Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 11 December 2005

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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

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

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

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it. ArbCom stuff, please mention what it's about in the header. m:CheckUser requests (sockpuppet checks, etc) need to be about ArbCom-related matters for me to do the check.

CheckUser is working again in MediaWiki 1.5 — so I'll have to find time to check the backlog. Note that for now, I'll only likely do checks if there's a plausible link to an ArbCom case, past or present. Leave requests here, or you can frequently catch me on IRC or via email.

St. Volodymyr's Cathedral

Dear David,

I would like to bring your attention to the article on St. Volodymyr's Cathedral. Less than two weeks ago this was a nicely-written article about the Cathedral, about the architecture, mosaics, frescoes, the history how the Cathedral was built etc. (see the last version of 00:03, 20 October 2005 by Mzajac )

At 15:06, 22 October 2005 User:Kuban kazak decided to use this preaty neutral and nice article to push his POV that is far from being neutral (see his contribution ). This stared a long-lasting edit war.

Even if his insertion were neutral (this was definitelly not the case) this is a serious question whether it's legal to use architecture, art, music etc. articles for advertising (or bringing attention to) political issues. Does it improve the Misplaced Pages content? Does it make the work of editors more productive? Is it not an abuse of Misplaced Pages for propaganda purposes?

It looks like this is a more broad question. Inserting political stuff into initially quite neutral, nice and popular articles is quite common in Misplaced Pages. I admit that the question is not simple. Sometimes political stuff is important and the article looks incomplete without it. But in most cases the political stuff is irrelevant and just force the reader to spend his/her time for reading the information s/he was not actually looking for. In my opinion, a serious discussion is needed. What's your opinion?

It would be indeed nice to protect the article in its politics-free form until the discussion is over.

On the other hand, if User:Kuban kazak and Irpen consider the political stuff important they can write a separate article on the subject. Is it not a reasonable compromize? It would be however nice if somebody of experienced and respectable users would explain Irpen and Kuban kazak, that it is extremely important to base the Misplaced Pages articles on creadible sources and to avoid any propaganda issues.--AndriyK 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

open proxies

Re: 145.253.87.106 and 203.130.225.34 (from AN/I) used by the anagram vandal, I notice these are listed as transparent proxies rather than anonymous proxies. When it comes to blocking open proxies, do we or should we make any distinction? -- Curps 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If they're for use by all comers and we can't see the IP, no. We only trust the X-Forwarded-From: header in particular cases (e.g. NTL) - David Gerard 11:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Freenode discussion

Hi David,

Just giving you the latest update. Freenode apparently is interested in helping us out in anyway that they can. They stated that they "try to not get involved in channel-related problems" but this problem is of sufficiant severity that they would like to help. Don't know what they can do, but it is definitely a starter. Linuxbeak | Talk 13:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, I can't see what they can do either (except a particularly tedious game of whack-a-mole). But the AC has also been made aware - David Gerard 13:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

There has been some recent thought that certain templates should always be subst'ed, and a list is being compiled with the intent of having a bot automatically subst all those templates. The two main reasons are article stability, and server load. Since you're one of the main contributors to WP:AUM, it would be appreciated if you could give your opinion on this. The relevant page is Misplaced Pages:Subst. Radiant_>|< 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Anagram vandal

It has been pointed out to me that the anagram vandal, who has been disruptive on Úbeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Schnorrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Schnorrer (Yiddish) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could well be NoPuzzleStranger (an anagram of Gzornenplatz), a recognised sock of Wik. Does the middle of this history page give enough evidence to carry out the check on the basis that is in connexion with the evasion of a hard ban? --Gareth Hughes 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Past instances of the anagram vandal have looked very Wik-like, given (a) it's a bot (b) the edits are Wik favourites (country templates and so forth) - that's quite enough to look. Bet it's all open proxies though - David Gerard 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to restrict Wik's access to editing WP? The current state is that these three articles are protected because of this vandal. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately not - basically, if you really want to edit Misplaced Pages it's pretty much impossible to stop you (without closing the wiki off to far too many people). There have been discussions of, e.g., using captchas to impede vandalbots - David Gerard 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Agriculture

I am not accusing, just requesting clarification as I got an email from a rather angry user (Agriculture) that he was accused of using a sockpuppet account for bad reasons and that the evidence is that the IP's are from the same city, one from office and one from home, and that the edits were similar. I thought checkuser was only a positive ID'er if the sock and main account came from the same IP...what city (or at least what size in terms of population) and what situation are we talking about. I am more than willing to concede that your evaluation is correct, but an concerned about it's margin of error based on the results of what I mentioned above. I may not chime back in for a day or two so you can enlighten me (if you even want to) at your convienence...Thanks!--MONGO 00:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

His evaluation is pure and utter bullshit. Personally I don't care at all either. Look at his manipulation of comments here, I've put it up on my user page. Misplaced Pages is dirty. I rocked the boat, so they made up charges and nailed me to the wall. I'm only coming back to post this for your sake MONGO, as you e-mailed me, let me make it clear: I don't want to be a part of a community that acts like this guy and Tony Sidaway. I'm coming back to warn you MONGO, don't push this any further or you'll find him accusing you of being a sock. These guys stoop to whatever level they feel they can just to be sure they get what they want. Don't push them, or they'll push back hard and put you in your place. It's a secret police force that makes up whatever charges they see fit. Agriculture 01:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And for you David, no I'm not leaving because I was "found out" or some such bullshit, I am leaving because dicks like you make up whatever fucking claims they want to attack their enemies, or the enemies of their friends. You dicked with my comments here to color the argument too, so I can't believe anyone doesn't see you for who you really are. But like I said, you win, and I quit. I came back solely because MONGO e-mailed me, and he's one of the few people here with an ounce of decency. I'm leaving because you and your Cabal have won. You've made it very clear that you're willing to make up whatever shit you see fit just to get your way. Well, I can't fight a bunch of Secret Police who have all the power while I'm just a lowly user, so I'm packing up my bags and leaving. Your plan of harassment worked. I hope you feel special. Why you left me unblocked when you blocked the dude filing the RfAr I have no idea. Thats probably the only thing I'm still curious about. Not curious enough to stick around though. You can have this POS you like to call an encyclopedia. It sure as hell won't ever really be one while stuff like this happens. Agriculture 01:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to slam me with an infinite block. You know you want to. Agriculture 01:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One has to keep in mind that sockpuppetry tends only to be checked on when the users are already suspected of being the same person - the edit style is primary, IP evidence is extra. In this case, the editing styles and subjects of interest are identical and being in the same city is enough of a match to nail it. This has also been exhaustively dissected on WP:ANI - David Gerard 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit style is identical you say and the IP is extra? I'll have to do a read through WP:ANI and see what you're talking about. I doubt Agriculture's current contributions to Misplaced Pages are of any great value (sorry Agriculture) but don't yet agree that accusations against him based on malicious sockpuppet use, based on the evidence, substantiates the end result of driving a person out of this forum. If we're talking about a city of many people as opposed to say, "Pigs Knuckle, Oklahoma" then there is a pretty big margin of error that may be possible. Before I go further, I'll read up on WP:ANI as it will surely enlighten me.--MONGO 14:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I took you up on your challenge...

