Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mackensen

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 24 January 2007 (→Checkuser issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:47, 24 January 2007 by Mackensen (talk | contribs) (→Checkuser issues)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Thanks

...for your help with that request. That it is working is shown by this -- he's back to using his still-alive socks to spawn new accounts. Have a happy new year; I appreciate your work here. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot, again

I think this account is a sockpuppet or impersonator of Cplot...The username. User:Abouthere

Userpage vandalism

Mackensen: I reverted some vandalism to your userpage, but there were a couple of edit conflicts as I was doing so, so could you please doublecheck the userpage and make sure I caught it all and it's as you want it to be. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Touché :-) Giano 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot collateral damage

Hi, we seem to be having collateral damage from the Cplot-related 68.30.0.0/16 range block, see Sadler@d50.org (talk · contribs). I was taking it to Dmcdevit (who actually instated the block) but he seems to be away on vacations. The autoblocked user has been getting rather impatient because it was never really explained to him what was going on. Do you think there's anything we can do for him? Would it be safe to lighten the range block again at this point? I realise the Cplot case is a pretty nasty one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail (forgot to mention that earlier). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

209.244.43.209

It was suggested on WP:ANI that I bring this to you since Dmcdevit is on break right now. I unblocked 209.244.43.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as per this conversation. The Showster (talk · contribs) was caught behind the autoblock on this one. This stems from Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa. However, I want to get input on this. I'm curious if I should reblock the IP address with the indefinite expiration time but make it for anonymous only (and disable account creation). Would this be more appropriate? Or should it just be the outright unblock? My concern is that I've opened us up to a flood of vandalism by completely opening up the IP address. I'm wondering if you feel that the vandalism stemming from this IP address and users on the IP address warrants a soft block with account creation disabled but one which allows currently registered accounts to be used would be more appropriate. Metros232 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually,the block is not preventing me from editing, so go ahead and block it if more vandalism came from it.--The Showster 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clowning around on IPs

Cplot seems more intended on using IPs instead of user accounts to poison the water at the village pump with his diatribes. Also, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is attracting a few sockpuppets. I've dumped a whole lot of them at RFCU but I dread thinking about the number of socks there might be in the drawer. MER-C 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you still active with Trivia Cleanup project?

I was wondering if you were still active with the Trivia Cleanup project. Seeing as how Category:Articles with large trivia sections hasn't gone down much, I figured many people became inactive. I've created a talk page discussion here, asking if people are active or not: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup#Who_is_still_active_with_the_project.3F. RobJ1981 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning messages for established users

While I think I understand what you were saying here () I'll have to assume good faith that you didn't intend to be as harsh in your reply as it read to me.

At the risk of sounding stupid (as I explained, I am something of a novice to process, but do quite a bit of vandal reversion, so am keen to learn correct process) I presume that with a disruptive established user, the correct thing to do would be to write specific-to-case messages, rather than dashing off an off-the-peg template, but that this is something more to do with etiquette than a WP policy. --Dweller 12:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my RFA

Hi Mackensen, thanks for your comments on my RFA and thanks for taking the time to read my answers to the many questions posed. I appreciate that good editors shouldn't be treated like common vandals, moreover that's why I suggested I'd try to discuss the situation with them before resorting to the use of templates. I have seen on at least one occasion a good, established user going off the rails (for whatever reason) who it became impossible to reason with who was then given the standard test templates before being blocked. I would be interested to hear how you would deal with this situation, if you don't mind giving me a little more of your time. Cheers! Budgiekiller 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've seen such situations as well, and the use of templates prior to blocking ought to tell you something. For me this isn't a hypothetical question. I've often entered into private correspondence with the user in question, to good effect. You need to approach the question from the perspective of one who wants to defuse the situation. This is very different from counter-vandalism. If a user is going off the rails then there's no need to degrade them prior to blocking because that just makes getting them *back* on the rails all the more difficult. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, so in these cases, we adopt an WP:IAR kind of approach to giving them final t3/t4 style warnings, keep discussing until the point of no return and then block them? It makes sense, and I understand the use of templates could send an established user further over the edge. I would most certainly be judicious in their use, and would hope that my negotiations would be sufficient. I'm sorry that this point has caused an oppose, but I fully understand your concerns and look forward to bumping into you in the future. Budgiekiller 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No, that's not at all what I'm getting it. This has nothing to do with IAR and everything to do with treating other editors with respect and assuming good faith. You should never find yourself threatening a good faith contributor who's going over the edge, you're trying to bring them back from the brink. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point made. I feel that in general all my contributions here are made with respect and good faith to all editors, including vandals who insult me and my family. I would do my best, but then I'm not infallible. Thank you, once again, for your time and interest. Budgiekiller 13:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Sorry about forgetting to list the reason for editing. Lesson learned. Can you unblock me, please?

