User talk:David Gerard

Wikimedia Foundation

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.

---

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Ann Nocenti

Hi. In your recent edit summary, "no cause for dep in ELs, however", what is "dep"? Thanks, and Happy New Year. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sun as a depreciated source

Hi, with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Army_Sunshine_Appeal, I did explain my choice to use The Sun in the talk page. Please note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Sun that for sports reporting (which is what this is) it can be considered reliable. With that in mind, would you agree to revert the edit? CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

PS Actually the same content is covered in sources that are not the sun, so maybe it better to have it removed....maybe just ignore this request. CT55555 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's always better to use another source :-) In the actual RFC, it did not find a general open-slather permission for sports - that was something an editor added to RSP later and resisted the removal of, and not the finding of the RFC. I think that note at RSP is misleading and open to hazards like this, but oh well - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, one less link to The Sun in the world is a good thing. :-) Have a good one. CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands?

I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands? where I have asked you a question about where a consensus to redirect was formed after you reverted to a redirect with the edit summary "Please keep to consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of two editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu that the use of rollback should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#David Gerard's use of rollback at Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, David Gerard. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, David Gerard, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 20:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of CounterPunch RFC

Hi David,

As the closer of the CounterPunch RFC, I just wanted to bring this discussion to your attention, as it appears that the RFC will need to be reclosed with the !votes of the non-ECP voters ignored after that clarification request is closed. I'm not sure how the current CounterPunch RFC will affect this, and whether it is best to close it separately or with the initial RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably run the RFC again if it came to that - though the arbitrator discussion does not appear to be going in a direction as yet. I'd say that the closure would hold on policy grounds - the multiple examples provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site, per both closers. Many contributors considered Mhawk10's analysis hit the nail on the head. Getting some contributions struck isn't going to get over that problem - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(I should note that I was barely aware of CounterPunch before going through and closing, and concurring fully with the previous closer's assessment of the discussion as it stood. But in cleaning up the backlog of deprecated source usages in Wikipedia, Mhawk10's analysis of the problems did seem to me to hold in practice. It's really not a good source and I'm now more confident it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, not less.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; even if it only a formality, I do think that a discussion that went from 9 !votes against and 24 !votes in favour to 13 !votes in favour (assuming ArbCom does conclude the ECR applies to such discussions) needs to be reclosed, just to ensure that the close is still correct. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction; 28 to 18, discounting the six socks and the four non-ECP editors (Crystalfile, Estnot, Kathy262, AllOtherNamesWereTaken) BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you start with 26, including the two votes that were for 3 or 4, and end up with 14-16 depending on how you apply the 3 or 4 votes. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked again; 28. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

who am i missing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mhawk 10 - 4 Crossroads - 4 Dr. Swag Lord - 4 Shrike - 4 Inf-in MD - 4 (sock of NoCal100) Generalrelative - 4 NoonIcarus - 4 GretLomborg - 4 BobFromBrockley - 3+ My very best wishes - 3+ or 4 11Fox11 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Nableezy - 2 Horse Eye's Back - 4 Grayfell - 4 Georgethedragonslayer - 4 Neutrality - 4 Huldra - 2 Alaexis - 4 or 3 Rosguill - 2 Nishidani - 2 NSH001 - 2 BilledMammal - 4 Free1Soul - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Davide King - 2 or 3 Nyx86 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Estnot - 4 (non-ec) Qiushufang - 2 RFZYNSPY - 4 Crystalfile - 4 (non-ec) Kathy262 - 4 (non-ec) Amigao - 4 AllOtherNamesWereTaken - 4 (non-ec) Droid I am - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Zero - 2 Selfstudier - 2 Hippeus - 4 (sock of Icewhiz)

nableezy - 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, but we're just counting votes at this point. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, ty, but then I guess we were both wrong, 27 then, down to 15-17. And yes that is counting, which is not the only thing, but it is something, and when 28% of the support in a discussion were banned users and more than one in three was ineligible to participate, making a project wide consensus on that basis seems untenable. I dont really expect David to change his mind here, but will wait to see what he says before proceeding with any other CLOSECHALLENGE steps. nableezy - 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

David, as per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am challenging your close of the CounterPunch RFC on the basis of substantial participation by ineligible accounts and the recently closed Arbitration clarification that the EC requirement does apply to RSN threads related to restricted topic areas. 5 of the deprecate !votes were Icewhiz (11Fox11, Free1Soul, Nyx86, Droid I am, Hippeus), another was NoCal100 (Inf-in MD), and a further three were not eligible to participate due to being non extended confirmed. Additionally, two of the votes in favor of deprecation were soft, both saying option 3 or 4 (or 3+ or 4), while the arguments about CP also hosting subject matter experts were not addressed at all. Finally, I question the very idea that 13 1415 editors may restrict the usage of a source across Wikipedia entirely, and suggest that further RFCs with such limited participation not be used as a basis for project-wide decisions, especially in the absence of any policy that supports such wide-ranging changes across the encyclopedia. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I am asking you here to reverse your close to no consensus. If you would prefer I ask WP:AN please let me know. Thank you. nableezy - 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Its clear that RSN discussions regarding the conflict are covered by ECP but who said that is a Counterpunch case. Many arguments were not about the conflict at all. If someone thinks that the topic is covered by DS they should go to WP:AN or to WP:AE to enforce the restriction. --Shrike (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats why the non-EC accounts dont have a history of editing in ARBPIA topics. Wait, no. And actually, pretty sure one of the non-EC accounts will be blocked as an additional Icewhiz sock as well. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The first account is from 2012 icewhiz was not active back then or you think its master account? Shrike (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I said one of the accounts. Not all of them. And no, not either of those. One of the other non-EC accounts I am fairly certain is IW, but still gathering material for an SPI. Regardless, this was very obviously ARBPIA related, and the fact that there are 6 ARBPIA sockpuppets of two banned editors active in it should make that obvious to anybody looking at it objectively. You think IW would use 5 accounts in one RFC if it wasnt about the topics he cared about? nableezy - 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As someone who thinks CP is trash, I find these arguments persuasive that we should look again. I've suggested at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rerun_Counterpunch_RFC? I think we shouldn't relaunch the RFC without discussion for a bit first, but the socking was bad enough to re-examine it - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)