Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 19 August 2005

I have recently become employed, 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)

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 fine 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.

Another official Scientologist editor?

Check out 205.227.165.11 - it's registered to CSI. I suspect this might be Nuview editing while not logged in. -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Nuview hasn't been a really problematic editor in practice. I'm not worried about Category:Scientology getting a CoS bias from them. I think it's a good thing to have their POV on board - it's not like the subject is short of solid reference material - David Gerard 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

All Pennstate U, same articles, same person?

Hello David. How's it going?

An anon IP user 130.203.202.156 (talk · contribs) is user:Deeptrivia who is using a Pennstate university IP as a proxy and the reason he/she was banned was because of vandalizing my and user:Mustafaa's user pages and other articles. He/she admits that" My IP is 130.203.202.156 Thank you. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC) " near the bottom of this page here when arguing against user:Axon.

Also recently another anon IP 128.118.126.16 (talk · contribs) has been editing the same pages as 130.203.202.156 (aka deeptrivia) and I traced him/her back to Pennstate university also.

• 130.203.202.156 =
• 128.118.126.16 =

Can you please clarify whether these guys are the same? Thanks, I appreciate it. P.S This user is believed to have used sooo many other IPs I think I should make a list. :) --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 03:28 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi David, I'm not clear whether the IP-check facility isn't available at all, not even to the developers. If it isn't, feel free to ignore this. If it is, would you consider asking a developer to check Cognition (talk · contribs), a new LaRouche editor, in case it's Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs)? There's a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cognition_(II). The IP addresses known to be HK from the last arbcom case were 64.30.208.48 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles, and AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255. There are similarities and differences between HK and Cognition, so it's hard to judge by the posts alone. Cheers, SlimVirgin July 3, 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

Dunno if you've looked at this:

• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

It's in voting right now. To me most of the proposals look utterly beyond belief. A great expansion of CSD, with the expressed intention of removing many classes of article deletion from discussion altogether and reducing the size of VfD. Failure to assert notability of some kind is a popular criterion in these proposals and several of them could well pass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

That's completely batshit. I've attempted to alert the world - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

The GAP Project

I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate any comments you might have there. --Duk 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Intergalactic walrus pic

A gamedaily.com user has contributed this wonderful pic related to the Xenu article.

Should we add it, do you think? I'm tempted to use it to illustrate the space opera article too... -- ChrisO 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

I think that's just too frivolous and somehow not quite encyclopaedic ;-) - David Gerard 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

templates for significance and importance

I've merged {{explain significance}} and {{cleanup-importance}} and rephrased the new template to use less emotional language (and soon a less emotionally named category). Antaeus Feldspar told me that you changed a lot of articles which used some previous version of the template, so I thought you may wish to know about this change. --Joy 9 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

I'll have a look - David Gerard 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder

User:Njyoder is getting into a rather large "discussion war" on Talk:Cold fusion (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One of his more recent comments was: Then feel free to cite some instead of making a blind accusation. I've noticed you have a tendency to try to undermine my credibility and contribute nothing of value to the discussion. I won't be suprised if you can't cite any, because you know they'd easily get shot down.

I noticed that there was an arbitration request that went against him, and wanted to know what should be done (I'm involved, so I probably shouldn't take any action). At the very least you might want to keep an eye on the page, as it is getting out of control fast. --brian0918™ 00:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite a 'personal attack' (Njyoder is on a short-leash personal attack parole), but it's certainly an assumption of bad faith, which can quickly lead to personal attacks. Njyoder is a very analytical fellow, to the point where he's stated on wikien-l that he finds WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Civility difficult to follow from the policy pages in question. I suppose I would first ask him to please try harder to assume good faith, and I acknowledge how hard one has to grit one's teeth to do so with some people. I do believe Njyoder is sincere, but has noted difficulty working with others; but he has been actively trying to work better with others of late. If he slips into personal attacks, bring it to the attention of WP:ANI so that someone uninvolved can act if appropriate - David Gerard 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche again