Unblock request

Hi, I'm trying to evaluate H4xx0r (talk · contribs)'s unblock request. Your block-reason was very sparse. Do you mind elaborating further? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117. Most of the interactions this user has had appears to be with other accounts on the same IP. Notice the similarities between that account and Geekler (talk · contribs). OhNoitsJamie 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Umm looks like the user was building up a walled-garden of sorts. Hmm ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Olave Baden-Powell

Hi. I know you've helped with the title of Robert Baden-Powell's article before, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and the explanation at the top of the article itself. I've always wondered that his wife's article is just Olave Baden-Powell. Shouldn't it be "Olave, Lady Baden-Powell]] (which is a redirect now) or something? Could you help with the proper title per wiki rrules and British customs and an bit in the lead of Olave's article? I think the two articles should be titled similarly and I'd like to improve Olave's article. Being an American, I simply don't understand peerage titles. Rlevse 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC), ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator

  • Well, the full, correct title would be Olave Baden-Powell, Baroness Baden-Powell. The question is whether that's the name she was most commonly known by. It was eventually decided that B-P's title was important enough to be in the article title (especially as there was another Robert Baden-Powell floating around). I'm not convinced that there's anything to gain by moving the article at this point, especially as the intro discusses her full, legal name. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

Thanks for reverting. Could you do it once more? The user switched IP and re-reverted. I checked the WHOISes (or should the plural be WHOARE?), definitely the same guy, so I blocked it, but I'm still at 3 reverts. Even though I have a BLP/vandalism defence, it would be annoying if I had to wait for someone to unblock me. --Sam Blanning 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, already done. --Sam Blanning 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've got it on my watch list. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Misplaced Pages in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

CheckUser procedure questions

First of all, thanks for your help with the Tooj117 case. Regarding future procedures; it seems that I've misunderstood the instructions at the top of ] (which lead me to believe I should add new suspected socks to the top of that page and simply place the {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tooj117}} template on the actual checkuser page....so instead, I should just write up a new request under the CU IP section with a reference to the original case? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You were in the right neighborhood, you just needed to add a new section header at the top like Prodego fixed it . Generally you should add at least a brief description of the problem, since the checkuser who answers the new request might be different from the one who answered the first request. Usually, a brief explanation of why you suspect the new accounts, maybe with a couple of diffs, is all you need. Thatcher131 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

need to move IP's to WP:OP?

Will I need to move the IP's to WP:OP or can you take a look? Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Enlighter1. One is already blocked. Agathoclea 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I'm done for a good while, if you want to tear into what I put up. F.F.McGurk 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for unblocking me. Hope our paths cross again in the future. Until then, thanks a lot and happy editing! SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama nominated for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Slowking Man 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I m sorry I did not understand what u wrote in usercheck of Babbarshair page, can u pls explain phippi46 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stralia

Hi, I find the above diff suspicious, as Wikimajesty has not been blocked. I thought it might be appropriate to bring it to your attention that a checkuser might be appropriate for Wikimajesty, as the circumstances suggest he is yet another sockpuppet of American Brit. Thanks. --Majorly 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Declined checkuser

