, or rare enough to express the respect I have for your efforts. Thank you! Un focused 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, where do I put this thing ... it's not like there isn't enough graphical rubbish on my user page ... if my mother had a userpage I could give it to her to put on the shelf ... - David Gerard 16:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modesty it is, then. I thought so. ;-) I'm sure you could miniaturize it. Please feel free to cut the text or move it to a linked subpage. You have my explicit permission to slice, dice, staple, fold, spindle or mutilate at will. Un focused 16:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Missing barnstar.JPG

I think you could be the first person in the history of the universe to describe me as "modest" - David Gerard 16:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modest of image does not equal modesty in all things. I think you keep a modest profile here. Use the full size, the shrunken head version, or blow it up 600 pixels (which I was quite tempted to do now just for fun). Whatever pleases you most. Un focused 16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Úbeda/Ubeda

With regard to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.C3.9Abeda, would it be possible to run Checkuser on the multiple recent sockpuppets in the page's history? They are perhaps sockpuppets of User:Kolokol, but are they socks of anyone else? -- Curps 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check for Wikinews

What I'm reading about sock check, and the problems Wikinews is currently experiencing, suggest Wikinews should request one or two of the team members be given the ability to check for sock puppets. Logically the first person who should have this responsibility should be n:User:CSpurrier, our most active Bureaucrat.

In the meantime, we've been fighting a low-level combat with a prolific open proxy/sock user POVior whose burner is often Cowicide, since mid-August. I have a half-dozen accounts and IPs I would like to check on suspicion of being a part of the problem; and I'd like to cross-reference more IPs which have resurfaced. Tim Starling referred me to you, so I'm asking you for advice: how should I proceed?

- Amgine / ^talk 05:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with Tim and the Board later (hopefully this evening, if I can catch him). I have no power to assign the rights, and the Board are very touchy about the privacy issues ... but yeah, I'll see what I can do - David Gerard 08:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any further word? Things continue to be extremely uncomfortable at WN. - Amgine / ^talk 00:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I've just emailed you. --Craig Whitford 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Also see this: Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying sock vandals

David -- There has been an itchy rash of sock vandals on List of warez groups (I know, shocking). It's only one article that I know of, but given the subject matter of the article and how persistent this person is, it made me wonder if he might not also be responsible for vandalism to other pages. Thought I'd bring it to your attention, FWIW. The users involved have been IPs User:142.150.204.230, User:142.150.205.15 (trace to Canada), User:J.D. Rockefeller, User:Jennifer Lopez, User:Acrobaty, User:Joseph Ratzinger, User:Al Gore, User:Joo Woo, User:ZenDude (seems to be the main account), User:Val Venis, User:Mao Zey Don, and User:DickyRobert. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User du-1

I have created and am now using Template:User du-1. Which I think puts across a much better and very important message. And doesn't contain a category ;-) - David Gerard 16:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arigato gozaimashita, David Gerard-sama. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

David-Hello it was suggested by someone at the help desk that you could help me in terms of finding out if some of the users reverting Dominion of Melchizedek are sock puppets. The reverts the person is making are identical. It's really getting out of hand with not only that article but others that this person is editing.

Here are the user names: User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

Thanks for your assistance! Davidpdx 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Mr Gerard,

I would like for you to see my comment regarding Able and Baker, so here it is:

Weak keep The page appears to have sources indicating notability. On issues of verifiability, and objective notability, personal opinion cannot be expert without sources. Anyone holding themselves out as expert should produce sources upon polite request. Consensus matters much than expertise because expertise is an imprecise term open to too much varying interpretation (especially in areas of pop-culture where objective certification) and abuse (by people claiming expertise without warrant.) Given what I said, I hold the statement "Censensus beats expertise is ridiculous" to be itself worthy of some ridicule. Xoloz 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I agree with your desired result, while being quite unhappy with your logic. I'd like to ask you, nicely, to think before posting comments such as "X is ridiculous." Generally views held by geniune editors here are debatable, often wrong, but rarely ridiculous. Simply to say, "X is ridiculous" without significant qualification, is only flippancy, and I submit, likely to cause many who might agree with you to dislike your position.