I wanted to let you know that I took you up on the "rework crappy prose" challenge that you posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Project Galatea and edited 10 random articles this morning. Most of the changes I made were relatively small, but the stumper was Anti-Neoism. That took a while, and I'm still not sure if I did the right thing or not! Mamawrites 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

:-D

I must admit when I do it, I'll find one horrible article I'll get stuck on. If you're not sure your rewording hasn't distorted facts, ask one of the other editors on the article to look it over - David Gerard 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another vandal sock?

• User:Whiterabbit0 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Interesting choice of target for first edit, rather ideosyncratic wording. I shan't trouble you with a list of suspects. By their fruits shall ye know them (Matt 7:16). --Tony Sidaway 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Many of those wikilawyering on checkuser use or not are forgetting that the primary sock-detection mechanism is the characteristic editing style. IP matches or whatever are just extras - David Gerard 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You will be unsurprised it appears to be an open proxy, at least at the moment - David Gerard 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Bahn Mi / User:GRider

Can you check up Bahn Mi who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of GRider (see the archived WP:ANI). If you check the block log you will see he has been blocked twice for violating GRider's ban on editing deletion related pages. I brought up the concern with Bahn Mi here, but chose not to block then. Even if Bahn Mi is a sockpuppet of GRider, it is certainly not an outright abusive sockpuppet, after reviewing the edits he looks like a sincere contributor with good edits to the main article namespace. Nor am I entirely sure that Bahn Mi is a sock, and if it can be confirmed that it is not, he can contribute to deletion related pages without running afoul of blocks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

GRider's IP data fell out of the recentchanges table long ago, and I'd have thought Radman1 would have given up running sockpuppet armies after the school deletion issue having more or less been resolved the way he wanted. The user's name is "ban me" ... - David Gerard 13:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see. Is User:Bahn Mi banned (suspected sockpuppet whose name says "ban me") or not banned (assume good faith) from deletion related discussions? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, Tony Sidaway unblocked him. His edits appear well-behaved. I don't actually know if he's Radman1/GRider still at it. If it is he's being very careful with his edits. I don't feel righteous fire to pursue him to the ends of the earth, if that's what you're asking; I can't be bothered myself FWIW - David Gerard 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking because if Bahn Mi is not banned, then any blocks levied against him for editting deletion related pages should be immediately lifted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm checking right now to see what if anything matches between Radman1 (which looks like the only active account of the GRider sockpuppet theatre and, since he's a known real person who actually has a Misplaced Pages article about him, is presumably the sockpuppeteer) and Bahn Mi. OTOH, CheckUser is not magical pixie dust and really determined sockpuppeting could evade it relatively easily - David Gerard 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No positive matches, but no negative ones either. (Interestingly, a negative match would be much stronger evidence of innocence.) - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

How certain is the GRider-Radman1 connection? Does GRider's deletion-related page ban carry over to Radman, then? —Cryptic (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Definite - he slipped up and used the same IP in the same session as one of his definite sockpuppet army. (I have the smoking gun details somewhere on an old laptop, unless I trashed them in one of the several reformattings since then.) 2. I can't see that anyone's been bothered, and it has been several months. I'd have hoped he'd have had the good grace to back out of doing this sort of thing, and I haven't seen hard evidence he has done it again. You should certainly discuss the matter with Radman1 before taking action. I don't see much point in vicious proceduralism myself - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

More Agriculture/The Chief stuff

Good morning! I've been emailed a few times by TheChief, which is why I'm here. Again, he claims not to be a sockpuppet, and that his edits must overlap at some point with Agriculture's. I've done 2 5-day samples and, well, they don't seem to. However, another idea popped into my head- please hear me out and let me know what you think. My idea is that since a) Agriculture is far more abusive than TheChief, b) Agriculture has declared his intention to leave, while TheChief claims to want precisely the opposite, would it be a good idea for me to change the account being indefinitely blocked from TheChief to Agriculture? From our POV, we'd probably rather have him in the account that shows less venom, and from his POV it allows him to walk away with his pride intact; he'll have a new account that he likes without (some) of the baggage of his Agriculture account. Oh, and from my POV, it'll eliminate that little tiny thought that maybe he's not a sockpuppet, even though I'm fairly certain he is. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Scimitar 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can be bothered, then probably. I'd suggest emailing both addresses to sort out which is to be treated as the "main" account then block the other one - David Gerard 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey

David, if you have a problem with me I would appreciate it if you would talk or mail me about it, rather than making snide remarks all over the wiki. I'm sure it's possible to invent hidden agendas behind any of my actions, but the simple facts are that I unblocked Agriculture because, in spite of your description of TheChief as an attack sockpuppet, I could find no personal attacks in TheChief's history; and that I nominated Aaron for adminship because he recently had me (and iirc, you as well) thinking that he already was one. I've told him that it would likely fail, and he wanted to proceed anyway. It's not my job to protect people from themselves. Radiant_>|< 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And the email to the AC, and the ridiculous RFC before that, and the ridiculous block before that, and the weeks leading up to all this, certainly closely resemble an obsession on your part. But yes, I should probably have said so on your talk page first - David Gerard 18:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

An email to the arbitration committee? <raised eyebrows> Why Radiant, I never knew you cared! :) --Tony Sidaway 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda again

Sorry to bug you again on the same topic, but can you take yet another look at the history of Úbeda and check the IPs? The last two IPs you gave for similar anagram vandalism at Sealand (145.253.87.106 and 203.130.225.34) are listed as transparent proxies, which means we ought to have an underlying IP reported. Of course the latter could be bogus or fictitious if the transparent proxy operator isn't honest, but he jumps through several different proxies as each sock name is blocked, so if different proxies report the same underlying IP, and if we ourselves test the proxy and it reports a correct underlying IP instead of a bogus or fictitious one, then we probably know his real IP address and ISP with reasonable certainty. This case certainly does call for reporting a ToS (Terms of Service) violation to his ISP.

It's especially problematic because this vandal isn't doing "defacement" vandalism; rather, he's taking one side in an editing dispute (which happens to be the same side that other users such as myself take), so many admins and users don't automatically revert him as we would for simple vandalism... it's a bit much to ask us to revert to a version we don't actually agree with. This makes the vandal's actions all the more harmful because this cheating poisons any possibility of real debate or consensus. In the future vandals could use this technique to torpedo an edit they oppose by cheating in "support" of it, with the goal of hardening opinions and swaying neutral voters against it (this could even conceivably be the case here).

