Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 31 January 2006

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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:
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 Dec 2005)

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff is no longer my problem. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) should go to WP:RFCU unless you're letting me know about a particular problem we've been tracking, in which case I look here far more often.

Terryeo

David, you've probably spotted this already, but Terryeo is rapidly becoming quite a problem user. He's been editing all the Scientology articles, and he's quick enough to cite Misplaced Pages policies which supposedly justify his edits. However, examination of those edits show a clear double standard. For instance, at E-meter, he has repeatedly removed a paragraph stating that the Church has drawn comparisons between the principles of the E-meter and the principles of the polygraph, because (he claims to believe) a source needs to be cited to report that the Church has indeed drawn such comparisons. However, here's material that he added to Dianetics:

The end goal of Dianetics in 1950 was a person that could be tested for any and all neuroses, psychoses, compulsions, repressions, all mental aberrations, and all psychosomatic ills and be found to be free of such things. Tests could be run before and after Dianetics to prove this state was achieved by Dianetics. This is a clear. Clears were found to have intelligence high above the current norm and to pursue life with vigor and satisfaction. His emotions could be seen to be fluid, no longer fixed. He was his basic self or basic personality and very unique. He had all the information of his experience available to him fully.

I've been doing what I can to undo his damage to these articles, but he's persistent and he's very glib in pretending that he really cares about Misplaced Pages policy (or at least, whatever subset of Misplaced Pages policy can be made to look like it supports the change he wants to make at that time.) The problem is that I am still not back to full health, and don't have the energy to both revert all his bad edits and respond to his disingenuous pretenses on the talk page that he's merely following "Wiki policy" and I'm breaking it by not explaining afresh each time what's wrong with the edits he's making. And without more support from other editors, I look like a rogue editor, a perception Terryeo is actively trying to label me with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Feldspar. What is more, I suspect a cohort of his, Nuview is using a couple sockpuppets to justify and assist edits on the David Miscavige scientology-related article. Please take a look at Nuview's discussion page where an admission is made of using "other personas" and at Talk:David Miscavige. One is Independentmike and the other is Streamlight.--Fahrenheit451 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Nuview's other "personas" before (such being way too close to a breach of the sockpuppet policy). Keeping Nuview on is actually important IMO because he's CoS staff and edits from CoS machines — although many of his edits don't stay as he put them, he has been tremendously valuable to the Misplaced Pages articles on Scientology in supplying an important and relevant POV, and is mostly a good value editor. I'll see if I can look into this over the weekend. It's good we have other sockcheckers now, because then I can back off from a matter I'm editing heavily on! - David Gerard 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See above about my imminent departure! I'll come back and look over stuff in a week (or so). In the meantime, get onto User:ChrisO, who can out-reference just about anyone - David Gerard 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo now has another cohort Ayespy and the POV edits on the David Miscavige article are getting more frequent. --Fahrenheit451 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How pleasent to see I'm being talked about :) You all have a real nice weekend, you hear? Terryeo 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Antaeus Feldspar, Fahrenheit451, David Gerard (whose page this is) wish to communicate, would it be possible to get into communication with you all? Could we possibly get some possible agreeement, meeting of the minds, discussion or in some manner or means save us all a lot of editing, cross editing and other such? I do understand, you view me as unable to understand the typed word. While I view you all as simply not understanding Dianetics nor Scientology and posting, reposting, editing and re-editing from a lack of understanding. I do understand that you do not understand the body of information. okay, fine. Why should you? But perhaps I can be helpful to you. Perhaps I can answer some of the "what is going on in Scientology" or in some other manner, save us all a good deal of effort toward making Misplaced Pages a useful resource for our planet's 6.5 billion peoples. Let's get into communication, shall we? Terryeo 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you presume none of us understand Dianetics or Scientology. I was a student, staff/SO member or volunteer for over 25 years. The only answers you have supplied are along the party-line of the miscavige administration, who has made sure that anyone who even disagrees with him is given a tribunal with a coerced, pre-determined verdict and/or get labeled a suppressive person and then subject to enforced shunning. The whole strategy of Nuview, a couple sockpuppets, Ayespy and yourself has been an attempt to pervert and distort wikipedia citation policy so as to insinuate the false "reliable source" notion. Then, you define reliable source to suit your editorializing. --Fahrenheit451 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked UK users