I saw your note to the mailing list that CheckUser is working now, so this is a request again for a LaRouche check. The new user is Cognition (talk · contribs), and it would be good to know whether he's connected to Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper/C Colden. The latter posted from 64.30.208.48 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles; AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255; and also from AOL 198.80.0.0 - 198.81.255.255. Cognition says he's unconnected to Herschel, and is posting from Florida. SlimVirgin 00:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cognition edits from AOL and from another IP range that is indeed in Florida; I wouldn't presume they were the same person as Herschel - David Gerard 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks David. Perhaps he's moved ... ;-) SlimVirgin 01:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shoes

Could you do a sockpuppet check on

• Watcher1
• Angel77
• Zell Miller
• Goodboy

I think they are sock puppets of

• Melissadolbeer

~~~~ 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration-related request

I'm sure arbitration disputes aren't your favorite thing to deal with, but could you take a look at this request for a temporary injunction against User:Alfrem? There is a request for arbitration against him, and his antics have recently resulted in the page protection of Libertarianism. Temporary blocks for 3RR violation seem insufficient. Fred Bauder recommended asking arbitrators individually for their opinions, so that's what I'm doing.

Thanks for your time, and I hope this mess doesn't keep you from the more interesting parts of Misplaced Pages for too long.

Dave (talk) 17:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's on my big list. Catching up ... - David Gerard 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. He's currently blocked (3RR), so he won't cause much damage in the next day or so. Dave (talk) 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

IP tracking

I read where you caught a contributor to the Scientology article posting from a Church of Scientology IP address. That was great work! Is it possible for a non-administrator to check the IP addresses of suspicious contributors? Or is that ability reserved only for administrators?--Agiantman 17:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

m:CheckUser is reserved only for me and the actual sysadmins, and in my case only for particular purposes. In general, IPs of usernames are not to be revealed, per the Privacy Policy, unless someone is violating policy in particular ways, and even then we try to avoid it. I spotted the editor in question when they edited as the IP and signed their name, and the IP range was CoS-owned. At which point I gently noted that editing as such is fine, but he should probably note the fact. We do in fact have a few CoS editors on the Scientology-related articles, and they've been (to me) surprisingly unproblematic. The area is watched very closely by quite a few people, after all - David Gerard 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone

User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration (]), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.

I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cantus' request for arbitration

Hi David Gerard, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week), the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You were warmly welcomed when you first came here, and now it's time for your Old, or Lukewarm, welcome! Here it comes. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Bishonen | talk 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:-D I feel welcomed! - David Gerard 00:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya David,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there, if you're not too busy... Might do Wikimedia UK stuff, too.

Take care,

James F. (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am so there and will try to deal with my simmering Wikimania envy appropriately, i.e. with pints - David Gerard 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scientology

You listed this comment with notable critics. What does this have to do with NPOV'ing Scientology related articles? --AI 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I was thinking in terms of what to fill out the critics' section with - in terms of who probably deserved an article and who didn't; rather than to do with NPOV or references, which I mention in the aims as areas Misplaced Pages could really excel in in writing about Scientology. I'm sorry you don't think it's possible, but as a CoS member your POV is very much needed in some of the stridently critical articles - David Gerard 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Turning Misplaced Pages into a playground for petty authoritarians