This is the sort of disruptive behavior that if left unchecked will threaten the very basis of how Misplaced Pages works, which is why I would urge you to publicly reveal any IP-related information that can be obtained for the Úbeda sock edits, in full accordance and compliance with item 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. -- Curps 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this. If you agree with this guy's edits, what's the problem? Why do you claim that he's not editing in good faith? --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the article history? Abusive use of throwaway single-use sockpuppets to evade 3RR, and the sockpuppet usernames are usually anagrams or similar of the last user who reverted him. This is somehow good faith? -- Curps 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be Wik, using a bot to fulfill one of his obsessions. Curps - I'll look, but I betcha they're open proxies again (it's possible the many complaints to T-Online are having an effect ... of making him not use his dialup) - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any actions here. I don't have experience in matters like this and I'm not familiar with the history of the suspect. But as a point of terminology isn't there some better word for what Kolokol has been doing at Úbeda than vandalism? I would prefer to reserve that word to mean narrowly "clearly detrimental edits to an article" - which is not what's happening here. The behavior is disruptive and silly but it's not exactly vandalism - as shown, for example, by the fact that it's the version of the difficult user that's been protected! :) Again, I'm not questioning anything you're doing, I just wonder if anyone knows a more precise word. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Abusive sockpuppetry" -- Curps 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin advice

Hello again. Quick question. I blocked Boothy443 (talk · contribs) a while ago for violating 3RR (multiple times). He since used Cisum6cbb (talk · contribs) (CheckUser most likely not necessary, as this was so obviously his sockpuppet I was astounded) to continue the edit war. Cisum6cbb was blocked for 24 hours for block evasion. I'm tempted to extend that to indefinite as an abusive sockpuppet. I'm also tempted to extend the block on Boothy's account for some amount of time, as a result of the sockpuppeteering and continued edit warring. What do you think is proper here? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I usually block abused socks indefinitely and block the sockpuppeteer 24-48 hours. A note on WP:ANI would probably be appropriate - David Gerard 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That what I was thinking too. Have done so. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Boot to the head

Yeah, I was aiming some kicks at you the other day for hypocrisy. You probably don't recall because I'm sure you get abused by a much better class on vandal than me all the time. Regardless, in the interim you've made it clear on WP:ANI that you'll sniff the packet of whomever you like and if we don't like it, rough.
Well, I actually don't like it but I do respect your stance. Thus will a bow and a spit, I formally withdraw all charges of hypocrisy. Not that you probably care, but hey, credit where it is due. And for the record, I'd strongly support farming out checkuser to every third admin's dog, but would want it to be logged whever someone uses it. Especially you, I see those shifty eyes and I know you're up to no good.

Also, could you possibly examine User talk:Nichalp#Template talk where I try to convince him that a transcluded sig is a small but pointless drain? I've made a lot of hand-waving without really knowing what I was talking about, so some real facts probably couldn't hurt him, or me for that matter. Thanks.

But by the way, not only is this a type of Gnomic, everything is. brenneman 12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I still can hardly believe someone called me "modest" earlier on this page ...

There is no firm law that transclusion is so evil it must be wiped from the face of the earth; WP:AMT sets out the case against templates-in-templates, but even then it's only "avoid" rather than "verboten". I find weird-arse templated sigs irritating ... you'd have to ask a dev. Probably posting a precise question to wikitech-l (subscription required) would get a sensible response.

Having provably gotten the Agriculture/TheChief one wrong (see WP:ANI#Double-checking_DG), I have sent out for several crates of humble pie. (Though I think it's pretty clear they're in close communication.) So you will be pleased to know there are more CheckUser users on the way very soon - David Gerard 12:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I had thought you were a dev in all but name. Clearly I must now nominate you as one. As to the other, I promise to experiance no more and no less Schadenfreude than I would if my dearest friend had made the same mistake. That is to say, lots.
brenneman 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Tim Starling has intimated he has plans for me. He said this in the same way that I have been when I've been marking someone six months ahead of time as a good Arb Com candidate (we've been burning them out at a stupid rate), so my fear is very real ... welcome to Misplaced Pages, where your reward for a job well done is another three jobs - David Gerard 13:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Persistant Republican Sinn Féin vandal/sockpuppet

Hi David. Some has suggested that I contact you regarding an anonymous user who for the past few months has been POVing the following pages: Republican Sinn Féin, Continuity IRA, Fianna Éireann, Tom Maguire and others. I have gathered the ISPs he uses at the page User:217.43.172.38. I'd appreciate your help in sorting out this problem and would be interested if there is a registered user operating from the same ISPs. --Damac 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Can you use edit summaries on WP:AN/I? Your posts there are almost always worth reading, but I generally have to use a diff to find them. :-p --GraemeL 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes, I shall :-) - David Gerard 17:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi David,

You're rather difficult to get in contact with on occasions ;-) Could you send me an email indicating who the potential new checkuser people are? Thanks, Linuxbeak | Talk 16:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It'll be five of the arbitrators who can tell one end of an IP number from the other. I asked that you and Fvw get it too, but for now you'll have to send the requests through us ;-) This is not idyllic, but it was the best quick compromise between a need for checkers now and the lack of a decent Foundation policy on how to give out this potentially explosive power (Anthere told us some hair-raising examples of real-life requests for terrible reasons that make the Board's reluctance very understandable). The eventual policy will be based on the one at m:Proposed CheckUser Policy, we expect. It's had most of the rough edges hammered off it - David Gerard 17:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I understand the reluctance of the board giving that power to other users, and I can't say they're not correct. From what I am getting from reading your response, you're indicating that checkuser for me is not "no", but "not at this moment". Is that correct? Linuxbeak | Talk 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not "no", but "not for the foreseeable future," I suspect. As noted above, keep doing work at Wikimedia stuff and being the soul of wikipolitics and the reward for a job well done will usually be three more jobs ;-) - David Gerard 17:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, fair enough. Looks like I need to start rubbing more elbows ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for being just and fair in your final evaluation of the evidence. I had no doubt you would eventually come to understand the truth of the matter. Two issues still concern me, however, and I was wondering if perhaps you could help me in these areas.

