User talk:Merzbow/Archive5

Kent State massacre
Hi - I had missed the talk page discussion about requiring citations for the term "massacre" when I first reinstated this last night - have since provided three reliable, neutral sources and reinstated it again. All three unambiguously call it a massacre and at least two of them, maybe all three - I forget now - talk about how it has been known as such for a very long time. So I assume that will satisfy for Kent State the concerns you are discussing about Hiroshima. I have no problem with requesting citations, but I do have a problem with this one having been deleted rather than adding the same tag that so many of the entries have, pending posting of citations. I would hope the same vigor will be applied to obtaining citations for other events that are listed as massacres but have fewer deaths than might usually be associated with the term, lest it appear that there's a particular reason this one was singled out. Cheers. Tvoz | talk 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now fine. The problem with a page that contains tons of unsourced material is that it tends to attract more. The first step in solving the problem is to first require all new material to be properly sourced, even if this may look unfair. - Merzbow 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see the sense in that. The reason for my comment was that the person who removed it in September has a particular POV about Kent State - I think he wasn't looking for citations, but has on his own decided the label is not appropriate. But there are  thousands of reliably sourced ghits, so I guess I was irritated that it had been removed back then (we've gone several rounds on this point previously there and in other places around the encyclopedia - and citations weren't the issue).  But now if I've satisfied the request for cites (which, by the way, I think is completely reasonable to require), the problem should not recur.  Thanks  Tvoz | talk 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
Hi Merzbow. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Eurabia
Sorry about that, thanks for fixing. Yarkod 10:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music November 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Merzbow,

Just wanted to stop by and say hello! I hope you are fine and everything is going well. --Aminz (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's up. I'm on wikibreak now and don't know when I'll be returning. - Merzbow (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not much! I hope you have a good Christmas and happy new year!!! --Be happy!! (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 KJV Dear Merzbow, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.

Kirbytime sen't me this a year ago, and I liked it. So Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, or whatever you celebrate, and see you next year.  Yahel  Guhan  00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hi Merzbow!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music December 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Notes and references in Stereolab discussion
Hey there. I want to draw your attention to an ongoing discussion about the reference format in Stereolab. Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Alternative_music. Thanks. Grim (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully?

I saw you removed several entries from a disambiguation page, with the edit summary (bye-bye redlinks).

Could you explain why you did this?

The wikipedia is an evolving project. I am not aware of any policy that advocates removing redlinks. Redlinks are useful. Redlinks are the frontier where the wikipedia is growing.

Even if, for the sake of argument, removing redlinks was policy, why would one remove an entire entry from a disambiguation page?

Did you look at Pages that link to The Wire? How many of the links in those articles that pointed at The Wired should really have pointed at the articles under the names of the redlinks you excised?

Ideally none of the articles should point at the disambiguation page. Ideally they should all point to the actual article. If the article those 60 articles that point to "The Wire" should really point to, then the redlink should be in that article.

If you go around removing redlinks you are encouraging chaos. Even if a link is a redlink it give guidance to the person who comes along later with the energy to create that article as to what it should be called. The energetic author can click on the "what links here", see what other article redlink to that name, which can help them figure out more about what the new article should say. Without the redlink there is more chance that multiple energetic might create their own competing version of the article, under the name that makes sense to them.

Your edit was, IMO, unhelpful. Your edit loses information. Please understand, a project like the wikipedia carries information in the links, as well as in the text. Have you ever looked at a raw dump of a database? It is possible to use, at the cost of spending multiple orders of magnitude more effort.