Hi David. I have only just seen the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rachel_Brown_sockpuppet_army_blocked. Let me first say I am confident that these users are different people, close friends, who all attended UCL. I think this whole thing can only be understood in the context of the activities of User:Antidote, of whom I started an rfc on here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Antidote, (subpages Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Voting). The user has conducted a campaign to try and force the deletion of Jewish lists, voting multiple times, firstly back late in October on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. The multiple voting was first spotted by User:RachelBrown. In mid November the user again nominated that list as well as other Jewish lists, with many users suspecting that many votes were being cast by one user. In the context of this multiple voting, I and RachelBrown did ask other users to vote on these vfds (I have seen many users asking others to vote on vfds, including admins), and it appears that some of those votes may have been placed by Rachel's friends at her house. They were all already Misplaced Pages users and had all edited on different subjects prior to this (Poetlister- literary subjects, LondonEye- London locations, Rachel- Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman- fetish subjects). The vfding of the lists brought them to the attention of some users, mainly Lulu of the Lotus eaters who became involved at Talk:List_of_Jewish_jurists where he repeatedly criticised the use of the Jewish Year Book as a source which was later confirmed to be a perfectly respectable source by User:Jayjg. Rachel became pretty upset as to what she felt was an attack, her friend Poetlister then offered to help to try and solve the dispute. Lulu then began following some of the edits of Rachel, adding cleanup or unverified tags, and more Jewish lists were again nominated with clear sock puppet voting of the one user above which contributed to the stress Rachel had began suffering which caused her to almost have a breakdown as she had been a very avid and keen Misplaced Pages contributor and I imagine that she felt slightly betrayed by the sudden hostility she was encountering which she had no experience of prior to this episode. Her cousin LondonEye, Poetlister and another friend Newport offered to work on articles Rachel had drafted and add them to Misplaced Pages. It is possible that Newport is in fact Rachel (perhaps she started a new account as she felt Lulu and other users were stalking her edits) but these two accounts never voted on the same vfds or backed each other up in disputes. I am absolutely certain these users are not deserving of a ban and really this has all come about due to confusion and unfortunate circumstances. Thanks Arniep 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also very concerned that things have gone way off the rails. I came across RachelBrown when she created List of highest mountains and then maintained it over a period of time. She seemed (and seems) to me to be an entirely responsible editor. As Arniep says, looking at the editing done by these various accounts (historically) shows them as having very different interests. As someone with absolutely no involvement with any of these people at all, I think there has been a serious mistake in blocking these accounts. Thincat 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... if you are in touch with Rachel, please get her to email me. Sorting this out would be good for everyone - David Gerard 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

Welcome back!

I've completely rewritten Dianetics and I must have set some sort of Misplaced Pages record for the use of footnotes - there are now 72 in the article (!). I've posted the new article; I'd like to get it up to FA status, so could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? I suspect that our resident Scientologists may have some issues with it, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out... -- ChrisO 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT vs NAMBLA

There is a vote here where some users to try to overturn WP categorisation policy (whereby categories and subcategories cannot be placed on the same page) and force a subcategory (LGBT organisations) onto the North American Man/Boy Love Association page. Some of the comments made are distinctly homophobic and rather disturbing (eg, "organised faggotry", etc). Personally it gives me the creeps even mentioning NAMBLA but your vote on the issue would be welcome.

WP:AFL

G'day Dave, not sure how "in-touch" you are with Aussie rules now that you live in London, but would you mind checking out WikiProject AFL and letting us know your thoughts on it? Cheers, Rogerthat 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology Series

It's part of an effort to link many, many, articles, without getting too POV about the issue, which is a serious challenge, I admit. We have CoS editors, critical editors, etc., as part of a Wiki project trying to work it all out. The template needs discussion, yes. Hopefully, editors can see the template and hash out the needed items on the template, what matters. what doesn't, etc. Ronabop 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia UK

David, I noticed that you have not yet commented on the mailing list or Meta page about whether you want to come to the next meeting, and if so when you would be able to make it. There is a signup sheet at m:Wikimedia UK#Next meeting which it would be great if you could add your signature to sooner rather than later so we can get things moving. Thryduulf 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Unblock: Solyock

A user you blocked with the reason "sockpuppet creation spurt from jmu.ac.uk" has requested that they be unblocked. If you have the time, a brief explanation of the block on the user's talk page would be a great help to any administrator reviewing blocks. Thanks. // Pathoschild 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Their unblock request is still up. I'd like to have something to write there at least for a sockpuppet notice. --Syrthiss 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Dude, you have a link