1. You call me a "poisonous user". I do not believe I have breached WP:NPA, or WP:FAITH, and I have tried to be both positive and constructive in all of my dealings here on Misplaced Pages. What is it that I have done to earn this label? If you could help me identify any problems I am having with policy, or general decorum, I would greatly appreciate the effort on your part for the purposes of improving my compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, policy, and suggestions.
2. It seems to me that perhaps there is a need for guarenteed formal hearings and public accounting for charges such as the one leveled against me. As I had no guarenteed avenue through which I could seek the recusal of the charges against me I was forced to rely on both the kindness and motivation of generous users on my behalf. While undoubtedly the end result proves that Wikipedians are top notch citizens of the internet with this regard, I would like to persue a course of action which would implement a forum for formal hearings, presentation of charges, etc, so that if another is ever put in my position they will not feel so helpless and trampled.

Once again I want to thank you for your sense of justice and your sense of decency. I appreciate your efforts in the review of my case and in addressing the issues I have enumerated above, if you have the time to help me with them. TheChief (PowWow) 16:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Time for the checkup :-D

Hi David, it's me again.

I think it's time to do the sockcheck again to mine some more data. Remember the e-mail I sent you? ..heh, now i'm sounding like I'm in the cabal :o Linuxbeak | Talk 20:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Haukur's RFA

Thank you for supporting my nomination till the end, for using admin cliché number one on me and for using an environment variable in your support vote. Keep up your good work and friendly attitude. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

There are loads of dead external links on this page. Perhaps just one link to the main page would suffice. --Spondoolicks 10:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They're actually a list of papers by the AdTI. Probably better to comment out the URLs but leave the papers listed. Or find copies on archive.org - David Gerard 11:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

More anagram socks

I blocked a number of abusive sockpuppets evading 3RR, if possible it might be worthwhile to run checkuser to block some open proxies. I'd really rather not get involved with open proxy blocking, hopefully fvw might consider resuming it. PS, he's not actually using anagrams much anymore, but it's quite obviously the same person (see User:Agraman, for instance, an anagram of "anagram"). -- Curps 10:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Fantastic Door and "Hotrocks" IP 82.42.151.164

Update: Never mind , blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 19:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not long ago, you did checkuser to discover the IP 82.42.151.164 of a sock vandal and blocked it for 3 months. A few days ago, User:Fantastic Door contacted Antandrus, stated this was his IP and that he was an innocent user affected by the block. Antandrus unblocked, but there's a couple of problems: Fantastic Door has created a few socks including "Fantastic Door on Wheels", and his home page has a very familiar photo of the obese mice on Obesity. He also wants Fantastic Door on Wheels unblocked (he says it's a doppelganger to prevent impersonation, but it's not clear why he would need it unblocked... why would he need to edit with it). Anyways, I've reblocked for 24 hours, could you take a look and either unblock or reapply the longer block? Thanks. -- Curps 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reapplied the longer block for 82.42.151.164 though, perhaps I should leave that to you... did he use it in his latest edits, is it more or less exclusively him? Perhaps you can discover a few other sockpuppets using checkuser. -- Curps 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Aranda56 and "Mexican G" vandal who abuses him and others

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mexican_G.27s_sockpuppetry. The abusive vandal has used the same AOL IP as Aranda 56, which perhaps means the vandal is geographically close to him (same city, same neighborhood?). Although it may be difficult to get information regarding AOL proxies, perhaps checkuser might turn up something useful. Perhaps someone fairly high up at Misplaced Pages (not an ordinary admin) might try contacting AOL about this, just in case. -- Curps 02:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mail

Dear David, i sent you an email with some questions about check user. muriel@pt 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My reply

You have my reply, sir. Respectfully,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mystery meat

Hi. I also like to simplify links as per the Principle of Least Astonishment. Here's the edit summary I use:

Simplified some links as per the ]

So now you have an actual Misplaced Pages style guideline to back you up. --P3d0 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fred Negro

Fred Negro, an independent musician from Melbourne, is currently listed at Articles for Deletion. A couple of voters have asked for input from Australians. My understanding is that you have a very good level of knowledge about the Australian independent music scene especially from the 1970s and 1980s so I thought I would drop you a line and see if you were in a position to comment.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Twoversions

Please remove the protection you placed on this template, so the blanking can be undone and the proper Tfd notice added; otherwise the very applicability in the debate is questionable (as many people may not notice that a TFD has been created for it). I want to say that it seems you are an interested party to the issue of the deletion, and your out of process protection and blanking seem highly inappropriate -- as the template itself is not clearly POV in any manner, and it is possible that it could be fixed.

Your opinion that it does violate POV is one thing, but this doesn't mean that it is appropriate to ignore the Deletion policy or Page protection policy, in a case that is not clean cut at all.

Allow for the opportunity that sometimes problems can be solved, don't just blindly press delete. --Mysidia (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahem...

We need to talk. Vote tampering, sockpuppetry, and other goodies. Catch me on IRC later. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

(in response to 'hey' above, since I was away for a couple of days)

Okay, I can understand how it may seem obsessive, so allow me to explain a bit. My opinion of Tony is that he is generally a good admin, but one who has some problems with civility. This has lead to disputes in the past. These disputes tend to get aggravated by the existence of 1) a group of people who have lost all faith in him and wish him deopped ASAP, and 2) a group of people that are so impressed with him that they consider any criticism of him to be a personal attack. Of course neither of those opinions is particularly constructive, and both groups have a tendency of assuming neutral people belong to the opposite group. This in itself has occasionally lead to furhter disputes.

By my book, both RFC and RFAr are forms of dispute resolution, not petitions for punishment. And that is precisely what I have tried to do recently - to resolve a controversial dispute, mainly by bringing it into the open rather than letting it fester. Since my wikitime is limited these days, I haven't seen yet if it helped or not, but I certainly hope so. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I know him in person, and the same words you see on the wiki sound completely different heard in his voice. I think your RFC has brought Tony awareness of how his reactions can look to people he's disagreeing with, and communicating successfully even when you're completely at odds with people is pretty much required around here. I expect he'll continue to take controversial action as he sees fit (keeping in mind the nature of IAR, i.e. a stick of dynamite), but will probably explain himself better ;-) - David Gerard 11:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm really happy to hear that. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 00:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hotrocks redux

BOWCLOCKER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new instance of the "hotrocks" vandal (the same interest in Greater Manchester and WoW). Perhaps he's found a new place to access Misplaced Pages from. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk and Sortan

Hi David. I did leave you a message on IRC, but it seems you aren't around. As it is, could you just verify what I have written at to put my mind at rest? Much obliged, ] 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Joan of Arc mediation

64.12.116.197 and Mr. Ballard are thought to be the same editor, and are engaged in a POV dispute at the article. "In the opinion of some editors this is anonymous editing from User:Awilliamson, a banned editor." (User:HAJARS) Could you please check it out so we can either enforce a ban or get on with Mediation? Much thanks in advance, -St|eve 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard's law

For an insightful comment you made recently, you have earned yourself a law. →Raul654 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks, and I'll do that (e-mail you). I have to get a new e-mail address. Ryland 16:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

You can now e-mail me. Pass it on to User:Kyla, User:Pimp Juice, and User:Cool Cat please. Bye! Ryland 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...