I urge you to reconsider this edit.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The guideline says that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." No other page has those redlinks I removed, so they should stay out. - Merzbow (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the passage from Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29, which I was not familiar with.
 * May I point out that if The Wire disambiguation page was complying with policy it wouldn't have almost 70 links pointing to it. If it was fully complying with policy it would have zero links to it.  It would have zero links, because someone would have gone through all those 70 links, and changed each one to point to the target article.
 * May I suggest that until someone budgets a couple of hours to fix those 70 inappropriate links to the disambiguation page, so they point to the appropriate target articles, your test of looking at the "what links here" of the redlinked articles can not be counted on giving you an accurate and reliable result?
 * More specifically, unless you checked all 70 of the links to The Wire, and made a jugdment as to whether or not each one should really have linked to one of those redlinks you planned to excise, how could you know whether the redlink really should be excised? Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're saying. Disambig pages have a purpose even if all in-text links are resolved to point past them. I'm just following the guideline, which is explicit on when red links are and aren't allowed on a disambig page. If you want to change the guideline on this issue, you'll have to go to the guideline's talk page. - Merzbow (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by '"...even if all in-text links are resolved to point past them."


 * Did you go through the 70 or so links to the disambiguation page, and check whether they pointed at the red links you planned to excise?


 * I predicted that fixing the links that pointed to The Wire would take a couple of hours. I was off by about a factor of two.


 * Today I noticed that someone had pointed guest house to point to secondary suite. Inappropriate.  I undid the redirection.  I created a disambiguation page.  Coincidentally, As with The Wire, guest house had about 70 links pointing to it.  I went through all of those links that were in article space, determined which of the articles on the disambiguation page they should really point to, and made them point there.  It took about an hour for about fifty articles.


 * No offense, but are you sure your actions really complied with policy?


 * Unless you checked each and every one of the seventy links that erroneously pointed to the disambiguation page, how could you possibly know whether those redlinks you excised should have been excised? Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh because I ran the Special WhatLinksHere tool and it told me that no other pages were using those redlinks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I spent the time necessary to check and fix all the pages in article space that linked to The Wire. Here they are:
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Without looking at each of these articles I don't believe there is any way you could know whether it was safe to excise those entries you excised.
 * IMO you were reckless, you let the project down.
 * Clicking the "what links here" button is an insufficient test for the true number of links when there is a disambiguation page full of links. Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. But I give up. I neither care enough nor have the time to bicker over some inconsequential disambig page. - Merzbow (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music January 2008 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

Long lost article - Tropical Storm Jerry (1995)
Let me know if it meets the GA criteria. Due to the changing criteria over the years, I added nbsps, removed a bad reference, inserted a few good references, and added convert templates so we have the units in metric (gasp!) as well. Let me know what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal
Hi Merzbow,

How are you doing? Hope everything is going well with you!!! Good to see you back!!

Could you please take a look at my proposal here (diff ). Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... - Merzbow (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music Newsletters
If you missed last the previous newsletter, you can find it at WikiProject Alternative music/Newsletter/February 2008. You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhimmitude
In your edit of dhimmitude, you removed any real definition of the word, so the article is missing its central point. Can you please explain in the article what the word means and how it's used?QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on who is defining it. The information you want is in the "Associations and usage" section. - Merzbow (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
..for the kind words. I think its going to be less a wikibreak, and more a attempted disengagement from trying to clean up problem areas and a quiet return to writing about Georgian aristocrats and pioneer kibbutzim. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, disengaging just from problem areas for a while is also an alternative. But there's something uniquely entertaining about ZOMGDRAMA too. :) Everything in moderation I guess. - Merzbow (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. What is ZOMGDRAMA? It's unconventional of me to email you this way, but you showed up on my changes page, and I read this message, thinking it might be about me. It wasn't, but then I saw ZOMGDRAMA, and not knowing what it was, tried to figure out what it was. It's used a lot, but I can't intuit meaning.
 * Thanks!QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Refers to whatever "drama of the week" is usually flaring up around Wikipedia, be it IRC channel drama, a wheel-war drama, etc. Usually taking place at either WP:ANI or ArbCom. Usually content disputes aren't severe enough, with some exceptions (LaRouche pages, Israel/Palestine pages, Global Warming pages, etc.) - Merzbow (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ThanksQuizzicalBee (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Supergreenred
Account created less than a month ago simply to report User:Dance With The Devil and then suddenly jumped in. You might want to keep an eye on him. I think that it could be this anon IP if you ask me. Would make sense as he jumped in right after the edit-warring. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a look at this page

See where the admin says:

Rafaelsfingers has some similarities but is not an exact match to 76.102.72.153

76.126.64.74 is a close match. Maybe Rafael is Supergreen and the IP. Can you think of a good reason for a usercheck on those three? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! I'll put a copy on my main userpage. - Merzbow (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive evidence you have collected! Please take a look at my section and reply if there are mistakes or additions needed. You can also reach me by email.Ultramarine (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SGRs comment and IP resolving to San Jose on my talk page already included in the SGR section. Is there any diff showing Rafaelsfingers using a cell phone?Ultramarine (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I missed that; you could specifically point out it's dialup though, which few use around here anymore, and supports the theory of G33 deliberately using unusual ISPs for his socks (and ones readily available to an ordinary consumer wishing to sock in his own geographic area). Raphael edits from a wireless device per here; which to me means either a cell phone or a PC routing its network connection through a cell phone modem. - Merzbow (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. I will point this out.Ultramarine (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. Please note that you are not being invited to do this to cast aspersions on you and your editing in any way, and this invitation should not be interpreted in this light. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Thanks for your note. I'm still trying to get the signature box to do what I want. Regarding the link, I didn't know it was a requirement -- I always get to people through the "contribs" link in the page history, but I guess it would be good to have a link there. -- Tom Ketchum 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a requirement AFAIK, but just makes it more convenient for people to get to those pages. - Merzbow (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai


Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Have a great day ! --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I needed that. - Merzbow (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Merzbow.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Prot
Well this was a brilliant success, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. No matter what happens to G33 in that case, I strongly hope that ArbCom accepts one or both of the 1RR remedies proposed; they would make it much harder for SPAs from any source to disrupt the article. - Merzbow (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Muslim atheists
There's something beautiful about the turn of phrase you used in discussing Muslim atheists: "technically illogical". I loved that! Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is a strange world we live in when there can be "Christian atheists" or "Muslim atheists", but that's the situation, apparently. - Merzbow (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Forced Islamization in the Balkans?
Are you trying to deny the existence of forced islamization in the Balkans by reverting to a previous edit? --Vladko (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced. Perhaps I should have used a better edit summary, but combined with the misspelling it looked like a drive-by throwaway edit to me. If you want to re-add it you'll need a source. - Merzbow (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * May I say I saw this and had the sudden nightmare that there exists a large SYNTH-y article titled Denial of Forced Islamization in the Balkans entirely watched by angry nationalists? -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have enough nightmares about Wikipedia, now you have to go and say that... :/ Actually I'm only slightly joking, I did once have a real dream about this web site. How sad is that? - Merzbow (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issue rereloaded Jews chosing their own hangman
Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your new evidence at the G33 Arbcom
Merzbow I think you're pushing it a bit too far with your new evidence and you might want to step back and re-evaluate. It is far more plausible that Giovanni simply does not realize (or did not remember) that the time stamps were not in UTC time rather than that he had some horribly executed yet nefarious plot. This is exactly the kind of mistake I could see Giovanni making (you know he can be a bit sloppy with type-o's and the like, so this would make sense). What I can't see him doing is making such a huge deal about this play ticket evidence, all the while knowing that the time was off by seven hours. None of us have bothered to look that closely because he did not present the play ticket stub for verification yet. But surely he's clever enough to realize that someone would have checked eventually? In order for your scenario to be true, we would have to believe that Giovanni is stupid enough to present as exculpatory evidence that which is demonstrably not. I mean, really, think about it for a minute. This is basically the equivalent of someone saying they couldn't have been operating a sock account because they were on a boat nowhere near a computer on the day the account was created, when in fact they had made ten edits that day on their regular account. I just don't buy it.

I think the simpler answer is that Giovanni saw that edit time at 2:25 awhile back (he first brought this up a couple of weeks ago I think), was thinking in terms of West Coast time and realized he was at a play then, and it's stuck in his head ever since. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that editors can get confused about time zone switches like this - particularly Americans accustomed to the 12-hour clock (honestly I'd probably been editing for many months before I took notice of the time stamps and the fact that they were in UTC and "military time" as we say - I really just hadn't noticed that or cared for quite some time).