That's fine of course but please could you tell me if it was procedural (like I didn't present the 6RRs properly) or on a point of principle, just so I know for the future? I was advised by someone to pursue this route on the sockpuppet farm but perhaps there is a better way? --BozMo talk 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the fix. --BozMo talk 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw you declined, then reconsidered Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar. I've spent a number of hours going over this one. If it helps, take a look at User:A. B./Sandbox2. I've worked my way through the list (from the heaviest editors of Bharatanatyam on downwards as far as User:67.191.164.199). I believe the crew I think of as the Medha Hari spammers (they link to in.geocities.com/medhahari) are all fairly low volume #'s -- the only Medha Hari spammer candidate i've hit so far is User:Santap. I did find a couple of Kalakendra spammers User:61.247.253.102, User:Sudhakar ks. That's as far as I got; I was looking at Santap when I saw the change here:
You may want to take a look at these:
You may also want to skim:
Finally, here are edit histories, however much of it has been "pre-digested" on my user subpage:
I hope this is useful. --A. B. 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

indefinite blocks

Since 84.172.86.125 (p54AC567D.dip.t-dialin.net) is a dynamic dial-up IP, isn't an indefinite block likely to cause collateral damage at some point in the future? --Delirium 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably. For the moment, it's a necessary evil. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's "for the moment", what's wrong with, say, a 1-year block, rather than an indefinite one? I thought that was normal Misplaced Pages blocking policy? Even the arbcom doesn't issue indefinite blocks. --Delirium 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not willing to discuss this further in public. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, I will bring it up on AN/I. There is no acceptable reason for banning a dynamic IP indefinitely---in the extremely unlikely event that the same person is still using it a full year from now, it's a trivial matter to renew the block for a second year at that time, thereby avoiding reckless banning of other users. --Delirium 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Indefinite is just that--indefinite. For the moment it needs to be blocked until it's decided to unblock. Go ahead and raise the matter on ANI if you feel you must, but I think we'd all be better served if you dropped me a quick email instead. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Why have you declined requests for checkuser for Max rspct? What else can be done instead of a checkuser? -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Per the Foundation's privacy policy I cannot "out" an IP address under regular circumstances. This looks like simple 3RR evasion and should be dealt with accordingly. If it's obviously him just block the IP as though it was him. Mackensen (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Edit Summary

I've sent over some tissues for the Manual of Style... :-) Just H 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No Prob. Question on something else

My cache didn't load or something and I was booted out of my screename into a plain old IP, which was "soft blocked". My IP here is 64.241.37.140, it's a coffee shop in Nashua, New Hampshire(I live just over the border and come over for the lower taxes). I guess maybe somebody else vandalized from the other side of the room or something. I'll keep an eye out for them and let you know if I see them, this is my hangout, i'm here often. Just H 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

B-P as Baronet and Baron

Hello Mac, in the article Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, you have removed Sir from the formal name of B-P, with the edit comment that 'sir' should not be included when the holder is a peer. Do you have a reference for that? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Fixing sock puppeteering by more of the same

Hello Mackensen. BenAveling has proposed that the abusive editor behind the Revolver Ocelot/Guardian Tiger accounts move to using yet another sock. That seems a bit too easy to me, as it removes the permitted aspect of the behavior but does not address the offensive aspect (harassment and stalking). Could you take a look at the new development on ANI, here? See also this and this. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Never mind, Dmcdevit already took care of it. Sorry to bother you. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Hi there I have seen the request being denied. I accept it, I just want to know where should then appeal in case if this is a POV issue ? regards phippi46 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Checkuser

Thanks for the quick response/action. It seems Nintendude has modified his username selection practices away from Metro Detroit/his highschool related naming conventions. I was going to add him to Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse but decided it against it because WP:DENY; I think he's an attention seeker and besides, if I document how easy it is to spot him it might encourage him to change more than just his username practices.--Isotope23 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kalamazoo again

Time for a two-month block? Same IP as before...--chris.lawson 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The one you just blocked today is actually a Pfizer IP address. I'm sure his boss would love to know what he's doing on company time.--chris.lawson 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't want to make trouble for Pfizer (not going to slit my own throat here). Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Could you take a look at this article? I would like an outside opinion on User:DeanHinnen. Hinnen is the last name BryanFromPalestine uses in his e-mails, and this user is following his edits. But the last time I thought I saw a clear cut puppet.... Yea... Prodego 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Now if this was Jimbo, I am going to hold you personally responsible ;-). I have an IP from the e-mails he sent me, do you think I should block that as well? You ran a checkuser on him, did he ever use a 76. IP to edit, or e-mail only? You probably can't answer that, but what the heck ;-) Prodego 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Misplaced Pages Day!