Hey there =) Sorry about erasing your comment on Kelly Martin's RfB. I didn't even notice =x TDS 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! And Mac OS X it always will be... Ramallite 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sysop vandalism & Official vandalism

According to the tab Sysop vandalism is not protected. Also you may want to put in {{deletedpage}} tag. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are of course correct. Thank you! - David Gerard 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem.

I need a sockcheck on User:Elyk53. I think I know who it is, but I just want to make sure. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Magic 8-Ball says: "WELL DUH." No actual IP matches, but the physical location of the IP combines with the edit pattern to make it bloody obvious - David Gerard 22:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Password Request Troll

I just got eight e-mails that someone from IP 152.163.100.131 had requested a new password for my account, starting at 10 Nov 2005 21:57:14 GMT. I think it's AOL but I figured that if you're looking for this person I suppose any info helps. Radiant_>|< 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Gmail

I've noticed you removed http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com for a very good reason.

G-mail is known for filtering spam and I love that feature.

But don't mix spam with marketing. And don't mix marketing with information.

That link was actually a good point of view of the bad side of gmail. If we want to be enciclopedic I believe providing good and bad aspects about something is actually good for achieving the goal.

I believe it's a good link to be there, it wasn't spamatic in the article itself, since it was in the right place.

--Cawas 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, no worries about putting it back - I was just cleaning up after the latest Brandt rampage. If a good editor puts their name on the edit that's just fine - David Gerard 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Autoblocking Weirdness

Hello again. Although we met under less than friendly circumstances, you seem fair-minded and fairly mighty in the matter of socking sockpuppets. Ansbachdragoner seems to have been the victim of some weirdness involving Sockpuppetry, IP masking and other assorted Scheiße. His account may have been compromised. I'm not even sure if the one who posted on his talk page is really him. Please see if you can help sort out this mess. Thanks and best regards, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Autoblock's gone now - he should be fine to edit (until of course whoever the silly person is has more fun with imitation usernames) - David Gerard 08:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance and info. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Web graffiti

Hi David, what is going on with that article? Did you intent to use {{deletedpage}} for it? If yes, where can I find the AfD discussion that authorized its deletion? Why has this not been listed to Misplaced Pages:Protected pages? I think that protected blank pages are a bad idea; if they don't make sense to me, they certainly confuse newbies as well (and are a nuisance during short pages patrol). Regards, jni 08:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pages created and pretty much only edited by hard-banned users are CSD. I used {{deletedpage}} because it's a favourite topic of 142's - David Gerard 08:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Super Cool Vandalbot

You're probably already aware of this, but in case you're not, please take a look at 63.19.198.0 (talk · contribs), 63.19.134.103 (talk · contribs) and 63.19.128.32 (talk · contribs) who all exhibit the same strange behavior, to wit a dozen sandbox edits followed by a warning on ANI regarding the vandalbot. Radiant_>|< 17:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SIGN

David, you mentioned on the suggestions page that you would be interested on commented on the checkuser story. Feel free to do so now, though I'll assure you I'll do my best to make sure the story will be unbiased and accurate. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 15:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Commented on story talk page! - David Gerard 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! By the way, have you considered archiving your talk page? It took a mighty long time to load... Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing it monthly! - David Gerard 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser board?

Now that there are a group of new Checkusers, do you think it'd be useful to create a central page (e.g. WP:AN/CU) where others could go to request a check on an alleged sockpuppet, and to hear the result (or, of course, hear "request denied" if inappropriate)? Or would that be overdoing it? Radiant_>|< 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser list up

My email is Tomasz.Wegrzanowski gmail.com Taw 08:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikien-l moderation task

An individual claimed (through an email to HelpDesk-l) public defamation by Misplaced Pages from certain correspondence on Misplaced Pages. Indeed, seemingly defamatory emails (that he claims will cause him reputation damage) such as appear in the first few search results when searching for his name. In order to clearly avoid being sued, please remove from the archive (HelpDesk as well, if possible) all relevant emails mentioning this complainant (W.C. - I'd rather not cause him more concern by his name appearing elsewhere). I'd also appreciate it if you let me know when that's done (if it's possible). Many many thanks. jnothman 15:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the power to remove email from the archive - David Gerard 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone? Unlike Misplaced Pages pages, these can't be publicly changed, and could contain defamatory material, which, being stored on Wikimedia's servers and made public, could be the subject of legal issues. Please forward me or this complaint to relevant persons (system admins?), if possible. jnothman 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at the linked email, and I'm having trouble seeing what is defamatory there. Pretty much it seems to be saying that he's not in Misplaced Pages because he's not very well known and doesn't seem to have any IMDB credits, and that we tend to frown on self-promotional articles. I don't see what isn't fair criticism–mild, at that–or plain unvarnished truth. The fact that a Google search for his name pulls our mailing list entries as the fourth site hit seems to support the notion that he hasn't made it big. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree; and yet some of the comments on the Wikien email are clearly made to mock him: if it were you, trying to get a job, and someone did a character check on you by googling your name, it's probably not the nicest thing to appear, even if it is true.

More importantly, it is shocking that there is no comment on the Misplaced Pages:Contact us page that says that all emails to the helpdesk and their responses will be published publicly online. I actually think this is a breach of privacy, if not Copyright.

jnothman 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is a warning that the questions and answers will be publicly viewable. If you follow the mailing list link from the Help desk, it takes you to the Help Desk mailing list page, which explicitly states

Asking questions: Please check the FAQ and the archives before asking a question. You can ask a question on this list by sending an email to "helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org.

In other words, there is a direct link to the archive of all the mailing list posts right in the instructions on that page; someone who wishes to post to helpdesk-l is directed to examine that archive before posting. The idea that many people will be able to view the email messages sent is also implicit in the notion of a 'mailing list'.

Getting a little gentle criticism for trying to promote himself in our encyclopedia is not going to be the end of his career. Heck, Hollywood will probably approve of shameless attempts at self-promotion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1) He complained, I thought I would do my best to fix it up. He wants to speak to the CEO and to call his attorneys. Who knows whether to be worried?

2) Implicit isn't good enough when it comes to law and defamation of character, even if the defamation here is not so explicit either. I don't think a link to archives is sufficient to absolve WikiMedia of faults in publishing someone's intellectual property and/or private details.