I have seen you do this before (at Snowspinner's and Tony Sidaway's RfAs). I realize you may have intense feelings, but you are only barely discussing if all you can type is a five-word declarative sentence. Sentences like (and I'll paraphrase because it hardly needs looking up) "OH MY GOD YUO ARE TRYING TO DISTROY WIKIEPEDIA!1!1!1!!" (roughly your comment from Tony Sidaway's RfA) are similar examples of the same species of unhelpful, general, short, verbal ejaculations without much use as discussion.

You are on ArbCom. This makes you a symbol of Wikipedia. I am a serious person in the working world, the type whose esteem WP seems to seek. (You may be, too, I don't know). If I walk in on a business discussion, and overhear someone consistently beginning discussions with "This is ridiculous!" or with comments like, "OH MY GOD!`1!1!!1..." (The visual impact of sarcastic leet doesn't have an easy verbal equivalent, of course), I would distrust this person. If I found out he was prominent in the business, I'd be likely to avoid working with that business. Please take these comments as friendly advice. Wikipedia needs your best words, not your random ones. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions

hooray. - SchmuckyTheCat

IRC Memo

Hi David,

Could you do me a favor and check your memo on IRC? I left you something, and I'd appreciate it if you could take a quick look. I'm in class right, now, so I should be paying attention. Talk to you later, hopefully.

Linuxbeak | Talk 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to get to it for a few hours (and may not get to doing what we were talking about last night until Sunday or Monday! Work, a sick wife, two new kittens ... life is VERE BUSY!) But I'll check indeed! And I'll be sorting out something wrt the checkuser issue tonight I hope ... chat to Tim last night was productive - David Gerard 15:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good going, then. I talked to Tim as well and he gave me the green light; I just need you and the ArbCom to give me support. Looks like we're getting somewhere. Anyway, good luck with your wife and the kittens. Linuxbeak | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

I just talked to Raul. He gave me his preliminary vote of confidence. All that needs to be done is you requesting perms. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor's RFA

Hi David. While you're at it you might want to have a look at User:Salmon Fish, whose 6th edit was to vote oppose and is not trolling on the RFA talk page. Guettarda 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a wacky kid. - David Gerard 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions template

Hello David. I would like to have a look at the relevant discussion on its deletion. Would you mind telling where it was taken place? Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Twoversions for a link to the discussion - David Gerard 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I found there was a link to a previous tfd nomination, which the result was to keep. Was there another tfd that led to its deletion? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 16:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section below you'll see why I killed it with an axe and took it out of our misery. NPOV is not up for a vote - David Gerard 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In other words there was no discussion. — Insta ntnood 16:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely correct - David Gerard 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Insta ntnood 17:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions and Lightbringer

Hi David, my email server is down or something, bt I was just goint to reply to say thanks for taking the time to check out that sockpuppet and the whole RFA, (and I really hate how RFA has become such a hellhole).

Something else I wanted to talk about. I don't personally mind to see the twoversions thing gone, and it may indeed be a good application of IAR (I'm inclined to believe so) but I just wish when people suddenly have the IAR fits that they would tell someone about it first. Just because something is, er, out-of-policy, doesn't mean it has to be a surprise. I'm currently involved in a mediation related to the "Instantnood 2" arbcom case here. As an arbitrator, I bet you know the template has been a part of the dispute, and that may even been your motivation. I think it may have at least somewhat contributed to the strained ceasefire we have now, or if not, it was part of the status quo that existed as a result. It was a bit of a nasty shock just in that I feared it may upset the mediation, and so I would have like to have somehow had notice of it beforehand.

Another thing (sorry) is that I'm at least nominally interested in the Lightbringer RFAr, as I was the admin that protected Freemasonry, and especially as it's an FA now in sore shape, I'd like it unprotected, and safe, son as possible. Following Fred's recent offer to mkae my own additions to the /Workshop page, I went through and proposed some principles and findings of fact [15]. I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me if I did everything right, and if it makes sense and is reasonable? I think this case should be straightforward. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twoversions: Being marked "away" from the AC, I wasn't even aware of it. Sorry :-( I still think it's better dead, dead, dead. So far no-one's resurrected it (it's protected blank).