Happy Misplaced Pages Day!

On January 15, 2007, Misplaced Pages turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Misplaced Pages has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Misplaced Pages has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S.D. ¿п? 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, how come I never get random stuff like this? Guess I'm not on the right lists. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a Wyrm

Geogre and Bishzilla (shown in human form) discuss how to dispose of the stinking carcasses. Blue skies and sunshine return to Misplaced Pages, while the Featured Article crowd cheers madly.

I appreciate the patience that you've shown in the recent thread at the Administrator's Notice Board. Despite mostly agreeing with the concept (if not the vitriol) of the side that is cast as "opposing" you, I value your commentary. Thus I present you with the "brenneman Wyrm award," showing your severed head and scaled tongue, sadly not forked. I'd note only that most recent accounts afford you with great wisdom, if questionable beauty.

I look forward to a reasonable outcome to this that will be despised equally by all sides, and to your continued tolerance of those with whom you disagree.

brenneman 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deferrance of RFCU case

Per Essjay's request, you are hereby notified that a case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, has been deferred to you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Keep the excellent work up with your {{checkuserblock}}s - you've caught loads of sockpuppetmasters before they could get as bad as the most notorious vandals on Misplaced Pages. --SunStar Net 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I also made {{checkuserblock}} slightly better-looking (in my opinion): feel free to revert if you think I made a mistake. --SunStar Net 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion of "Clc bio"

Hi Mackensen,

you deleted the article "CLC bio" using the "proposed deletion procedure" on 6th of December 2006. I'd like to ask you to undelete this lemma. Please let me know if this in not the right procedure to ask for undeletion.

thanks in advance Rewireable 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

Here is the disputed sentence:

A former member of the Conservative Party, he has served as a councillor for the party on Adur District Council near Brighton.

Can you please give me one good reason why this sourced material should not be included in the article? User:Samuel Blanning has locked the discussion page and has deleted a valid question that I put to him. 195.92.67.75 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I caught you online

Can you review the block situation at 208.54.95.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's apparently a T-mobile hotspot, and Dmcdevit blocked it, but someone just converted it to a soft block without waiting for an answer (see User talk:Dmcdevit. My recollection is the T-mobile hotspot business was one of cplot's tricks, but maybe I am conflating two different situations. Thatcher131 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

advice request - Borderline RFCU

I have come to find out that User:Jefferson Anderson, User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Mattisse, and User:Ekajati have all been involved in an ArbCom case re: Starwood Festival and User:Rosencomet. They all seem to be following each other around WP, voting on the same things, such as the last Jahbulon AfD (which is what brings me here). We ended up with no consensus on the first two votes, and a keep on the 3rd. I don't want to put it up for DR, because it's half-decent now, but I'm concerned about this trend, because 4 or 5 votes will swing an AfD in some cases. Would it be phishing to ask for an RFCU, or has ArbCom done one? MSJapan 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Just letting you know that Essjay's deferred this case to you. Luna Santin 09:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Constance Holland AfD

AfD Nomination: Constance Holland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Constance Holland, has been listed by me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constance Holland. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --DGG 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC) DGG 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block unblock review needed

Since Dmcdevit has indicated on an ArbCom page that he's away for an unspecified length of time, could you please take a look at this and either unblock or decline the unblock. The user is requesting unblocking but there's a checkuser block note on the page so I'm deferring to Dmcdevit or, in his absence, to you or your designee. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC admin