3) Most people contact the HelpDesk mailing list from Misplaced Pages:Contact us (and not WP:HD) where there are no warnings, explicit or implicit (I wish I could change this, but I can't).

jnothman 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He complained, I thought I would do my best to fix it up. He wants to speak to the CEO and to call his attorneys. Who knows whether to be worried? - The Foundation would. What you're talking about is a Foundation matter. As such, you should forward the complaint to them.

(I did get an email from him, and haven't been able to get around to answering it ...)

This is an issue under some discussion. While people are understandably reluctant to remove content just because someone doesn't like being talked about, it can be an issue. Best bounce it to the Foundation if you think a legal threat can be taken at all seriously, rather than taking drastic action ad-hoc, because they're the ones who will be dealing with it if it does turn out to be a serious issue - David Gerard 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I see no sign of defamation here and I doubt any tribunal would. If he feels he should call his attorneys, I think he really should. To my opinion, we only have a person who wanted to do a bit of self-promotion and now find himself a bit ridicule with the request being on the net...

I will forward the mail to juriwiki-l@wikimedia.org to check (I recommand you use that address each time there is a mention of a legal issue ongoing)... Otherwise, the way to go is to ask our Technical Officer (that is... Brion)... but the latter will probably only delete the mail if the board ask him to. Note that all mails are archived by gmane as well, so even if a developer delete the mail, someone will have to ask Gmane to specifically delete it as well (they are okay with that, I asked them several times and they did not ask any questions).

My personal opinion : it so happened that we opposed deletion of mails... as they were attempt to hide information which we considered important to keep. In this case, I do not care at all. However, it would be much better if the famous film-maker made a gentle and polite request rather than issuing threats for a mistake he made himself and for putting himself in a ridicule situation.

Additionnaly, yes, you should clarify on the relevant pages that wikien-l is a publicly archived list. On the french wiki, we made that page where we exactly detail which lists are public, which are private but archived and which are private and not archived. I think this is important to make it clear to those making requests. Anthere

I would love to, and have suggested the Misplaced Pages:Contact us page be clarified at Misplaced Pages talk:Contact us but don't have the power to do so myself. jnothman 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I don't know enough yet about where to go in case of a particular issue. Thanks for clarifying that a little Anthere. jnothman 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmmm, the page is protected... how odd. Perhaps it would be no big deal to unprotect it for a couple of days ? Anthere

It's that time again!

That's right! It's sock-checking time!

Today's exciting episode involves the following users...

• Abigail_Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• No no (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psychobeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have my hunches as to where they originated from, so let's see if I'm right. Thanks!

Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are indeed the same, all created in two bursts of, er, something, last night and this morning. User names are: ‼ ‼ ‼ Alex Schenck (aka Linuxbeak) is a paedophile.; ! ! ! ! Linuxbeak is a pedophile.; Angela—what a bitch!; Holy shit! Curрs, you're fast!; Too slow, Curрs!; Psychonaut's experiments include anal penetration.; Psychoanalyst; No no; Anney; Abigail Williams; ≤woot≥; Slimboy; TerrorMaker; Linuxnaut; ≤w00t≥; Tgb; Psychobeak . I couldn't possibly of course tell you what IP they're coming from, but I'm sure you can guess. And it doesn't actually match any existing user I could see, so I'd guess it's DHCP. Yay. For some reason I find it difficult to assume good faith with that selection. I wonder why that is. Any other names with this pattern? - David Gerard 16:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no. Please don't tell me this is from Jarlaxle.. I mean, that's what I'm getting from reading your response. I was thinking more along the lines of ED trolls... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So, is it a copycat trying to get Jarlaxle in trouble, or is it Jarlaxle getting Jarlaxle in trouble...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I really hope it's the former. I mean, it really would break my heart if Jarlaxle is still doing this. I will try to confront him directly. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I said that 'cos the IP has been editing WP:ANI, not cos I thought it was JA ... but it's in the same DSL DHCP pool as JA, and there's no handy crossover of times to clear his name. Are there any other usernames you suspect of being the same person (JA or imitator)? I think a word with JA would be in order - David Gerard 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Could you check to see if User:Werxaddamill. Your welfare bill or User:63.19.195.125 are sockpuppets of User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes or each other? Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Xenu: OMFG!

Looks like South Park's creators have been reading Xenu! We can expect a lot more traffic to that article and Scientology, thanks to the latest episode shown in the States. See http://thenicsperiment.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-another-reason-to-find.html ....-- ChrisO 00:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

They knew what they were doing. Here's our summary: Trapped in the Closet (South Park). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw that ep. It was pretty damned funny. Do you think it came from our article? There were noticable differences between the scientology story on south park and hte one in our Xenu article. &rarr;Raul654 05:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been all over the media from our article, as is evident from phrases and sentences lifted word-for-word. As the writer of many of them, I'm most pleased ;-) If the South Park version included any phrases directly from the article that aren't LRH quotes (and even if they are), then I'd think it likely they at least saw it - David Gerard 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Rating Experiment

Is this headed in the right direction, you think? Please comment at Template talk:Rating and Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template: Rating Tom Haws 06:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's premature. It would put the ratings straight into a use before we've seen what people tend to do with them. Also, I see what you're trying to do with "elementary-school-safe" and why we could benefit greatly from it, but quite a lot of people see just the bald tag as horribly POV, and I can see their point. Plus, there's good reasons ratings are per version not per article - you can say something about a given version, but tomorrow your elementary-school-safe article might say "MR HENDERSON IS GAY" - David Gerard 16:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Survey guidelines to Misplaced Pages:Straw polls merge

It's nice to see some action there, and the merger was overdue - but would you mind if I reversed the merge - i.e. moved the content from Straw polls to Survey guidelines, and made sp a redirect? Survey guidelines seems to me like a better title, and besides, the entire talk is at sg not as sp.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Could do ... I specifically put it at "straw polls" rather than "survey guidelines" because the first sounds less formal. But the content of the writing is probably more important IMO - David Gerard 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've now moved the talk page over as well ;-) I'll fix the double redirects tomorrow - David Gerard 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to WP:WEB

Does it look worse for him to delete the page rather than simply undoing to re-direct? - brenneman 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT - David Gerard 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he's actually disrupting wikipedia just to prove a point.
brenneman 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant you. Don't be disruptive for the sake of it - David Gerard 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

check user

hi

please see my comment here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Taw#check_user

Anthere 08:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

bluh. I missed this simple and sensible step entirely. Will remedy - David Gerard 14:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

oki :-) thanks Anthere

User:David Gerard/1.0

hello. regarding User:David Gerard/1.0, what do you think of Misplaced Pages:Requests for publication? -- Zondor 14:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Locking or moving articles won't fly. The marker idea (a given version is acclaimed as the "published" version) is probably more workable, but that requires software. Presumably the "published" version is in the version history; version URLs are stable, so we just need a link to that somewhere - David Gerard 14:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Typically, when you go through the version history, a particular version, considered as marked for example, will not necessarily reflect that old version because the latest version of images and templates would be used. unless the mediawiki software needs to accomodate this by storing the oldid of the image or template or store the total raw data of that particular version. -- Zondor 15:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates are also a problem for the article validation feature. I've put a suggestion on m:Article validation possible problems that old versions also try to pull in the relevant version of the template, or be stored with the version numbers of any templates. I predict that will be far, far more acceptable than making any article in the main Misplaced Pages non-editable - David Gerard 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool's claimed nihilartikels are 100% verifiable

He pulled a fast one on us again. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 17:06

He's enough of a dick I'll be contacting his network admins in any case - David Gerard 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration re-opened

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Harassment_by_BrandonYusufToropov.2FYUBER_super-sockpuppet......