I'll look at the Freemasonry thing when I get a chance, possibly tonight or over the weekend. - David Gerard 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realized you were away. There's no way I want it resurrected, and I'm surprised it even passed a TFD. Well, actually, I'm really not as those deletion pages are all giant armpits that most of the community doesn't want to touch. :) Thanks for taking a look at Lightbringer, I'm thinking of adding some more, like remedies, tonight. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies added. Also, one of the players in the Lightbringer RFAr, XDev (talk · contribs) is strongly suspected of being a sockpuppet of Lighbringer. Think you could do another sock check? He made his first edit (well wiki-formatted and contentious [16]) a day after Lightbringer's 3RR block. Their contributions match up. His manner of speaking [17], especially "propaganda" [18], and his manner of editing, contentious external links with no edit summary [19] are just like Lightbringer. Also, if you could check 194.65.22.226 (talk · contribs) as well, for this Lightbringer- esque edit a day after Lightbringer's 3RR block. Thanks again. Dmcdevit·t 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Vandalbot

I don't know whether it was AOL or not. I'm positive that it was a vandal bot though. The same exact text was created in dozens of different articles with nonsense titles, several per second, on different IPs, all this range. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 09:32

Sounds like a vandalbot, and that's an AOL range. Stopped? - David Gerard 10:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndriyK

Dear David Gerard, I take a liberty to respond personally to your comment

"48 hours break to consider discussion with others and to read the manual of style - David Gerard 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Please note that discussion with the editor was attempted multiple times! See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. He is now carefully one step under 3RR at several articles. And his moving articles is a total disaster and a huge waste of time, because takes time, effort, several editors to undo. Check again his talk! Thank you for your consern --Irpen 14:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal in my heart that he will learn to work with others, despite the "I was robbed" email I just got from him - David Gerard 15:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

riPping vandals

I have posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#rIPping_.28and_ToSsing.29_vandals, calling on you to publicly reveal the IPs of the vandalbot socks that have been reverting Sealand, which I believe to be in keeping with item 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. More generally, I believe that revealing IP (rIPping) vandals should be an option in the cases of disruptive vandalism that prevents Wikipedia from functioning normally (causing articles to be permanently protected, for instance). I'll also post a query at the talk pages of Jimbo Wales and Angela to see if they have any comments. -- Curps 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Hello, I'm advocating User:Researcher99 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy and have some questions to ask you aabout sockpuppetry checking and a deleted page:

Is there a way to know if User:Nereocystis, User:Dan100, User:Kewp have the same IP address as the Spatfield (talk · contribs)? It would be important to us to know if one of this users used a sockpuppet to call the AfD of the now deleted Anti-polygamy.
Also, is there a way to undelete only the diffs of Anti-polygamy or to undelete it and move it into a user page? Can someone restore this article's history?

Thank you very much! (Reply me on my talk, please) --Neigel von Teighen 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guerulous idiots?

You recently called contributors who make minor objections to FACs "guerulous idiots"[20]. Perhaps the point of striking it out was to convey sarcasm, but it comes across the opposite way when I read it. If it's meant seriously, then I find it a bit worrying. Fredrik | talk 11:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many FAC objections are indeed querulous idiocy, as anyone who's tried to put articles through FAC will know. I have four features to my credit, so I have some idea what I mean. If someone looks at those words and thinks "Hmm, is my objection important or just querulous?" then my work is done - David Gerard 11:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should trust you when you say that some of your nominations have failed due to objections that were truly unreasonable. But I've put articles through the FAC process myself, with both failures and successes, and haven't seen many idiotic objections in those cases nor in others' nominations.

I wouldn't say all support votes are the best motivated. I've on more than one occasion seen a FAC with a long list of support votes with comments along the lines of "extremely long article with many shiny pictures", had a quick look at the article, and spotted major problems with structure, language, or content. But I don't have time or interest to review most FACs, and therefore suspect many nominations pass that shouldn't (I don't really trust FA as a quality indicator these days). It's more important that FAs pass the highest standards of quality than that we have many of them, so my own impression is that there are too few objections.

