| Revision as of 21:50, 24 November 2008 editDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,091 edits →Oversight issue← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:05, 8 January 2025 edit undoIruka13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,112 edits Notification: tagging for deletion of File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{bots}} | {{bots}} | ||
| {| width="80%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#FFFFF3;" | {| width="80%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#FFFFF3;" | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Past talk: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] | |||
| Past talk:<br> | |||
| ] (4 Jan 2004 - 31 Dec 2004)<br> | |||
| ] (1 Jan 2005 - 30 Jun 2005)<br> | |||
| ] (1 Jul 2005 - 31 Dec 2005)<br> | |||
| ] (1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2006)<br> | |||
| ] (1 Jan 2007 - 31 Dec 2007)<br> | |||
| ] (1 Jan 2008 - 30 Sep 2008) | |||
| Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ] requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to ] unless you're letting me know about a particular problem we've been tracking, in which case I look here far more often. | |||
| Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| {{Boxboxtop|}} | |||
| {{User MAW 400}} | |||
| {{Boxboxbottom}} | |||
| == Warning messages == | |||
| Hi David. I don't know who to ask about this, but thought you might know. There are a few sources that have come to RSN that aren't really in need of full deprecation, but that are wasting editors time by being reused and readded. Take for instance ], a source that was both UGC and circular but was needing continuous clean up by the editors of the astronomic objects project. Ultimately deprecation was used so a warning appeared if you try to add it, stopping it from being a timesink. But really it didn't need the other aspects of deprecation. I was looking to find out how we got to the current deprecation process, and how editors went about getting it setup, as part of thinking about a slightly different solution for these sources. A different setup with a warning about UGC, self published, circular sources etc, rather than the deprecation one. I'm waffling on. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP block on 61.18.170.232 == | |||
| :so the history is the looooong RFC on the Daily Mail, which then opened a process for ruling other sources such obvious wastes of time that they could be similarly classed as almost never to be used - I would go through the deprecation RFCs in rough historical order to get an idea of how it developed as an idea. | |||
| :UGC is its own class of thing, and you can see the reasoning behind deprecation: that some editors are so persistent in wanting to use known bad sources that you eventually have to make a rule that says "no." Even as all new rules are bad - ] (]) 14:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
| I use the broadband provider iCable, the dominant cable operator in Hong Kong. The IP you have blocked is one of many IPs assigned dynamically by iCable to their broadband customers. The IP addresses are assigned randomly and dynamically, and seem to change very frequently. | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {| style="width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em; border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: Yellow;" | |||
| I recently encountered a block that you had put on 61.18.170.232 , as soon as I refreshed the page, it went away. | |||
| |style="text-align:center"|] | |||
| |style="text-align:left" width="100%"|Happy First Edit Day, '''David Gerard''', from the ]! '''Have a great day!''' ] (]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You may want to have a look at ], where I've brought up the issue with him. | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg== | |||
| ] (]) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. | |||
| == apparently == | |||
| "apparently Mr Coffey contacted them ". Yes, and apparently you are a subversive editor.--] (]) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WQA about recent block == | |||
| Hello, just wanted to let you know that Mazarin07 has raised the issue of your recent block of him at Wikiquette Alerts ]. | |||
| I wholeheartedly agree with you that one cannot go re-adding controversial information to a BLP without discussing it on the talk page and reaching a consensus. That said, I have to admit I think it was probably a bad idea for you to do the actual block. Since nobody else had challenged the quality of sourcing, it probably would have been better to have a different admin wield the hammer. Anyway, food for thought at least. Cheers! :) --] (]) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It was a BLP issue via OTRS, so it was pretty important - ] (]) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was not aware of OTRS involvement. Nevermind, good show then! --] (]) 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, I usually don't wave a big sign saying so as it's a drama magnet. But I do see your point - ] (]) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].--] (]) 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 10:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 10:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nikkilost.PNG)== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like someone put it back into play. How annoying ;-) - ] (]) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your block of Giano == | |||
| Is not well-founded and shows horrible judgement. ESPECIALLY considering the past history between you and him. I suggest that you gracefully undo it, before it gets taken to AN/ANI and undone for you. ] (]) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm, I think the fact that both those accounts are the same person is an open secret. I might even have gone so far as "common knowledge" but maybe I'm mistaken about that. I'm definitely struggling to see how this was an ''abusive'' use of multiple accounts? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The "history" is personal abuse on his part and me catching him out on my part. I have taken it to arbcom, and would suggest others do the same. 24 hours for the sockpuppeteer and indefinite for the sockpuppet is usual - ] (]) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::David, you're wrong here. This doesn't need ArbCom. This needs a prompt reversal and for you to realize that your judgement was, and currently IS lacking. ] (]) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Presumably if you'd taken it to ArbCom a reasonable time ''before'' blocking, FloNight could have responded that there wasn't much secrecy surrounding the identity of that account . These really are dreadful blocks, I urge you to reverse them. File a case with ArbCom if you feel one is justified but you are not an appropriate person to be making decisions about whether Giano should be blocked and you have yet to make a convincing case that there has been any ''abuse'' of multiple accounts here. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Since you have not reversed your action, I have brought your appalling lack of judgement on AN: ] (]) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :He hasn't made any edits since your demand ten minutes earlier that he reverse his judgment. I do not think that there's much of a causal case to be made about his tardiness to act - it's 11:00 at night where he is. People are known to sleep. ] (]) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Phil, did you miss the statement timestamped 22:15? He wasn't going to discuss it and demanded that we take it to ArbCom if we had any problems with it. Well, it's now at ArbCom, although I'm fairly sure it's not in the form he was expecting. ] (]) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RFAR == | |||
| Please see. ] (]) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Who are the severalother checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? ] (]) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*"confirmed and reviewed by multiple checkusers" I want the name of every single one of these people. ] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems "multiple" was in fact 3 (counting himself). I suppose even finding 2 to go along with his abuse of power was quite amazing - Anyone know if he has he been fired yet? ] (]) 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Notifying you that there is an outstanding question from New York Brad.--] (]) 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == a thought == | |||
| it's all sort of blown up, I guess, but please give some thought to just quietly stepping down from your role as a checkuser. I rather feel this bungle has cooked that goose, and it would be the right thing to do, and for the best. ] (]) 02:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with PM on this one. Please step down as a CU, ''immediately''. ] (]) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I must agree with this. ] ] 07:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Even as her final hours approached, Mme. de Burgh conducted herself with a poise and dignity could only have mystified, frustrated and confused an enormous ''boob'' such as yourself. Imagine tormenting charming old ladies and productive editors when there are genuine miscreants on the loose! I suggest you pack up the toybox and rethink your life. The days of characters of your ilk being taken seriously, even on a largely frivolous website such as this, appear to have expired.--] (]) 13:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please, sir, recall the rule to "ignore all rules." ] (]) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *There's no evidence that David Gerard has violated any policies. He found and blocked a disruptive sock. Big deal. It's too bad he didn't so a long time ago as that would have averted this whole drama. Folks who operate socks without disclosing them should expect to get their accounts checkusered. Just like folks who invest in tax shelters shouldn't be surprised when the revenue service audits their tax returns. ]] ] 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, operating a droll Misplaced Pages account is ''just'' like cheating on your taxes. The similarities are staggering. David Gerard is quite fortunate to have a defender of your calibre at his disposal; until you turned up, I daresay he was starting to look like a bozo. Please edify us with a few more analogies.--] (]) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Charming old ladies? I haven't seen any around here. How about you indicate which policy David Gerard violated that justifies you calling for him to resign the checkuser tools? How about you find the clause in the civility policy that permits calling other editors "boobs"? ]] ] 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe the civility clause you are requesting is clearly laid out . That's the trouble with rules that "anyone can edit." Any bozo can edit them to suit their agenda. But you and your friends wouldn't know anything about that.--] (]) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| David, Will, do you honestly think this block was good for the encyclopedia and the community? If so, I rather question your judgment and fitness to be administrators. The purpose of our sockpuppet policies is to forbid deceptive use of alternate accounts. Such an obvious joke account cannot possibly be deceptive. The worst Giano could be accused of would be a joke in bad taste (and not nearly as big a joke in bad taste as the ArbCom itself has been lately, so there you go). If nothing else, the historical fact that blocking Giano always results in more drama and never sticks should have let people know this is going to need discussion, not immediate action. Think about the encyclopedia and the community, not policy. The latter exists for the former. ] ] 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Was the sock good for Misplaced Pages? Please explain how running a sock for ArbCom helped the encyclopedia. ]] ] 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was in no way harmful, unlike David's block. ] ] 07:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Socks are unacceptable because an admin who runs a "humorous" sock that "everyone" recognises as satire also creates an excuse for the puerile trolls to run ''their'' idea of a humorous sock as "comedy" and maybe even to stand it for ArbCom. Naming lady wotsit as an alternate account wouldn't have hurt the joke, but it would have removed its use as an excuse for real troublemaking. This isn't an excuse for any over-reaction, but equally it's a bit rich to act hurt when ] ''was'' running a sock that's against literal policy and fell into admin probelms because of it. ] (]) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Satire is instructive and humor brightens the dreary mood around here. But you and your friends wouldn't know anything about that.--] (]) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Encyclopedias are inherently dreary. If you want satire and humor there are many other websites designed to offer those. ]] ] 04:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: What a waste of everybody's time, ] included . Why don't we all move on? Shall we? ] <small>]</small> 04:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, we are not going to move in untill Jimbo realises that this is an unacceptable way for checkusers to behave. When caught thes people clearly on a fishing trip said they checkusered because they thought it was the evil and banned "Greg Kohs" - if the best lie they can come up with to justify an invasion of privacy is that ] paid for a biography, then we do have some serius problems. We can begin by firing them. ] (]) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you don't want checkusers poking around then don't use undisclosed socks to make defamatory edits and to disrupt community elections. This is your own fault. ]] ] 17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::But you are forgetting your friend Gerard knew 2 years ago and even discussed it on IRC. He is person not to be trusted. I'm afraid this time he has rather cooked his goose, and is now going to have to eat it. ] (]) | |||