RE: Your message at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yuber

"

• • • • • Harassment_by_BrandonYusufToropov.2FYUBER_super-sockpuppet...... --Chaosfeary 13:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Commons batch-upload / categorization

Hi - categorization has to be done by hand, because no tool can know what the image shows. AFAIK, all upload tools allow/force you to include an image description, which should contain source, licensing and categorisation.

I have written a tool that allows semi-automatic categorization of images, see commons:COM:VP#Semi-Automatic_categorization. Unfortunately, the server that hosts that tool, broke earlier today due to a disk failure. It may take weeks until the tool is operational again (someone has to buy new disks and get the installed at the colo in Amsterdam). Regards -- commons:User:Duesentrieb 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you may also be interested in pl:Wikipedysta:Tawbot by pl:Wikipedysta:Taw, which is designed for image uploads and uses my categorization tool. Talk to taw if you like, his english is quite good ;) -- G. Gearloose (?!) 16:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:BulgarianBen

If this is indeed Wow, it will be the first time he will be trying to copy a talk page, I would like to requesta a check user on this one. I am more than curious if this person is in the UK as I only know someone who has tried to commit such an act. --Cool Cat 13:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not a sock check!

That's right!

I want to ask for your opinion here. I was feeling brave this morning and decided to see if I could make a dent in Category:Misplaced Pages backlog. After looking at about 25 articles with the wikification tag attached to them, and being so disgusted with the lot as to be unable to make a *single* change, something major hit me.

We need to, as one might say, flush the crap down the toilet. Allow me to explain.

A LOT of the articles in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are so poorly written and so obscure that they have no possible use, worth or value to anyone! Jimbo himself made it clear in that interview that although Misplaced Pages does have some gems of articles (ie our Featured Articles), there is a rather poor signal to noise ratio. We all know that backlogs need to be cleared out, but no one is going to be able to do it without a.) time that reaches beyond time itself, b.) unlimited patience and c.) endless knowledge. In other words, to clear out the backlogs would be akin to an act of God.

I know you know what I'm thinking, David. I want to nuke a ton of articles in the backlog. Things like this may have a place on Misplaced Pages, but *not* in their current form. If these things are important enough, they can be tagged as such and someone can be given it to work with. But I want to delete a lot of articles.

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from other users concerning this. They will kneejerk to "OMG ABUSIVE ADMIN LALALALLA" and "DELETIONIST! OMG DELETIONIST!". But, we need to do something about the absolutely wretched backlogs.

Get back to me on this. Thanks. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean about some of these things making one's brane seize up solid when you're trying to work out how on EARTH to fix them.

Ones like Help the Aged deserve an article, but the true crap is eminently deletable. Most of this stuff would have to go to AFD - if it's been around long enough to tag, it's not a speedy. The important thing is not to flood AFD with articles ... 10 a day is enough.

I dunno. Getting rid of crap is a bugger because of so much perceived abuse of process on AFD anyway. You might run it past wikien-l as well, and AFD talk ...

Get a cleanup squad on the case. Recruit User:Deeceevoice, aka kosebamse on the list, for a start (she's expressed interest). It's going to take actual editorial slog, I fear. - David Gerard 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was afraid that it might require that. I need to get on wikien-l as well.. blah blah blah. Frankly, the cleanup taskforce is not where I want to look for help. I'm going to need a specialized group that is interested in *this* alone. I also can go without people doing it because it's "yet another thing to put on your userpage", if you know what I mean (I think you know the people/persons I'm talking about). This is going to be long, boring, and quite frankly unglamourous. How do I get on the wikien-l? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I like your term "metric shitload". lmao Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:-) http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l is the list info page. Post something like your rant here ;-) I've also added the Category:Articles that need to be wikified challenge to my Fix Crappy Prose Challenge. EXTREME COPYEDITING!!! - David Gerard 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Help the Aged just needed reverting, not deleting, which highlights one problem with letting admins delete this sort of thing on sight is that there would be no five day AfD period where people could check the history and make sure the page really was deletable. Angela. 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

David,

You are probably aware that some nutter posted defamatory edit summaries about Bush and Jimbo lately. As we all know there are other defamation issues arising elsewhere *groan*. I created a blunt template to be put on talk pages of people who post defamatory stuff on WP. It has been used a couple of times for the nutter posting the child abuse allegations against Jimbo and Bush. I'd welcome your opinion. It is called {{defban}} FearÉIREANN\ 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked - legal warning You have been blocked from editing for posting potentially defamatory claims on Misplaced Pages edit summaries. Misplaced Pages does not tolerate the posting of such claims on its website and takes such posting seriously. All defamation posted in edit summaries is removed from the Misplaced Pages website and deleted from records and archives. Those who post it are immediately banned from the site and may be reported to their server. If a computer in an educational establishment was used to post that claim then that establishment may be informed. You are reminded that defamation is an offence in law. Under Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act, which governs Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages cannot be sued for the defamation you post. But YOU can be. Your server may be able to trace your edits back to you. The person you defamed could get a court order to require that the server release your name, and then sue you personally for defamation in the courts. Remember: You put yourself at serious risk of a prosecution under the laws of defamation for any defamation you deliberately post.

Note: to any visitors here. This template is being shown as an example. It is not being directed against David!!! FearÉIREANN\ 23:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What does juriwiki-l say? - David Gerard 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cnwb's RfA

David, Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude.