Another major problem with your view is that you are not reading Rafaelsfingers talk page as closely as you should. Your reading of it makes it look suspicious, but the actual text is a bit different from your characterization. Giovanni says "Just so everyone is clear, these edits here:[9]Or from 2:25 to 2:45 were made from your home connection and not your a wireless device. Is that correct?" Notice that the question is not about the time of the edits but rather about where the edits were made from. Rafaelsfingers replies "welcome, Giovanni. that is correct. that statement was made on my home computer." He is only answering where the edits were made from and says nothing about the time. If for the sake of argument one assumed that RF is a different person, it would be a virtual certainty that he had no idea that Giovanni was actually at the play earlier in the day (indeed no one else noticed it until you did).

Notice that my reading of this situation does not preclude the possibility that Rafaelsfingers is a Giovanni sock, it merely argues that there is a far simpler explanation for what is going on. Giovanni screwed up on the time for the edits because of time zone shifts. Rafaelfingers is either a separate person so he did not notice the time zone issue since he didn't know when Giovanni went to the play, or it is Giovanni operating a different account who didn't notice the time zone issue to begin with. Either way I doubt there was a deliberate intent to deceive with respect to time zone shift, which is what you were arguing.

What you did show though is that the play ticket in question is not a way for Giovanni to demonstrate that he is not Rafaelsfingers. That much appears to be clear and that is significant. I'm wondering if you might consider revising your evidence to say that instead. Your evidence on this case has been well thought out for the most part, but you got a bit carried away here I think and applied a too much conspiracy theory when a healthy dose of Occam's razor might have been the better way to go.

I'll check back here for any reply, but hope you'll give some thought to this alternative view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or he bought the ticket but did not actually attend the play, and a week later, happened to think of presenting concurrent edits by a sock as evidence, and looked back through their histories and mistakingly picked the RF edits. (The heck if I can remember what particular times of days I edited a week ago.) Or perhaps more likely, he got a friend to give him a used ticket stub. (I highly doubt they've have actual names on the tickets else he wouldn't be offering to link the picture online). After the SGR and DG fakes, I daresay Occam's Razor is telling me to avoid the more charitable interpretations of the evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're bringing up in your response does not relate to my point. I have no idea whether Giovanni actually attended the play, or if he got a friend to give him a stub, or something else. At this point I don't at all care. Obviously it doesn't really matter anymore since the point of the stub was to show he was not RF which does not work now that you've noticed the issue with the edit times. My only point was that you were suggesting that Giovanni was intentionally misleading us about the edit times. I think that makes little or no sense for the reasons described above. Other evidence you've presented is strong and raises real questions, but this evidence is not and does not. Simply because you have found some strong evidence previously does not mean that everything Giovanni does is a sneaky trick. If you start to think that way you lose your objectivity, and if you start presenting sloppy evidence (this was sloppy) it will only make people question your other evidence.


 * Again, what matters is that you have shown that the time Giovanni was attending the play (as he says) was a time when Rafaelsfingers was not editing. The evidence you have presented which purports to show that Giovanni cooked up this unbelievably stupid plan whereby he would make us all not notice that he was substituting Pacific time for UTC times is: A) Rather confusing on first read; B) Almost certainly less convincing than my reading of it in the eyes of most outside observers.


 * Why not reformulate your evidence so it shows that the play ticket won't help anything and leave it at that? Extremely questionable speculation about what Giovanni was trying to do and (what can be read as) an effort to see a conspiracy under every diff only hurts your case. Giovanni said that he had some exculpatory evidence here and you have show he doesn't. In my view that's really all there is to say.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm claiming anywhere he purposely misled on the edit times. In fact, my evidence explicitly says otherwise - "flubs his math". My reply above outlines a very plausible scenario by which he did seek to deceive with some ticket stub but screwed up attempting to backfit prior on-wiki evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if you don't think he purposely misled on the edit times (this was confusing until you added in the 12 vs. 24 hour clarification to your evidence) then I don't see your point. It's not the time he went to the show, obviously. But beyond that, what? The only thing that you seem to be saying then is that Rafaelsfingers' reply (wherein he did not notice the edit time flub) proves he is Giovanni. But that borders on the tautological. That reading only seems necessary if we are already assuming that RF is a G33 sock (but that's what you're trying to prove). If we assume that he isn't, it makes perfect sense that RF would not notice the edit time problem (even if he was thinking in UTC time) since he wouldn't really know whether Giovanni went to a matinee or an evening show (I didn't remember that and I doubt anyone else did either).