| :::Gerard isn't my friend. He, like you, is just a colleague. If you weren't running a sock account none of this would have happened. You did not disclose the sock to the community, you used to it make at least one defamatory edit to a BLP, you used it to edit articles that you edited under your main account, you ran it in the ArbCom election, and you repeatedly denied in public that it was a sock. Gerard did the community a favor by putting an edit to that disruptive charade. Secret accounts don't help this project. ]] ] 19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I have to agree with all of my non-Will colleagues here. If this is how you plan to use your authority in the future, it would be better for the encyclopedia if you gave up your status as a checkuser. Your judgment in this instance was extremely poor, and it's not the first time you've made a substantial mistake of this nature. Please give it some thought. -]<sup>]</sup> 22:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::But it wasn't even David that did the primary checkusering in this case, Thatcher and someone else have said they did, so I don't see why people can say he should stop being a CU for something he didn't even do. I mean he might have checkusered G and CdB (I don't know), but so did a couple of others. And I'm glad I know who I might have voted for for Arbcom, after Giano said he wasn't running. I mean, I might have voted for CdB for a laugh and a bit of spoofing of the system, but I still like to know who I'm voting for, maybe that's just me.:) And users who don't get into the political machinations of wiki (a lot of people for whom voting in the Arb elections or at a few RfAs is the totality of their involvement in this side of WP, perhaps) wouldn't know who Giano was, they'd have had no chance of knowing who they were voting for at all without rooting through lots of contribs paranoiacally, which they shouldn't have to do. ] ] 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sticky Parkin, I am begining to wonder about you, and have one of my huge gut feelings. Which are never wrong. In this case it has been late, but never too late. ] (]) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hiya DG. I sure wish ya would've told me who the Catherine account was 2yrs ago. I always found that account annoying. Had I'd know it was a sock; I wouldn't have been annoyed about it. Why didn't anybody tell me? I feel so unloved. ] (]) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Augh! Big kiss XXXXX, Come to the funeral tomorrow and have some Pol Roger. ] (]) 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sniff sniff. At least somebody cares. ] (]) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RfAr == | |||
| Just in case you haven't seen it, I have posed a question to you on ] in connection with the pending request for arbitration. Please respond when you get back online. Thank you, ] (]) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The RFAr's gone. But I can happily state here that I will be happy never to take an admin action concerning Giano II again. There's plenty of other admins around - ] (]) 11:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. '''You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace as a checkuser.''' ] (]) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Sigh... For the time being I have deleted a few revisions, but they are not oversighted yet. If you look at the deleted history of ], there are some revisions worth oversighting ASAP. ] ] 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *And four more IPs blocked. ] ] 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks :-) Looking now - ] (]) 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I sent you an e-mail. I'm afraid I missed one. ] ] 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Got it! - ] (]) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Oversight issue == | |||
| Hi. On ] Giano has accused you of improperly oversighting edits for FT2. Naturally, there is a lot of buzz about it. Can you comment on it? --] (]) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> — Ирука<sup>]</sup> 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've undertaken to the arbcom not to get involved with Giano, so I'm afraid not - ] (]) 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:05, 8 January 2025
 |
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than the English Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_Gerard . |
Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.
|
Warning messages
Hi David. I don't know who to ask about this, but thought you might know. There are a few sources that have come to RSN that aren't really in need of full deprecation, but that are wasting editors time by being reused and readded. Take for instance WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide, a source that was both UGC and circular but was needing continuous clean up by the editors of the astronomic objects project. Ultimately deprecation was used so a warning appeared if you try to add it, stopping it from being a timesink. But really it didn't need the other aspects of deprecation. I was looking to find out how we got to the current deprecation process, and how editors went about getting it setup, as part of thinking about a slightly different solution for these sources. A different setup with a warning about UGC, self published, circular sources etc, rather than the deprecation one. I'm waffling on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- so the history is the looooong RFC on the Daily Mail, which then opened a process for ruling other sources such obvious wastes of time that they could be similarly classed as almost never to be used - I would go through the deprecation RFCs in rough historical order to get an idea of how it developed as an idea.
- UGC is its own class of thing, and you can see the reasoning behind deprecation: that some editors are so persistent in wanting to use known bad sources that you eventually have to make a rule that says "no." Even as all new rules are bad - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
|
Happy First Edit Day, David Gerard, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)