The title says it all. You get off on throwing your weight around and excercising arbitrary authority over people trying to write an encyclopedia. You and people like you are the biggest single threat to attracting quality editors. What's worse is that in treating people with contempt, you create angry people, who behave agressively. Please, stop it. Perverted justice 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am honoured to have you spend your hit-and-run sockpuppet on myself and RickK, who I have the highest of respect for. Remember that if Misplaced Pages continues to proceed downhill, it's the work of a moment to install MediaWiki on your own server, copy all of Misplaced Pages to it and proceed with developing a fork under the GFDL. Since we make it suck so much, the whole community should follow - David Gerard 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a hit and run sockpuppet, since anyone who criticises you or yours is immediately banned. Of course, your response is 'put up with me being a Nazi or leave', well, not all of us have enormous porn empires at our disposal to do that kind of thing. You don't have authority to insist that unless people play by your rules, instead of the ones made by the community, they should leave. For that matter, why don't you leave and start Nazipedia.org? Napoleon complex 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My Nazi-Porn empire is fully supported by the community - David Gerard 14:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What you mean is: "Everyone who disagrees with me has been banned". The cry of every tyrant. The only people left are those who have no interest in governance issues on Misplaced Pages, or the ones who share your vision of an 'open' encyclopedia policed by an unaccountable cabal. Only those who agree with you are allowed an opinion on any matter of governance. The price of dissent is immediate banning with no right of appeal, except to the cabalists themselves - you even filter what messages are allowed on the mailing list! Napoleon complexed 11:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Help

Please look at George W. Bush and User:134.161.244.89. A user has been fighting all day to get changes into the article to make the subject look bad. I have tried to direct it to the talk page without success. The same user is causing similar problems at Metrosexual and African American Vernacular English. I believe he should be blocked but I feel I have too much interaction to do it myself. Can you please look at the user and his edits? Thanks. - Tεxτurε 21:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for sock puppet check

David Gerard,

I was referred to you by Tim Starling . Tom Haws, a WP administrator, suggested I contact him to track down some suspected sock puppet accounts of users that have been creating problems in discussions and engaging in repeated personal attacks against other editors. Tim then referred me to you.

All three are relatively new accounts, yet the users show a great deal of familiarity with WP. Also, the activity on all three is almost exclusively related the the Jehovah's Witnesses pages. Additionally, the edits and style of personal attacks suggests they are all the same individual.

The suspected accounts are:

• Eyesopen
• Central
• Elenap

Thanks in advance, --DannyMuse 04:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check (Trey Stone vs. Davenbelle)

As you may be aware, as of 14 July user Trey Stone (talk · contribs) is under temporary injunction against editing articles related to politics (cf, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision). Based on editing patterns, I have the strong suspicion that he broke that injunction by editing anonymously under 70.118.68.216 (talk · contribs). Just three minutes after one of the anon's edits, Trey Stone left a message on that user's talk page. Could you check the IP number he used to do that? Thanks. -- Viajero | Talk 12:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please handle or post on WP:AIV

Rn71989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is performing some complex page move vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Havne't got time right now to look myself, but I've reposted it there - David Gerard 21:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours to give time to sort this all out, but can somebody (Netoholic?) give me some idea of exactly how he did it? -- Essjay · Talk 22:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:David S. Touretzky#RFW

Mr. David Gerard, you never answered my question:

As such, it's from an utterly unreliable source. I suggest you need more discernment in your choice of reference quality --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please describe what you mean by "utterly unreliable source" and provide references. Also maybe you can provide a reference to Misplaced Pages policy to demonstrate how you decided "quality" and what is and is not a source. --AI 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please respond or I will use this as evidence in the Arbitration. --AI 23:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Feel free. I think the talk page of the article in question establishes that your view (that an unreferenced, undated, alleged IRC log is a good reference) is not accepted by other editors as constituting a good reference - David Gerard 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok that is understandable. Are you ever going to answer this question: --AI 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about that one, thank you - checking refs now - David Gerard 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I was completely wrong - they're Microsoft-backed, not CoS-backed. Noting this on talk page - David Gerard 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this. Aloha --AI 03:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2

Based on some of the past VfDs you've shown interest in, I thought you'd probably want to know that this one was happening. (It was initiated by Pjacobi, the same editor who initiated Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A sysop protected a page where she was "warring"

I think that User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history
My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail.
I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility).
Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP. 217.140.193.123 10:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You may wish to know that the above anonymous user is in fact User:Arrigo. I have previously warned him about not signing his comments. Deb 11:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Jeus

Apparently, LokiCT (talk · contribs) is another sock. Could you look into this? Thanks, HKT 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Axon/User:Germen conflict

I agree to support the mediation effort, as long as the mediators follows Misplaced Pages guidelines and are neutral on this subject. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think if you can find anyone reasonable who's willing to take on the effort, it'll help solve the problem and give you all useful practice in working with people you strongly disagree with. (And avoid an avoidable arbitration case, which will make the AC happier ;-) I suggest notices at WP:MC and WP:TINMC pointing at the RFAr and saying you could do with a mediator real quick.

Mediation is less about policy legalisms and more about how to work with someone you strongly disagree with - if you approach it on a very human level it stands a chance of working - David Gerard 11:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to find a person which is acceptable by user:Axon, because he considers a certain POV as embodied by the Runnymede Trust definiton of islamophobia as universally valid.

Besides, it is not clear to me why Axon does not do this himself but insists on fighting edit wars and infaming other users instead of waging a constructive effort to solve this editing conflict. Ok, I will post a notice there as you proposed and hope this nonsense will be over soon so we can spend our time in a more productive way.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:DrZoidberg

Thank you for your recent block of Zoidberg.

If you need any assistance or support in dealing with any criticism or other ramifications stemming from this block, please let me know and I will help any way I can.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Support Saving User Photo

Thank you for the vote to keep my user page. I was banned here a year ago because a tiny minority of admins decided I wasn't suitable, well now I'm back, and I don't plan on getting banned again. It only took this guy Raul654 a few hours of me being reinstated before he started attacking me with his pals. I'm a lot more defensive now than when I started more than a year ago, that's for sure. Once again, thanks for helping me keep my user photo! Plautus satire 15:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Existentializer, suspected sock of Enviroknot

Just a heads-up. He's been around for a bit more than a week. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, could you also check on another (suspected) sockpuppet of Enviroknot, User:Ni-ju-Ichi? See. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ni-ju-Ichi_blocked_as_sockpuppet_of_Enviroknot. Thank you! Carbonite | Talk 21:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Both are socks, and there's yet another username he's using as well. (He was in IRC whining about wikien-l - he's posting there as mousyme@gmail.com.) I'm sure it'll take a while for him to wear out. In the meantime, fire at will - you can tell the socks reliably because they all talk and write just like Enviroknot and make the same complaints. If they're different people, they have such amazingly bad luck in DHCP assignments they should be in Vegas rather than Houston - David Gerard 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC Tony Sidaway

This one came out of the blue. I'm considering taking the issue of my practice as VfD closer to arbitration committee with a view to having myself de-opped (don't worry, I'd be quite happy as an editor so I'm not about to leave Misplaced Pages). Before I do that, though, I want to have some input on whether my approach to closing a VfD is really so unorthodox as to be beyond the reach of human understanding. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous bullshit. I've commented to this effect. The VFD regulars are hostile enough to newcomers (with a habit of deeming any non-regular a sockpuppet), but this is appalling - David Gerard 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And anyway, you can't RFAr yourself

I know. Snowspinner told me.

And the Arbcom is not anyone's mothers;-)"

Oh, you're mothers all right. :)

Okay, I guess I'll just have to take up the yoke again. Life is hard. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

User:AI has some allegations to make about you.

You ought to have a look at my talk page. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not unrelated to this, you had previously indicated that you might want to present evidence in the AI arbitration case. The case is in the workshop phase, so now would be a good time to comment as an outside party or contribute evidence. Thanks, --MarkSweep 21:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

User:JuneD, User:D.Right, User:DoctorDog, User:Authopten

Hi! Could you please check if User:JuneD, User:D.Right, User:DoctorDog, and User:Authopten are sockpuppets? They are supporting each other's fringe opinions on Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming and reverting edits. Much thanks!--Agiantman 01:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

kmccoy's RFA

Hello, David,

While I'm not entirely convinced of your sanity, I appreciate your support on my RFA.  :) kmccoy (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I told you I was the soul of niceness and level-headedness on the wiki. I'm just terse and shitty on IRC - David Gerard 11:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DrZoidberg's block