 * As I just said in reply to you on the workshop page, the fact that this was a simple mistake by Giovanni proves absolutely nothing either way. The evidence for Rafaelsfingers being a sock of Giovanni is exactly the same as it was before. All that has changed, thanks to your catch, is that a piece of evidence that Giovanni wanted to use as exculpatory is now meaningless.


 * I think we're kind of talking past each other here so I don't want to belabor the point, but I'm hoping you can try to see what I am getting it. If you are trying to show that Giovanni somehow deceived, or that anything surrounding this ticket incident is further evidence of socking, then you have not done so. To put it bluntly: to say that screwing up with the edit times (unintentionally as you admit) somehow suggests that he never went to a play is utterly illogical - you present no connection whatsoever between the two. Do you see what I'm saying?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * G33 specifically said "Just so everyone is clear, these edits here... from 2:25 to 2:45 were made from your home connection". In other words, he directly said to RF that RF edited from 2:25 to 2:45 on that day. A regular editor would probably have responded with a correction or a clarification, especially given the words "everyone is clear". I will tone down the language in the evidence a bit, as there is certainly no "smoking gun" here, but it still adds further support to the puppetry charge. - Merzbow (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I realized I have an e-mail from Giovanni which seems to suggest that nothing untoward is going on here. It might be relevant to the case overall so I'll ask him if I can post it in the evidence. Just to end this on a happier, more collegial note: Giovanni was replying in that e-mail to an e-mail I had sent him as the ArbCom opened where I gave him a bit of advice but also referred to you as "a decent fellow, and an honest one." Isn't that almost better than a barnstar? :)  --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to dislike personally anyone involved with this case, which is a good thing but rare in the context of Wikipedia conflicts that rise to this level. One gets the feeling looking at some other cases that the people involved have a terribly personal dislike of their opponents. I won't mince words when necessary to defend the integrity of the website, but it's rarely personal, and I suspect the same is true of most established editors here. - Merzbow (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly/Admin
Do you mind if I ask who you are? Not in any real sense, but as in why you filed an admin report against me? I don't recall you participating in the O'Reilly discussions. I realize this is probably a naive question, but it is also sincere.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor who saw a 3RR violation and decided to file a report. - Merzbow (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess. Can I what prompted your interest as you had not participated at all in the discussion?  I realize that's not a precondition, but I'm puzzled by your out-of-the-blue intervention.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it mentioned on WP:ANI, looked on the 3RR board, and saw that one party had been reported, but not others that had also broken 3RR. It's an issue of fairness. - Merzbow (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're aware, I hope, that one of the two editors whose edits I reverted has apologized for possibly misleading me into thinking that we had reached consensus on the edit he removed some weeks later?  And, I believe that the report on another editor involved has been withdrawn?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: the report against me has been withdrawn/resolved.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin
Regarding your dispute at Joseph Stalin, please do not use the rollback button in a content dispute. If you use the button for reverting edits other than simple vandalism, the rollback privilege can be removed. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a possible sockpuppet of a banned user, so possibly justified. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you're doing a mass revert of a banned users edits to a bunch of articles (in which case leaving an edit summary takes a gratuitously long time), you should still leave an edit summary so that someone else looking at it realizes that the edit was made by a banned user and does not restore it. --B (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative theory
Hey Merzbow, just wanted to propose a possible alternative theory that popped into my head after reading this comment from User:DrGabriela. This has clearly been a problematic account, whoever is behind it. When I saw that this user is apparently Filipino in background (it's possible that that translated note at the end is fake or the product of some online translation tool, but I somewhat doubt it) I had a thought, though I'm not even that comfortable with what follows since it's extremely speculative and assumes some sort of association based on ethnic identity and interests when that might not be the case.