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

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

Arbcom for Dummies

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*punt*

Where the hell are you/have been? Don't tell me you're working because I won't believe you ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Laptop died on holiday, using the Mac G4 at home occasionally ... but I have put XChat on it and log in every now and then! - David Gerard 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bronze Plaque

I hereby award you this bronze plaque for this edit. I may well have that tattooed on my forehead. :-) Essjay 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was really a prizewinning move from MARMOT. I think NTL need contacting sooner rather than later - David Gerard 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Malitious activity on the internet is a violation of US and UK law as far as I recall. He did cause us "damage" intentionaly taking advantage of a vunrability. This can be interpreted as hacking (only the sad kind thats detectable)? Since you are the expert in UK law (compared to me), what do you think? --Cool Cat 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I shall be doing some checking this weekend to nail MARMOT to a tree if possible - David Gerard 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yawn

What is it with you (and your friends) and having contempt for just about everyone else in the community? You don't even bother to get your facts straight, you just assume everyone else is wrong. Yawn, indeed. Radiant_>|< 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

What is it with you and your friends and having contempt for puppies and sunshine? You don't even get your dogs-in-the-sun facts straight, you just assume that there's something wrong about dogs lounging in a sunbeam. Yawn, indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh, the drama...

Hi David,

Even though you're not a bureaucrat (you might as well be; you're important enough to the project), I was wondering if you could weigh in on the talk page of WP:RFA. I've had it up to here with the process and I'm sure you could throw in a word of wisdom...

Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Impersonators

Can you check howmany of those are MARMOT? Also I suspect these may also be MARMOT (): User:Hexagonal, User:InTheJungle, User:Mike K. Martin. --Cool Cat 16:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

meta-help

There is an extreme level of anti-WP:AUM stonewalling at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:If defined, and others. I think someone needs to make the right decision and delete the lot of them, such that the people who refuse to follow the advice of our developers, well, stop refusing. Options have been provided to these people, and can be implemented immediately. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to butt in, and you'll be somewhat surprised, I'm actually in agreement with Neto here, although from a slightly different angle. As far as I can tell, these templates do nothing that could not be easily replicated using {{qif}}: I think the "conditional template" thing has been complicated by excessive spawning of ever-more specialised incarnations (and the apparent fact that invoking the same template with different parameters necessitates another round-trip to the database just rubs salt into the wound ). If {{qif}} were in good odour, I would simply blast ahead and replace them all with the appropriate incantation, but…

So, can we pretend that they've all been replaced with {{qif}} and then "replace" that replacement with Neto's temporary fix (the "CSS Hack"), and then assign these ungainly oafs to the bit-bucket?

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Just so you know

Regarding this comment.

1. I work to prevent the deletion process from degenerating into anarchy.
2. Often referred to pages such as WP:POINT is not an "official policy" either.
3. The undeletion policy is official policy.
4. I blocked Tony once, and deleted the articles he had undeleted once. Tony undeleted those articles twice.
5. I spend my nearly all my time here either writing an encyclopedia or defending it against the vandals who through ignorance or malice seek to destroy it.
6. I am not opposed to IAR when it is used responsibly.
7. If you want those articles to stay, the best way is to visit WP:DRV#SuperOffice and Tally Solutions Ltd and argue your case there.
8. I don't hate contibutors who try to improve the encyclopedia, and so I definitely don't hate either Tony or you.

Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no way on Earth that reacting to an IAR article restoration with an IAR blocking doesn't constitute escalating the perpetual floating wheel war. I still think it was a breathtakingly ill-considered move on your part. "Because I thought it was obviously a good idea" blocks generally have to be a hell of a lot better justified than that.

I like IAR, but I did want to add to WP:IAR what Tony said about it: it's a stick of dynamite, be very sure you want to set it off - David Gerard 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Jimbo just closed the CFD on Category:Living people against 88% delete. Will you be blocking him for disruption too? - David Gerard 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser section

Hi! I made some changes to the CheckUser paragraph on your user page, as the current version isn't factually correct (you should ask stewards to get CheckUser rights after community approval, not a developer). I reverted myself afterwards, so that you can "approve" the changes. My version is here. Cheers, Jon Harald Søby 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Not editors mothers?