I would like to bring to your attention the dialogue that is on User talk:DrZoidberg. This user now seems to have an interest in contributing to the encylopedia and seems to express regret for trolling the sandbox. Thank you! Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Jondel, and I have also made a petition for DrZoidberg to be unblocked. He seems to be interested in editing articles and is now acting more seriously. Please see his talk page for more information. Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful what statements you attribute to me, Stevey7788. When I said "I'm really not sure if unblocking DrZoidberg is going to be particularly productive or useful" on your talk page, I didn't exactly mean it as a ringing endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I've unblocked him in any case, and put a note on WP:ANI so admins know (a) he is in fact going to be editing (b) to keep an eye out - David Gerard 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DrZoidberg seems to have already rejected his promise to contribute to articles (specifically, stating "There's nothing left for me to contribute! Everything I know is already in Misplaced Pages!" on his talk page). He has now gone back to playing in the sandbox, including inserting lots of equal signs so that the page scrolls far to the right. I'm not sure whether that's enough to go back to blocking yet or not, but I'd say things aren't looking good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* I would suggest letting him continue to sandbox for now, but when he actually breaks something hang him by the neck until dead. And let WP:ANI know of his (lack of) progress - David Gerard 02:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poors RfAr

I would just like to point out that you should probably recuse yourself from Eds RfAr since it was on your "command" ("suggestion" is maybe a better word) he acted. There are other arbitrators that can handle it. However I don't want to get involved in the dispute, and if you do accept/reject I wont press the point or anything. Just pointing out what I think is proper :P gkhan 06:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I considered it, but decided that (a) I'm not responsible for Ed's actions in agreeing with me (b) speaking to NicholasT, the real concern in the RFAr is the subsequent deletion of the RFC page and the self-unblocking, rather than the initial deletion of VFD. But I'll consider it again ... I'm also currently seeing if the issue can be resolved without an arbitration case, which I think it can - David Gerard 06:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes that would be the best solution. And I guess you are right about the case, and besides, I trust you to be neutral :P Arbitrate in peace gkhan 07:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Signpost spam

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Misplaced Pages Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check: User:Gavin the Chosen

Hi David, related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon, you may want to have a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence#Gavin the Chosen and contribute technical evidence. Cheers, --MarkSweep 00:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Another suspected sock

• Gateman1997 (talk · contribs)
• BillyCreamCorn (talk · contribs)

Gateman1997 admits to sharing a proxy with this chap. Gateman, a school deletionist, created an article Village Preschool of Saratoga. BillyCreamCorn, a user whose first edit had been just two days before, showed up half an hour later and listed it for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Laundry day

So here's where all of those socks go that get lost in the laundry...

Sorry for bothering you about this. The article on Biff Rose has been visited by a number of editors who appear to me to be sockpuppets of a single user. They have been playing revert war and otherwise making mischief.

• user:216.175.116.151, user:216.175.121.239, user:216.175.116.198, user:Biffrose, user:Jonah Ayers, user:Varg Virkennes, user:Bad apple, user:Mmmmmmbo, user:Efrim walzer, user:Steve espinola, user:Peace through superior edits, user:Dearth vader, user:Peter Pie

Can you suggest the best way for me to proceed in this matter? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser on User:Amorrow

User:Amorrow has caused some trouble on Misplaced Pages. He is evading bans using multiple IPs (see ]) as well as sockpuppet accounts. I was wondering if there is anything you can do to track down his IP(s) then, if feasible, block them? Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I was left this which is clearly from the editor in question and is from IP 172.191.246.20. -Splash 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion 08:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the image. I've added it to WP:RFA, I've been looking for one for some time ;-) - David Gerard 10:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Request.

I want to know if Devilbat and Pukachu are one in the same, and if they are Enviroknot. -- A Link to the Past 19:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am Jack's total lack of surprise that they are. Pukachu is also fond of TOR proxies. What a clever boy - David Gerard 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DrZoidberg

Due to a total absence of contributions to articles, combined with a continuation of unhelpful edits to the sandbox, I have re-blocked DrZoidberg. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! Amazing! Who'da thunk it! etc. - David Gerard 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sock check

