[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:David Gerard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matilda (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 8 October 2005 (→SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Sock check?

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

How to add your photo to a wiki article

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

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

Thank you

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

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

University of Houston IP block

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

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

Joolz's RFA

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

LMC

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

CheeseDreams sockpuppet?

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

Sockpuppet check request

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

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

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

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

I've already blocked Go Cowboys and Felice L'Angleterre indefinitely, and if Zeph does it once more, I'm blocking that account indefinitely too. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Go Cowboys appears to be Zephram Stark using their work connection instead of their home one. As if it wasn't obvious from the edits themselves. Felice as well, amazingly enough. Of the IPs, 67.136 and 211.26 are highly plausible; 4.124 doesn't appear to be, nor 69.174, 72.11 or 64.114 - though if the edits match I'd suspect open proxies or similar. - David Gerard 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've just blocked EKBK indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sockpuppet check request

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

Yet another sock check

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

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

Since I am the one that first brought up the question, I now think that User:LILVOKA is most likely not connected directly to the others, but I think there probably is a connection between Imdaking and User:TheDeletator. BlankVerse ∅ 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And also add User:Wikipedianinthehouse, who also signed up around the same time, and also seems to keep crossing paths with some of the others. I wonder if they are all some elaborate interlinking troll game. BlankVerse ∅ 20:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the very first edit by User:Wiki brah (see [1]) and a few other of his edits, suggests that there is a strong connection between him and another problematic editor, User:Pumpie. BlankVerse ∅ 11:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response to Space Opera article

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

This one's a laugh as well - http://intepid.com/2005-09-10/14.59/ -- ChrisO 19:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And more... http://www.livejournal.com/users/blizack/177566.html -- ChrisO 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber arbitration

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

Haven't touched this case myself, but I've forwarded your message to the AC list - David Gerard 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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


Request for CheckUser on User:Onefortyone

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

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

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

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

User:WikipediaEditor

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

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

Wikipedia 1.0 sifting

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

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

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

Sock check - Ray Lopez ArbCom case

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

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

I just noticed that Theresa Knott indefinitely blocked Ray Lopez two or three weeks ago. Obviously that reduces the urgency of my request—though evidence of abusive sockpuppetry certainly would lend added weight to Theresa's block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stirling is REALLY PISSED OFF [2], and I'm not surprised. Sigh ... losing Stirling to the trolls is a major blow to Wikipedia IMO - David Gerard 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Xenu in a rather odd context

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

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

And another...

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

Could also take a look at EKBK (talk · contribs) in regards to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already blocked Professor Stevens. I'm minded to block EKBK too. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the sockpuppet blocked but not Mr. Stark himself? --csloat 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sock check

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


My RfA

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

Picture from the wikimeet

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

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

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

My RfA

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

Sockpuppetry

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

I had a look. You will be unsurprised to hear it doesn't match anyone, and that's because it's a dynamic dialin IP. Yay. - David Gerard 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! I really appreciate that you had a look :-).--Wiglaf 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

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

The image of a Wikipedian on the prowl out to carefully kill things that must be killed!
You can be sure someone will say it's "too frivolous" or something - David Gerard 12:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's too frivolous.
  2. Also it verges on a personal comment.
  3. Also I cannot see any possible way in which it can help AfD.
  4. Also you seem to have started a little bit of an edit war, since SPUI has now reinserted the image.

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

Probably it belongs on CSD more - David Gerard 18:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see that it had Geogre's blessing... well, foreknowledge... well, anyway... I guess my remarks above are a tad on the stuffy and humorless side. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time, have a look at this

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

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

A question about edit histories

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

Yeah, an admin can do a pile of messing around with histories, versions, etc. It's a long-winded PITA, but it's quite doable. I don't have time at this moment, but if you can find a handy bored admin ... try on IRC, there's en: admins galore on #wikipedia - David Gerard 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin. How do I do it? Ok, I can try to rearrange so that the original page is named Skuld, but then some of the edit history will belong to the Manga thing.--Wiglaf 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Nice job, burying your mistake away by archiving. You never responded and never substantiated anything. Weak. Btw, nice photo: [[5]]. Larsoner.Laronsers 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be of service, do come again! - David Gerard 20:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you ...

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

Tsaddik Dervish and Dervish Tsaddik are the same editor. He also used the IP to pretend to be yet a third person. He knew damn well what he was doing too - David Gerard 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite responsive to my questions, David. You use the word "pretend" to describe the actions under this IP, but the word, while mildly accusatory, doesn't mean very much in this context. In what way was Dervish Tsaddik/Tsaddik Dervish/## being disruptive or violating Wikipedia policy? I note that -- under yet another name, in case you're feeling ban-happy -- Dervish Tsaddik has indicated that indeed "Tsaddik Dervish" is the username of his girlfriend. If "he knew damn well what he was doing," and he intended to deceive people into believing that he was more than one person, using the names "Dervish Tsaddik" and "Tsaddik Dervish" would seem to be an astonishingly foolish choice -- I myself have to look back to be clear which of the names is him and which is his girlfriend. What do you claim he so knowingly was doing? Marsden 14:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was this supposed sockpuppetry used for the purpose of voting, for deception and impersonation, or for circumventing policy? I don't think this is at all obvious. This ban seems unjustified to me. I'm going to unban him. john k 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry check

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

67.124.200.240

64.154.26.251

216.119.139.73

67124etc

BigDaddy777

Gator1

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi. as I'm still really sure I'm not bigDaddy, could you please provide your info/opinion on 67.124.200.240. People are taking your statement here and declaring it some kind of "proof" against me apparently. 67124etc 04:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Gerard. Thanks for all your help in this matter. Some more evidence has evidently been unearthed here. What sockpuppets won't do when exposed, huh? Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, Mr. Gerard, here is an investigation that may be of interest to you. Thank you. (The "shared network" gambit must be a tiresome one, by now.) Eleemosynary 06:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make false statements about me without evidence, do it on your own talk page, and I will contradict you man to man. Don't start fights on other people's talk pages. 216.119.139.73 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's a true statement. 2. Evidence has been provided; you've just chosen to ignore it. 3. I'll let you know that on the appropriate page, which is this one. 4. I'm not starting a fight, just pointing out you're another tiresome, silly sockpuppet that BD777 is unsuccessfully trying to trick the arbs with. But, boy, the overtime you're putting into this one is entertaining! Eleemosynary 10:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sortan

David

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

ArbCom elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia UK meeting

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

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

New Wik account

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

Neolithic (talk • contribs)

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

Barneygumble

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

SMH Sat 8 Oct - Icon article on Wikipedia

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

Hah, a reprint of the Guardian piece ;-) Thank you! - David Gerard 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The paper version acknowledged that the piece was syndicated. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 08:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=25044541"