I am confused. Do arbitrators decide intractable edit disputes? What happens when two editors really cannot agree, should we just revert each others text endlessly? Is the quality of a Misplaced Pages article really decided by who gets tired first? loxley 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not ideally. And we have had problems where someone wears someone down to the point of blowing their top and then raises an RFAr. We're trying to get better at spotting when that's what's happening - David Gerard 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I fear I won't be at tomorrow's meet, as I said last Sunday - too much to do at home! - David Gerard 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmk56

Only so you have my opinion... I'm not sure how expert he is, though he's certainly a buff. Several times he has accused me of inserting "incorrect" information, then conceded it was accurate. Now he's impersonating a relative of Frances Farmer (user:GoldenBoy1 (and has been blocked at least 3x for impersonating my user ID). Personally (and you can see by my edit history that I've tried to assume good faith with him many times), I think his behaviour is due to something other than culture shock at the rough and tumble of WP. Wyss 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on User: Englishrose and User: RBlowes

I know this is gunna sound a strange request but please can you do a sock-puppet check for me (User: Englishrose) and User: RBlowes because we’ve repeatedly quite conveniently been accused of being sock-puppets and I feel that it is damaging my reputation. Thanks in advance. Englishrose 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

timecop

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

Arbcom vote

Your vote gave me a laugh—because the same thought had occurred to me, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that I'd displace James. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Apology

We are sorry for the 'hotrocks' (User:Hotrocks) vandalism - instead we agree to become good contributors - and we have decided that we don't get any entertainment out of it.
This is a genuine apology and we are sorry.
Apologies again,
--Hutracks 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Tommstein

Hello David,
  Since you've placed your vote on the aforementioned RfA, the user has accelerated his level of violating WP:DICK, a policy you might want to make known to him due to his taking offense at your usage of the term. Would you mind speaking to fellow admins who would be willing to vote on this RfA? In my own opinion, the sooner the better... however, it IS fun watching him dig himself in deeper and deeper... - CobaltBlueTony 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hexagonal (talk · contribs)

This guy is campaining against me and accusing me of sockpuppetary. He also has less than 50 edits. I believe him and the sockpuppets on WP:AGF are doings of User:MARMOT or User:Davenbelle or who knows. I have to handle too many peoples apathy.

I would like you to do a sockpuppet check on those.

Also check the "checkuser lite" idea on villige pump proposals page. --Cool Cat 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Another Neto rampage

Sorry to bang on, and you might actually already be aware, but we have a WP:OWN problem here. I know you have supported Neto in the past, but it now turns out that the main plank of his argument might not be as solid as was thought. Basically Brion has expressed surprise that people are invoking the mantra of "the servers can't take it" in their ongoing struggle against the template system: it certainly is not the combined opinion of the developers as a group. Neto's response ("He would say that wouldn't he" is possibly the low point but trawling all the way through the history is more than I can bear right now) has hardly been helpful, conciliatory or respectful. He is now, as I suggested, giving the appearance of a WP:OWN campaign, a situation which apparently is not a new one.

I'm posting this to you and to Raul654 in the hope that your combined wisdom might be brought to bear upon the situation before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Timecop indef block

• I would like to know why you blocked User:Timecop for being a "dickyrobert sockpuppet". What leads you to believe this? Is it because he used an open proxy that DickyRobert once used? Timecop uses proxies for a legit reason, as per his userpage (he cannot reach cogent-only peered hosts from his isp). Please respond. Thanks, Jmax 65.34.226.25 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me blocking him. If it's an open proxy that's blocked, too bad 'cos open proxies are shoot on sight. If Timecop's valuable contributions don't make it onto the wiki, I'd have to consider how I felt about that, given his valuable contributions to the encyclopedia project so far - David Gerard 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I feel that his ban is not legitimate, and I would like to know the proper channel to appeal it. Can you please tell me? Thanks, Jmax 65.34.226.25 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Velela

As Velela cannot respond himself because of the current block, he has asked me to respond on his behalf. I am a work colleague.

1. The problem - this issue arose because of one article Geoffrey Bolton which was slowly being improved but which one admin, User:Snottygobble took exception to. It remains , as of today, in its improved condition. A visitor to Velela's house, a respected UK geographer with strong links and much experience working in Australia and new to Misplaced Pages, asked whether he could also make an edit. An ID was created and he made a perfectly proper edit (which incidentally did not reference or revert to one of Velela's versions) Apparently because an admin believed that he owned the article he then promptly blocked Velela and all the other family accounts used at the same IP .

2. Misplaced Pages policy - there are no breaches of any policy here. There have been no examples of 3 reverts. There no sockpuppets (unless each PC can be used for only one account.) Even if they were sock-puppets there would have still been no breach of policy as multiple accounts are allowed, albeit reluctantly.