A new user has appeared whos edits appear to mimic those of banned editor User:Zivinbudas, although Zivinbudas has been active from IPs since the ArbCom banned him, could you sock check User:Bf-109 to see if he's using the same Lithuanian telecom? Thanks.--nixie 00:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

David Gerard, I want to offer a very sincere thank you to you for your vote in my adminship. You are, (and I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way), a Wikipedian institution. :) To have received your support was very important to me; you set a very high bar of excellence for others to follow. Thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 01:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My bar for admin vote support is really not very high — it's more or less 1. have I encountered them? 2. have they been around at least three months, for seasoning? 3. are they actually not crazy or stupid? Admin 'em. So you pass on all three ;-) - David Gerard 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear...for the purposes of full disclosure, perhaps I should have provided a list of all the people who believe I am either crazy and/or stupid? ;-) Func( t, c, e,  ) 00:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be (Func t c e  )? --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A "regular"

You're famous again -- congratulations!

Func calls you an institution, the Grauniad calls you a regular -- if I've been mistaken all these months and this is not an encyclopedia but a pub, pints of Fullers all round, please! -- Hoary 04:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

And the reporter called me "Dave". OUTRAGE! Must be the London Dave Problem - David Gerard 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Help me defend Misplaced Pages noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority

Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite Nate Badd and SasSquat and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on Truth True Epistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Misplaced Pages can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curps user:Jtkiefer McAttack FoolWagon JimWae Byped Canderson7 Essjay Meelar Spangineer CryptoDerk Asbestos BaronLarf Veratien Ancheta Wis WhiteC Ravenswood Asbestos Christofurio Kzollman Gkhan (left by 207.200.116.72 (talk · contribs))

WP:RFAR request

Could you possibly fill in in the "On this case, Arbitrators is/are recused and is/are inactive, so votes are" bit on my RfAr. Thanks, ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yep - David Gerard 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Help me overthrow Misplaced Pages principles by taking it offline

(perhaps I was a mite over-influenced by the previous poster)

Lots of people make snapshots of Misplaced Pages, with minimal editing and many poorly-formatted pages as a result. On the other end of the spectrum, we have grand ideas about what an ideal "WP 1.0" process would look and smell like; with various ideas of what a 'reviewed snapshot' might be under such a system.

Let's set up a FAQ about snapshots of WP, without passing judgment, identifying what tools and formats and review-systems exist, and what projects, with some measures of how each is progressing.

First step : Misplaced Pages:Snapshots ; please add, rename, modify or comment.

+sj + 15:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea! (And I assume you mean the previous-but-one ;-) - David Gerard 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please check an IP address?

We have a relatively new User named NoPuzzleStranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is evincing disruptive behavior in a rather familiar manner. Since Lir used to edit as PizzaPuzzle, I'm wondering about NoPuzzleStranger's name and if it's a reference. Can you check to see if this User is Lir? Zoe 23:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, I've been asked about NoPuzzleStranger repeatedly and he isn't. - David Gerard 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, thank you. Zoe 01:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's now been suggested that NoPuzzleStranger is a near-anagram for Gzornenplatz. Could you please check that? Zoe 07:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger's IPs don't match Wik or Gzornenplatz. However, they don't appear tied down to a given geographical area either, so that's neither positive nor negative evidence. "Reply hazy, try again later." IP checking is not magic unfortunately ;-) - David Gerard 07:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, dang, I expected magic results. Thanks, anyway.  :) Zoe 07:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Proxy Users

Hi, at Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat, we hav a couple of, or only one? proxy users that is changing and reverting the site permanently. Proxy ips are

• 70.84.56.180
• 66.98.130.243
• 70.85.195.132
• 67.15.76.200
• 66.98.131.224

and lots more from proxify, maybe somebody knows th ip - ranges of this Proxy-seller.thanks.Thomas h 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

ups  a dig proxify.com gives me 

• proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.85.195.142
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.130.120
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.130.243
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.131.115
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 66.98.131.150