I don't think Giovanni ever showed much interest in subjects relating to the Philippines, but User:Stone put to sky (banned for socking obviously) certainly did (I believe they started the entire section on the Philippines in the "Allegations" article, and they apparently live in Taiwan and were generally interested in topics in that region of the world). I doubt that DrGabriela is actually Stone Put to Sky, but it's quite possible that the user is a meatpuppet (a friend back in the states but originally from the Phillipines) who SPTS contacted and had work on the main page in which he was interested. If you look at Gabriela's contributions you'll notice the account was created during a gap in SPTS's contributions (that editor stopped editing on July 8th 2007, made three quick edits on July 26th, and then did not edit again until August 8th). More tellingly, DrGabriela's account went quiet for nine months before resuming editing on April 18th, diving quickly into the state terrorism topics. SPTS was blocked indefinitely on April 15th. Note that Giovanni had been blocked around the same time, but was unblocked on the 17th of April, well over 24 hours before the Gabriela account fired up again. It would seem strange for G33 to start using this sock account after he had just been unblocked. It would, however, make eminent sense for a friend of SPTS to jump in a few days after he was perma blocked.

The only thing really linking Gabriela to Giovanni is the geographic connection. It arguably makes more sense that this account is somehow connected to SPTS given the edit patterns and interests (and we know SPTS has socked in the past). It's true that Gabriela has reverted back to "Giovanni's version" at various times, but as we all know there are often two competing versions of text on that article and multiple people revert to one or the other. If SPTS was still on that article I'm sure he would be reverting to "Giovanni's version" as well.

I know you're fairly fully convinced in your case, but it's as though we've forgotten that there's another confirmed sockpuppeteer on this article (whereas Gio's past socking, I think, related only to other articles) who might well have recruited meatpuppets. Maybe SPTS lived in the Bay Area for years before moving to Taiwan, who knows. Nothing definitive here of course, but it is somewhat suggestive, and I'm interested to hear what you think. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point of interest. Rafaelsfingers and Supergreenred were both created in mid-March (the 28th and 16th respectively) while SPTS was on a three week break after editing basically non-stop from January 3rd to March 11th (see these contributions, and the ones that precede it back to January 2008, he stopped editing March 10th and did not start up again until April 3rd). G33 was editing heavily during that same time and was not blocked at any point. Note that Rafaelsfingers edited José Santos Zelaya heavily and SPTS regularly edited on Nicaragua topics (check the contribs history). Now I'm even more suspicious. I'm wondering if you haven't caught a sock/meat farm but just named the wrong sockmaster. I could be off track here, but this might well warrant further investigation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep bugging you but I grow more convinced. I would think that some or all of these were socks of Stone Put to Sky (which was the original theory) but this checkuser says the are not. Perhaps this is meatpuppetry, or perhaps Stone was traveling at a certain time.


 * Anyhow here's the interesting thing that is really, really suggestive. I believe that this report was the first time that SPTS got in trouble for sockpuppetry (doing it in an incredibly stupid way). The report was filed by User:Dance With The Devil. Now look at Supergreenred's contribution history. Here is his first contribution to Wikipedia other than edits to his user pages. And what does he do? Reports Dance With The Devil for a 3RR violation. Who would have a vendetta against DWTD? Stone, of course.


 * Now look at what happened with that report. G33 shows up and agrees there is a problem but says, "Now having said that, I think Dance with the Devil is generally a good editor so maybe just a warning would be best. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. He seems to acknowledge that he needed to cool down, and that is good enough for me.:)" Why in the hell would he do that if SGR was his meat or sockpuppet? He called for no action on the report. And if this was some elaborate set up meant to absolve him later, why in the hell would he not have mentioned it by now? I started investigating this once I noticed SGR had gone after Dance with the Devil right away. Thinking about the Stone Put to Sky connection, I went to see if he and DWTD had crossed paths before and indeed DWTD had done something that would have totally pissed Stone off.