Is there a way of reconciling what you promised regarding discussion of Giano on the IRC admin channel and what Bishonen contends here? --Mcginnly | Natter 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, there is. I promised that Chanops would be more vigilant, and indeed we are. That being said, we're not there all the time–and neither is Bishonen, or she would have witnessed a showdown between three Chanops and another user over this very issue of civility and politeness in discourse. I'm reviewing the discussion she's referring to now; I was not active in the channel because at that very moment I was recovering from a root canal. I have my logs in front of me, so let me recap.
  • There is a note in the topic to the effect that discussion of Giano is banned. This raised an inquiry from one user as to whether Giano himself was banned from the channel. This occasioned a warning from a chanop, and discussion switched to the old, somewhat unfruitful topic of non-admin access to the channel (if someone would only take my up on my proposal to rename it #wikipedia-en-functionaries I think we'd all be better off). Discussion then moved to whether Bishonen was kicked for posting logs. Note that Bishonen herself raised this matter. If I had been active at the time I would have politely asked her to not raise the matter, but as I've noted above I was (and remain, somewhat) indisposed. After a different user made this suggestion to Bishonen (not in the tone I would have used, but certainly not impolite), Bishonen left the channel.
  • The discussion in question was short, and quickly redirected by an active chanop. It pertained to Giano but did not actually involve any discussion of him, save the correct assertion that he is not an administrator. I would appreciate Bishonen verifying that I have discussed the proper event, and would appreciate any corrective that she might have to my narrative. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou - my sympathies for your toothache. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mack, those are the events I had in mind. I don't mean to quarrel with your reading, but I have my own. The discussion of whether it was bad to "say the G word" (=Giano), or bad to censor the saying of it, wasn't what I'd call short, nor "quickly redirected by an active chanop". It lasted for 27 minutes before Dmcdevit-- at the time "Dmcsleep" :-) --woke up and took issue with it, and after that for another ten minutes or so. I want to be absolutely clear that I don't begrudge the chanops dentistry, or sleep! They can't indeed always be there, and neither can I. (In fact, as I said, I've just come to the conclusion that there's little point in my being there at all.) The ten minutes after Dmcdevit joined in focused on a user's resentment at being threatened with a kickban by Dmcdevit for putting Giano in the topic. Actually, as was quickly made clear, this was a complete misunderstanding, but the user continued to grumble at being, putatively, rudely spoken to. This umbrage was what made me point to the rather different occasion when I was myself kickbanned from the channel, with no previous warning, no reason, and, to this day, no explanation. I suppose it's a matter of taste whether you'd call that context "Bishonen herself raised this matter". These were my words (with the user's name removed):

<bishonen> that's why i said the channel is "theoretically" for admins. there are non-admins who have ops in here. and who kick people for a lot less than saying any particular word. In fact for nothing. are you not aware of these things?