You probably weren't targeting me, but I nevertheless felt hit by the statement which seemed to say something about objecting in general. In any case, the rather inflammatory wording could easily have been avoided. Fredrik | talk 12:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic Programming

Could you please assist on Neuro-linguistic Programming to help us bring this under some control. We do have a moderator involved already who is doing an excellent job. However, IMO this revert for example is bordering on vandalism [21], and has been repeated for months. Even simple copyedits to improve grammar have been reverted. It makes it very difficult to colloborate effectively. Could you please add User HeadleyDown to your watch list, and also do a sockpuppet check on (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, AliceDeGrey, DaveRight, D.Right). --Comaze 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

From glancing over your recent comments, am I right that you will not agree to employ CheckUser for any cases except those in arbitration? There is a growing problem with some move requests votes (which have to do with User:AndriyK, whom you recently blocked for disruption; which is actually how I found out about you in the first place). Employing CheckUser at this point would save a great deal of trouble, but I realize that privacy issues are equally important. If you could just drop me a quick note (a simple "yes" or "no" will do), I'd appreciate it. If you are able to help, I'll gladly supply you with more details regarding the case. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 771: / Line 771: @@
 Could you please assist on [[Neuro-linguistic Programming]] to help us bring this under some control. We do have a moderator involved already who is doing an excellent job. However, IMO this revert for example is bordering on vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=26845691&oldid=26845622], and has been repeated for months. Even simple copyedits to improve grammar have been reverted. It makes it very difficult to colloborate effectively. Could you please add User HeadleyDown to your watch list, and also do a sockpuppet check on (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, AliceDeGrey, DaveRight, D.Right). --[[User:Comaze|Comaze]] 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
+==CheckUser==
+From glancing over your recent comments, am I right that you will not agree to employ CheckUser for any cases except those in arbitration?  There is a growing problem with some move requests votes (which have to do with [[User:AndriyK]], whom you recently blocked for disruption; which is actually how I found out about you in the first place).  Employing CheckUser at this point would save a great deal of trouble, but I realize that privacy issues are equally important.  If you could just drop me a quick note (a simple "yes" or "no" will do), I'd appreciate it.  If you are able to help, I'll gladly supply you with more details regarding the case.  Thanks!&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 30 October 2005

Sock check?

How to add your photo to a wiki article

Thank you

University of Houston IP block

Joolz's RFA

LMC

CheeseDreams sockpuppet?

Sockpuppet check request

Yet another sockpuppet check request

Yet another sock check

Nice response to Space Opera article

Yuber arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence, etc.

Request for CheckUser on User:Onefortyone

User:WikipediaEditor

Wikipedia 1.0 sifting

Sock check - Ray Lopez ArbCom case

Amin123 (talk · contribs), Aventura (talk · contribs), 154.20.105.198 (talk · contribs)

Xenu in a rather odd context

And another...

Sock check

My RfA

Picture from the wikimeet

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

My RfA

Sockpuppetry

Articles for deletion

If you get time, have a look at this

A question about edit histories

Archive

Sorry to bother you ...

Sockpuppetry check

Sortan

ArbCom elections

Wikimedia UK meeting

New Wik account

Barneygumble

SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia

Well, blow me down! It worked! Thank you :-)

User:MARMOT

request for user check

likewise

Wik sockpuppets

Tampa Tribune

User:Sandove89, Maoririder, etc

checkuser on vandal socks

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Checkuser policy-thingy

Admin needed

Sock check request

Technical question regarding CheckUser

"You finally did it, Damn you all to hell!"

"If in doubt, don't delete" principle sneakily removed

Your vote please?

Sockpuppet Check Please

a request from +MATIA

IgnoreAllRules

The Signpost

A possible sockpuppeting from a new/old user

My RfA

supplement to Checkuser: "revealuser" or rIP

Check

MATIA

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Accepted

Disappointment

Can You Help with a Puzzle?

WikiSort Project

Thanks

Block, why?

Barnstar!

Úbeda/Ubeda

Sock check for Wikinews

Email

thanks

Annoying sock vandals

Template:User du-1

Sockpuppets

Advice