 * It makes far more sense that SGR is tied to Stone Put to Sky, either as a meatpuppet or some Checkuser avoiding sock (however that might be done). I think this tends to turn the whole case on its head and there's a lot we need to reconsider. If you look at your evidence again in a new light, it might make complete sense that these accounts are tied to Stone. The fact that they are in Northern Cali led suspicion to fall on Giovanni, naturally, but there could easily be explanations for why these accounts come from that area. I'd really like to hear what you think about this and would hope you might consider this scenario. The fact that SGR reported DWTD like that (who had reported Stone) and then G33 came in and disagreed opens a huge hole in this case. I'll check back here for replies.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't discount the possibility that SPTS may be socking/meating, but after looking through the accounts in question, DG/SGR/RF still sound a lot more like G33 that SPTS. (The identical "looks very good!" outbursts from G33 and DG are dead giveaways, in my opinion - who else has been that improperly enthusiastic about horrendously depressing material like this?) SPST is also prone to nasty personal attacks, something I have never seen from G33 or any of the other accounts. He has a tendency to forget to capitalize many words that need it, especially the pronoun "i", again something not common with the other accounts. He never seems to confuse "its/it's", "let's/lets", a key characteristic of the other accounts. I find his grammar in general to be more precise, and his writing more to the point. Maybe I'm just more willing to rely on such linguistic evidence than you, but as you say there is also no geographic link between these accounts and SPTS, while there is between them and G33. That is a gigantic stumbling block, as SPTS has always been from Taiwan IPs. G33 has far more plausible access to a bunch of Bay Area access points than does he; even if we grant that none of these accounts are socks but meats, they are far more plausibly G33's meats (he did admit back in the day to having his wife run a meat account for him as well; perhaps she knows Tagalog or knows someone who does?). Your high-range overview of account creation and usage timelines vs. SPTS has some merit, but I can't put any more credence in this theory until somebody can confirm SPTS had or has some Bay Area presence/connection. (UPDATE: And after looking futher at contributions, I note that the only article of the ones the suspected G33 farm edited that SPTS also edited was "Allegations..." - he did not touch State Terrorism, William Blum, etc., while the suspected farm was all over them, backing up G33 at every step. The theory doesn't make any sense.)


 * And I can explain SGR's thing vs. Devil in another way - look at this user: - a SF IP, revert-warred with Devil right before SGR was created, but initially reverted another user, not Devil. So SGR's thing with Devil can be explained without a need to invoke SPTS. And remember we also have SGR's reversion of a John Smith talk message here with "John Smith is not welcome here"; as we all know, he and G33 are old foes. Also, I find it very telling that in the 3RR report you link to above, both SGR and G33 misspell Ultra's name the same way: "UltraMarine".


 * Surely we can go on like this for hours. In the end I don't care who gets banned or not as long as the articles that have been attacked gain some sort of protection, but for some reason many people oppose the remedies I've suggested. We can all agree the SPAs, whoever they are, have been the source of the vast majority of disruption and locks surrounding these articles this year. If we cannot get a remedy slowing down SPAs in general in this area, then we will continue to forced to move against them via the sock/meat master route, which is much more time-consuming and abrasive a solution. - Merzbow (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree we can go back and forth like this but a few points. If the assumption is that these accounts are meatpuppets, not socks, then the linguistic similarity stuff is out the window. Quite frankly that evidence has been somewhat less than compelling to me, because it is not nearly as iron-clad as some other cases in the past. The one real tight connection you drew was between SGR and Rafaelsfingers - "paints a POV picture" or whatever - but nothing else is firm enough to make a definite connection. The other point that I've mentioned but no one has really discussed - Giovanni, and I mean no disrespect, can't shut up at the keyboard. He almost never types a note less than 5 sentences. None of the other accounts seem to do this, and this difference has been completely ignored. I would think that one of those accounts would have been prone to a Giovanni-like word torrent at some point but I don't think that has happened. Also you recently lumped in Olawe as a G33 sock, and if you read that user's notes on their talk page they sound nothing like Giovanni, so I'm not sure you always making correct calls in terms of linguistic similarity. But this is a more minor point.