3. Reputation - I invite you to look at the edit record of Velela and the other accounts that have been blocked. There is nothing but good, well thought through, constructive edits, improving Wikepedia for the benefit of all. There is significant work on combatting vandalism. Were it a case of vandalism, in most cases a warning would be given before a block was imposed. That did not happen. Interestingly the block has now extended by a further 18hours - this is childish and only serves to diminish the reputation of Wikpedia.

4. Moving on - this seems to be an overt mis-use of a power by an admin because his article was being improved. An aoplogy to all the blocked users is in order and revertion of the edits made by Snottygobble advertising the blocks together with an immediate lifting of the blocks.

This completely fails to explain the other usernames Velela has been using to apparently fake consensus, or the strange fondness for point form. What on earth? - David Gerard 10:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Velela's version of events is:

Velela edits Geoffrey Bolton into point form and is reverted; a guest in Velela's house then logs in, coincidentally stumbles onto Geoffrey Bolton, coincidentally notices that Velela has a reverted edit in the page history, coincidentally shares Velela's preference for point form, and reverts to Velela's version; guest is reverted; another guest in Velela's house then creates an account which is coincidentally named "WA Bolton" after the state and surname of the person at issue; guest then coincidentally stumbles onto Geoffrey Bolton, coincidentally notices that Velela has a reverted edit in the page history; coincidentally shares Velela's preference for point form, and reverts to Velela's version.

Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 12:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm does benefit anybody. When introducing my guest to Misplaced Pages, inevitably he is sitting by my shoulder and takes an interest in one artcile that I am editing because he has an great interest in Australia. Do you not have freinds or guests in your houses  ? - perhaps not.87.112.12.15 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Absolutely astonishing! When my children were little this kind of coincidence was always occurring to them. Mischievous ponies would appear and smear jam on the carpet while the adults were otherwise occupied, Hordes of screaming monkeys would appear from nowhere and chew train tickets to a saliva-moistened pulp while everybody was asleep. Naughty bunny rabbits would deface library books with my children's names and in a fair imitation of their handwriting. Despite extensive investigations, not one of the culprits was ever apprehended. Oh look, I think I see one now! Up by the menu bar! Is there a statute of limitations on the crimes of imaginary friends? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Trigger happy?

I realize it is not easy to simplify and clarify NPOV, but I rather liked my version. The paragraph you reinserted seems to endorse original research. The section I want deleted is redundant. How about an explanation? Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view Bensaccount 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet candidate or troll

• Take a look at the contributions:
• This user has been "spamming" categories with no logical connection. Thats his entier contribution aside from campaigning against my rfa by posting at Misplaced Pages talk:Esperanza and several talk pages.
• He writes stuff like:

== Cool Cat ==
Hello DMN 
I write on German
Ich glaube du kanst deutsch gut ich hofe sehr.
der benutzer CoolCat ist ein türkische Nationalist er hat sich sehr agresiv für die Löschung der kategori Kuristan engagisiert. 
Coll Cat is an Turkish Nationalis .--] 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

From the Requests for Unprotection: This has been protected for a couple of days now. I think there's enough discussion on the talkpage to ensure edits made without consensus will not last long on this page, jguk 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks, David. Hopefully discussions will take place on the talk page rather than through revert wars now. If not, I'll concede defeat and ask for re-protection. Keep up the good work on AfD - at some stage banging your head against the brick wall will cause it to come tumbling down:) jguk 13:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Socket puppet in use as support

Hi David can you please check this out.

Can someone do a sockpuppet check on the anon and R0m? They both started posting around the same day in the same areas. I suspect there's a good reason the two of them agree. (Though of course it could just be R0m and a friend.) R0m, provide examples of "cunt" used as a pronoun. You have not yet. We will continue to your next point when you have (or when you've revised your position; as you prefer). —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Can't refrain from commenting - this guy sounds rather uncouth to me) Arno 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:R0m and scoket User:210.84.41.100 are the same peroson User R0m was previously signing this socket as R0m. this is based on contribs by both R0m 1st post was after 0900 hrs 26 januARY 2006. THIS WAS REVERTED. after 1400hr saem day socket 210.84.41.100 entered the discussion supporting R0m. edits prior to 26th by socket 210.84.41.100 were signed R0m. Gnangarra 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Australian_English"

Thank you Gideon

The deletion tarpit

As you're probably aware, modifications to AFD have been discussed for at least half a year. Thus, it's about time that something is done about it. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion, which is basically "delete any article unless anyone objects to that". The intent is to go live within a week, to at least offer an alternative rather than debate the issue to death once more.