On a personal note: while I'm here, I wanted to mention that I was a big fan of Party Fears, which became one of the inspirations for me to start my own fanzine in the early '90s - Misuse. Cnwb 23:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion

Since you were mentioned there in responce to my querry, I thought I could ask you for a comment on this issue. Section is (so far) fairly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My law

Perhaps you would like to comment on my law? The probability of being a target for trolling and harassment is inversely proportional to the user's tolerance of stupidity. Yes/no? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to give that one some thought ;-) - David Gerard

Re: IRC

You have your opinions. I have mine. For me, until certain parties behavior improves, I will continue to hold my opinion. Perhaps if you were as persecuted by this bunch as I have been, you'd feel differently. --Durin 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sortan

Has anyone run a sockpuppet check to see if Sortan and the blocked impostor Jguk. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are connected? Also, although it may be a coincidence, did you know that “Sortan” is Finnish for “I am a bully”? - Susvolans

Sortan and the blocked impostor don't appear to be in the same geographical area - David Gerard 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And the "Jguk." account appears to have been run by CDThieme, along with a mess of other socks. See WP:ANI#CDThieme_sockpuppetry - David Gerard 11:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

PM

Just heard you on PM, great interview! Thank god the article on PM was of good quality. Dmn 17:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Very cool. Well done. User:Noisy | Talk 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz and Radio 4

Your comments about how "anyone can still edit" on Radio 4 don't mesh with what's happening on the Alan Dershowitz article. It seems like it's heading towards admin-only editing, and letting vandals and legal threats dictate articles - Xed 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's always been a case of almost anyone can edit almost any article at almost any time. I must say, the proposed experiment on Dershowitz caused me to raise an eyebrow, and I suspect I'll be diving in to participate. Anyone else can still suggest additions on the talk page, and I hope they will do so - I'm sure there are some excellent and well-sourced NPOV things to say - David Gerard 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your eyebrow may raise higher when you see BRIAN0918's explanation here: Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#Deleted_revisions - Xed 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo on the BBC!

Someone on IRC directed me to the tail end of your BBC radio interview. Bravo, good sir! I enjoyed your more down-to-earth and realistic interpretation of the events and questions involved in the interview, and it was cool that you descrived the nuts that add things to articles as what they are... well, you described them as "nutters", but I'll let that slide because of that big ocean between us causing language difficulties. :P Anyway, that interview was awesome! :) Mo0 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I didn't catch the interview live, but just heard it on the website. Excellent work, and hopefully this will help clear up a few of the myths that have been doing the rounds recently. the wub "?!" 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good interview David well done! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 09:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

Do you know where James F has gone? He's changed our draft MoA and AoA to pdf, and then scapa'd! A number of us are edging towards incorporation - we just need the final tweaks to James's draft put through and for the MoA and AoA to be reviewed by a charity lawyer and we'll be ready to incorporate. By the way, well done on PM! jguk 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, no idea - hit his email, I guess, or hope he's on IRC. Pinging the email list might also help. I'll let him know if I spot him - David Gerard 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg

Please note I just deleted this media file as copyvio. --Avatar-en 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was on shaky ground for Commons. I've got a copy on my own webspace: http://static.rocknerd.org/david/DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg - David Gerard 08:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Quitting Thing

Yeah, I just assumed that I had lost face and would have to do things that would make me have to leave in order to make things work out and blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the intervention, here's a barn star for your trouble, my friend. Please let me know if I can help out in the future. karmafist 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More bad templates

Some new so-called "logical" templates are being created (see Category:If Templates and Category:Boolean Templates) by a couple "clever" individuals who've found a way to hack the template mechanism into doing things it was not intended for. Rather than petition the MediaWiki developers (or write code themselves), they've put this kludge into effect and it is unfortunately growing rapidly. I'd like you to take a look at those and please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Logic templates. Thanks very much. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, those are ridiculous. You might want to drop an email to wikitech-l as well - David Gerard 16:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: this... would you please comment on the talk page about the guideline status of WP:AUM. I'm having trouble communicating with the mob on the Talk page that are unaware of the history behind it. -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've left a terse note - David Gerard 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which we didn't understand. – Adrian | Talk 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And wrote a suitable email to wikitech-l as well. I must say, before reading that discussion on WT:AUM, I wasn't aware that database and cache performance could be correctly estimated by taking a vote on what you'd like it to be - David Gerard 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I really want to thank you. Unfortunately, the people that tend to gravitate to WT:AUM are most often those clever folks who create meta-templates who I've directed to read the guideline. That tends to skew the discussion, as you've seen. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the classification as a mob. – Adrian | Talk 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

However, I think this shows a desire for more functionality in the template syntax. Implemented properly, some basic logic would be quite useful. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. The demand is there big time. But, as the page says, this needs actual development work, probably involving a fair bit of computer science. Just because someone wants a clever hack and can do it doesn't make it a good idea! - David Gerard 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There's now a really unspeakable template on the main page of Uncyclopedia: Uncyclopedia:Template:Wotd. I think it uses three or four levels of metatemplating. And I put it there. MUWAHAHAHA! God help me. I marked it clearly in the wikitext so we know what to remove if needed! Moral: Metatemplates are OK for good reasons if you know the dangers and/or you are on crack - David Gerard 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• That was a realy realy ugly example, in such case I would use {{switch}} instead. _→AzaToth 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi! I came across your name when trying to find out how to report an obvious number of duplicate/sock puppet accounts which have been recently created (all within about three minutes of each other). I hope this is the correct way to report this kind of thing....

• User:Prince William County, Virginia on wheels!
• User:Croboys elite vs. rednecks carlow crab stokes county on tires!
• User:King of the Hill vandal on tires!
• User:WikiAdm on wheels!
• User:The Fish from Florida on wheels!
• User:King William County, Virginia on wheels!

They all appear to be quite obviously linked... because it's a strange coincidence otherwise! HowardBerry 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

They should all be blocked as a sockpuppets (or at least impersonators) of WoW. The first one has already been blocked. Jonathunder 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I blocked them all by shutting down 63.19.128.0/17 ... if you do happen to get around to looking at the IPs behind these, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't start with 63.19 (the "North Carolina Vandal"). I wrote a bit about it on AN/I. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

More (belated) well done on PM

I just heard the interview: well done! The Land 11:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

template:book reference without if

Hi David

If we shut down usage of if in template:book reference and template:web reference I see no way than shutting down those too. That's what also Netoholic want's, right.

What would you propose to do with template:book reference. It's already used on about 3000 articles and I by myself have applied it on my own small list of articles. I can edit them to old-style by hand, no problem. But what should we do with that other few thousands of articles. Subst does not work. The substed code just contains a bunch of qif's. Netoholic tried that on Albert Einstein (see ). So to remove uses of book reference a bot would be needed that simulates book reference, I think. The other problem is that there might be some disagreement among editors. There will be also some disappointed people (me too).

At least I would propose a calm respectful style to speak with the people around template:book reference and template:web reference. This would be far more helpful than how Netoholic did. And blaming if as ridiculous isn't helpful either. People have invented that in good faith. I think it would be advisable to respect that.

And this was just book reference. There are other templates too. That's a far more subtle thing than just roaring on some peoples user pages or blaming if for beeing the antichrist... – Adrian | Talk 21:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)