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.76.148
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.76.200
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.77.116
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 67.15.77.125
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.84.56.170
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.84.56.180
• proxify.com. 218 IN A 70.85.195.132

if this might help? Thomas h 21:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastically helpful. I'm checking out and hitting the lot now. Thanks! - David Gerard 07:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

CoS article accidentally fell through the cracks for the last 5 days, check it out.

Check out the discussion page for details.

Scott P. 03:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Admin overriding Arb-com

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? -

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Misplaced Pages for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 12:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally agree with you on the decency thing - I think it was pretty much trolling. But actions like yours would lead people who didn't realise you'd done good work previously think you were just here to make trouble, and someone blocking for e.g. 24 hours would I suspect be considered quite reasonable in the circumstances. As WP:POINT says, state your point rather than demonstrating it. I don't think -Ril- should be blocked indefinitely at this stage, so I've put a note on User talk:-Ril-/ban to this effect. (I could just unblock -Ril-, but I'd rather say it on the page so that others won't just indefinitely block.) I'll drop a note on WP:ANI as well - David Gerard 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

More RFAr crap you don't want to hear.

Just wondering, did you completely forget about the RFAr on Ed Poor, or have you just not made up your mind yet? Anyway, I'm not too concerned about it anymore, for obvious reasons. --Phroziac (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There were a series of long irc discussions involving Ed and the RFAr bringers to see if the problem could be resolved without fire and brimstone. Ed's said he will be much less of a lone gun, and I believe him. (I think it's come home to him that this isn't the tiny Misplaced Pages of 2002, and it's REALLY BIG now ...) If there's no writeup on this anywhere, there should be ... I'll try to have a look at it later - David Gerard 07:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello !

David Gerard, I am asking you to intercede on my behalf regarding an issue taking place at User talk:Tony Sidaway, concerning the closure of a VfD vote. The section is Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy. Point 1: Mr. Sidaway specifically mentions you in the article as an administrator who can check the use of sockpuppets during the voting process. Point 2: Mr. Sidaway is inclined to count the vote of Gabrielsimon, even though the GS character used a sockpuppet Khuhly to register more than a single vote during that VFD. Point 3: I have more or less pleaded with Sidaway to count my vote as valid, even against his arbitrary measure of my worthiness. I feel that I meet the standard of a WP editor in good standing, notwithstanding the length of time I have been registered here, but based on my contributions, and involvement wih the community thus far. When I joined this project, I was made to feel that new members are welcome to become involved with community issues such as VfD's. If I had known that my votes were being cast aside, I shouldn't have bothered wasting my time there. I feel, well, bitten. And it disturbs me to see the regard Sidaway shows to a problem user such as Gabrielsimon/Ketrovin/Khuhly/Gavin the Chosen et al., and arbitrarily dismisses my vote out of hand, as a "potential sockpuppet". Mr. Gerard, all one has to do is look at the quantity and quality (IMO) and variety of my edits since I registered here as a user. I am fully aware of the scope and importance of the WP project, and there is very little that I do here on these pages that I treat lightly. So I request that you intercede on my behalf, as an Administrator who holds some sway with Mr. Sidaway. I ask that my vote be counted, at the very least. It matters little to me if the article in question is included or not, as I pointed out on Mr. Sidaways talk page, there is room for any number of inane or useless topics in the WP, and I would never have cause to refer to Religion and schizotypy at any rate. Secondarily, if you have the skills and tools, to show Mr. Sidaway that the user Gabrielsimon used a sockpuppet to register more than a singular vote on that page and to disregard all votes of a user who stoops to such subterfuge. I thank you for your time, and I will look in this space for any response you care to make. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 20:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I should note that "votes" for deletion is misnamed. They aren't votes in the usual sense - they're an attempt to ascertain consensus. So one either way shouldn't make a vast difference. If it does, the default per policy is to keep - David Gerard 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Hamster Sandwich 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new David Gerard overlords!

See subject heading. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new David Gerard overlords!

See subject heading. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new David Gerard overlords!

See subject heading. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)