This should take about 80% of the load off AFD, doesn't leave the insulting logfiles that Jimbo complained about, and makes it easy to counter loaded words such as "vanity". Your comments would be appreciated, and since I'm not much of a mailing lister please notify the wikien-l if you think it useful. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmail

Hello,

Apparently Gmail needs some kind of invitation code. Can you provide one? Please gpg encrypt (key here) and post the encrypted invitation code on my talk page. -- Curps 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Timecop 'sock Puppet'.

To quote from a note I sent to another user, Ta bu shi da yu:

I'm writing to you about a user that you have banned, Timecop. Timecop's user page has a list of several 'backers', most, if not all of which are banned as suspected 'sock puppets', etc. One exception is User:Viscid. Viscid claims to be herpetic, has made virtually no contributions other than to support Timecop, and all in all looks suspiciously like another 'sock puppet'. Could this ID be looked into, please?

Regards, Arno 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

-Ril-

I agree that being from BT isn't much evidence. However, both -Ril- and CheeseDreams mostly edited fairly obscure pages related to New Testament apocrypha. Looking through the page histories of these articles there seems to be only one BT user with a long term IP who edits such pages. Both -Ril- and CheeseDreams seem to have a problem with their cookies, and get logged out by accident while editing, leaving quite a trail of such IPs. Their set up also seems to keep an IP for several days or even weeks. By going through the relevant page histories I've been able to piece together the series of IP addresses the -Ril-/CheeseDreams computer was assigned this summer. It is quite clear that this is one user, the time frames never overlap, and there is never more than one such address editing in these areas:

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

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

Yeah. But the conflict style is totally different IMO. CheeseDreams is so bugfuck crazy I can't imagine her toning it down that far, and -Ril- acts completely differently when pissed off. This is just my subjective opinion FWIW - David Gerard 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Don't underestimate the ability of such editors to adapt. Consider DW, who was about as nasty an editor as we have had, but one of his recent manifestations edited heavily for almost a year before being noticed and banned. - SimonP 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some nice little pieces of evidence:

• How many users incorrectly write "r.v." with a period when reverting someone, when the term is an abbreviation for a single word and simply "rv" is the standard? CheeseDreams did routinely (, , , , ), so does -Ril- (, , , , ).
• How many users write "P.s." in edit summaries, and unusally always have the 's' in lower case? CheeseDreams did (, , , , ), so has -Ril- (, ) - SimonP 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka situation

I was always fine with her just leaving me alone so we could mutually ignore each other, but her actions were clearly out of line. Unfortunately, thanks to the intervention of other admins and editors also trying to get back for perceived slights in the past, she now probably thinks that what she did was perfectly fine and that she was justified. USer:Alkivar absolutely should not have modified the block, as he is an admin who has hassled me in the past and was already actively trying to help Elonka with her in progress RFC. Furthermore, her website attacks and her attacks on me, all while making ultimatums that anything she considers an attack on her be removed from any page where it happens is simply unacceptable, and she needs to know that that willnever fly. Unfortunately User:Hipocrite has taken it upon himself to try to remove them for her, starting with Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68. Another editor left a message on my talk page implying he would also go around removing the things she objected to if I OKed it, which I certainly do not, but I did not check yet if he o someone else had done so already. We cannot cave to the complaints of an editor making such ridiculous demands, because if this works, precedent will ahve been set and then every editor for all time will be arguing to have "attacks" removed from all pages..

I don;t know that you banning her wsa quite what I or Bishonene had in mind when the ocmplaint was brought up, but the undoing of all blocks as if it she had done nothing wrong at all sends completely the wrong message. People need to know that harassment in unacceptable and whining about old comments is counterproductive. DreamGuy 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I've requested a username change. I'll let you know if my brother's computer is still blocked when I hear from him. Regforafd 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Domo Arigato in advance

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

Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs)

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

Erwin Walsh (talk · contribs)

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

Re:Regforafd

Yeah, he e-mailed me too a bit ago, but I just told him that if he was in an AGF situation, that he should just start up with a new name and not participate in deletion debates for 50-100 edits or so. If he can participate appropriately and transparently, I have no issues, the last time it was just so fishy that there was no other option. Karmafist 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review:

I'm done with Elonka entirely - she's proven to me that she's not helpful to the encyclopedia, so I'm done. Please review and take whatever action you consider appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)