The "discussion" of my kickban lasted for all of one minute. It consisted of my words quoted above, an acknowledgement by the person I was speaking to that that sounded a lot worse than his own experience--in fact that a channel where such things happened was "kind of a sucky place"--a question from another user whether I had been banned for the mistaken perception that i had posted logs, which I never had time to reply to and in fact don't know the answer to (recollect that I can't tell what happens in a channel that I'm locked out of, nor have I been vouchsafed an explanation of the ban). Anyway, I was cut short by the remark you mention from as you say "a different user" that I ought not to speak of the matter--not "cover this ground again". Minutes aren't everything, but I think my brief interchange was supremely unimportant, especially in relation to the 38-minute "G-word" discussion. The whole thing is boring, in fact...but since you ask me to add to your narrative if I think it gives the wrong impression, I'll just add two things. Firstly, the "different user" who shut me up was an arbitrator. Much has been made of the supposed healthful effect of the increased presence of arbs in the channel, but this one didn't shut up anybody other than me. The G word apparently didn't offend him/her the way my attempt to clear up the mystery of my kickban did. And secondly, I don't think you do justice to the insinuations made during the G-word discussion. I would never say that "It pertained to Giano but did not actually involve any discussion of him, save the correct assertion that he is not an administrator.". I would like to, but must not, quote the remarks I mean. I t's a little frustrating. I ask you to read again. Maybe your characterisation of it as all " correct assertion" was the teeth speaking? (Try some codeine?) Bishonen | talk 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Those teeth speak louder than anyone can possibly imagine. Thankfully I indeed have my codeine now and can look forward to a good night's sleep. I'll review again once I feel up to it. Thanks for your response, Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a chance to add "Irpen" and "Ghirlandajo" to the list of users that IRC admins are not allowed to discuss? If you need to know why, please review the logs you received at the ArbCom list. I hope you will find the reason convincing. Thank you, --Irpen 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Discussion of the Giano matter, broadly interpreted , is banned." Thatcher131 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And that is a very bad habit, I must say. After all, Bishonen's "rude" talk alluded to above wasn't about Giano. It was about her being kickbanned mysteriously. That's a separate issue from anything that occurred with Giano, but it's the same issue in terms of "people on that IRC channel whose behavior cannot be examined." It's the same offense from my point of view, but it's not the same matter in any sense. For me, the central offense is that the channel is used by people to behave in ways that are unacceptable socially as well as in flagrant disregard of Misplaced Pages's practices and policies, and yet there is no recourse to the aggrieved. The aggrieved cannot submit the evidence, cannot gain sanctions, and cannot prevent future bad acts. For those reasons, Misplaced Pages doesn't need to link to those IRC channels where such is the case. If no one may alter the composition of the group without James Forrester's permission, and if David Gerrard is right that James won't care what the arguments are, then it really is a private MySpace page in disguise, and Misplaced Pages is not in the habit of linking to such sites. Geogre 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Geogre, I agree with you that such behavior wasn't acceptable. I've taken steps to stop all such behavior. In addition, I considered it useful to eliminate discussion of past events because they would easily lead to the same problems. Bishonen is correct; an arbitrator asked her not to bring the matter up. She was not, however, threatened with banning in any way; she left of her own accord. I have worked to restore the official (beneficial) uses of the channel. If I may, I did not consider the re-opening of old wounds a good idea, especially as the offending party, Greg, was not in the channel at the time. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Current edits on the notice board can no longer be ignored by any editor, once and for all Oh Mackensen, how much more of all this do you think peole are going to beleive. Is any editor's true identity safe in that bloody channel? Yes or No? Giano 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you think I'm a liar then nothing I can possibly do will change your mind. Did you ever stop to consider that I have been truthful and forthright throughout? Has it ever crossed you mind? Will you ever respond to my query about Donald Crawford's degree of relation to Sir Charles Dilke? Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser issues

Could you do me a favor? Since you have a checkuser privilege, you have access to the checkuser log. Could you look there and tell me whether Giano, Ghirla or myself where ever checkusered and by who? Since none of us ever used any socks or were ever accused in that, the presence of our names in the checkuser log would hopefully shed some illuminating light. I would be also very interested to know this for personal reasons. Thanks, --Irpen 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point me out to a policy clause that prevents me from knowing who ran a checkuser on me and on what pretense. --Irpen 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me clarify. I'm allowed to tell you if you've been checked, but I would prefer to do so privately. I cannot disclose information to you regarding Giano, Ghirla, or anyone else. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the link to my email. Please tell me privately who and when checkusered me but I don't see why you can't tell it to me here. But thanks anyway. --Irpen 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I've done this, this one time, to clear up a matter of some controversy. I will not make a habit of it and users shouldn't think they can email checkusers asking if they've been checked. The log is private for a reason. I regret that I ever had to in the first place but it would be my hope that, having answered the question, we can move on. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I was certainly checkusered very recently by David Gerard, or is that to be denied?, it seems to me you are all at it every 5 minutes? =Giano 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Can we all know why was Giano checkusered if this was truly the case? --Irpen 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I can answer that, apparently I was a potential risk to the project! They invent anything to get themselves off the hook Giano 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you're wiser than I. Tell me, how do you stand being surrounded by such mediocrities? Doesn't it make you gag? Our very presence must be hurtful. I don't know how you manage. I've nothing further to say to you, or anyone associated with you. You asked to be let alone and I abided by that, except that you wanted to have another go. I hope you've enjoyed yourself. You've banned me from your talk page, I notice; please allow me to extend to you the same courtesy. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way were you a risk for the project, Giano? IMO, the violation of the official WM privacy policy by those who are entrusted with the checkuser access to uphold it is indeed a very great risk to the project. Am I wrong? --Irpen 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When you have a bit of time, please look at this?

No hurry. Thanks so very much! --BenBurch 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:
User talk:Mackensen Add topic