 * As far as SGR's report of Devil a couple of very important points. I think it's obvious that that IP you mention became Supergreenred. The question is, who is Supergreenred? If it's Giovanni or one of his meatpuppets, why on earth would Giovanni disagree with it at the 3RR report? You really have to explain this Merzbow because I'm sure you can acknowledge that it makes no sense whatsoever. The only possible reason for Gio to create a sock, report a 3RR violation with it, and the come in with his main account and disagree with his own sock would be too show later that that account was not his sock. Yet he has not done that (and surely would have by now). Also you are wrong about "UltraMarine" vs. "Ultramarine" and this is something I noticed as well but did not mention. SGR says "UltraMarine." . G33 does not in that report (he says "Ultramarine" twice). I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that Giovanni always writes "Ultramarine" without the capital "M" (if you have an example of him capitalizing the M let me know). That would seem to suggest different editors, especially combined with the fact that they disagreed with one another. I think this makes it fairly certain that SGR and Giovanni are not related, or at the least casts an enormous cloud of suspicion over that assertion. If SGR is not Giovanni but someone else (probably not even Giovanni's meat puppet), then Rafaelsfingers is quite possibly not Giovanni either given that the strongest single connection linguistically (by far) is SGR and RF.


 * Merzbow I'm asking you to seriously re-evaluate this. You need to present a very plausible explanation for how SGR is a sock of Giovanni, i.e. an explanation for what I'm describing in the previous paragraph. If it seems likely that SGR is not Gio it changes the case considerably. I'd like to hear your reply on this point specifically, and not one which merely tries to make the evidence fit into the existing story about a Giovanni sock farm, but rather one which considers whether it is truly likely that SGR and Gio are the same person.


 * Listen, like you I agree that these accounts we are talking about are SPA's and largely disruptive (perhaps less so the Rafaelsfingers account). It probably makes sense to block or ban most or all of them, and I agree that would help with the article in question. But if they have been tied to G33 and that is not correct I'm sure you agree that that would be an injustice to Giovanni, even if he has made other mistakes in the past (which he of course has). You've proceeded with this case in good faith and done a lot of work, but there is some evidence which runs rather contrary to some of your conclusions. Quite frankly I've never been sure of this one way or another, but have been willing to give Gio the benefit of the doubt because he was so adamant about his innocence. It's past the point where you can simply say "I don't care who gets banned." Giovanni has edited at Wikipedia for a long time and folks are now calling for a long term or indefinite block. If you have doubt about whether he is a sockmaster of all of these accounts, and if it seems possible to you that there is an alternative explanation, you really ought to explore and even express those doubts.


 * I wanted to talk to you about this first and see what your thoughts were, but probably I'll end up presenting some or all of this as evidence. If you have ways to explain the incongruities I bring up I'm very willing to listen. I don't at all consider myself an expert in these matters but I see some real problems here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed that in his first middle post to that report G33 writes "Ultramarine", but he does write "UltraMarine" in his last post there: . Olawe's talk seem quite obviously deliberately juvenalized to me, like somebody who is trying to avoid creating any new linguistic evidence by writing as badly as possible (yet even so still sounding like G33 in parts, like with the continued overenthusiastic use of the exclamation point). You point out one instance where G33 appeared to disagree with his sock. It was barely a disagreement at that, and it's the only one, out of probably hundreds of instances in which G33 and the accounts talked/acted in lockstep agreement. (And BTW disagreeing with one's sock occasionally has been used as a technique; see here for a notorious example.)


 * I know that my evidence centered upon timing/linguistics, but I freely admit that this is far less important that Ultramarine's, which clearly establishes three fundamental facts: The accounts are all new, they edit only those articles where G33 has come into conflict with his "State Terrorism" opponents (aside from a few throwaway edits elsewhere), and they monotonously back him up at every opportunity. This is the evidence that needs to be overturned if G33 is to be found innocent; the timing/linguistics stuff is just gravy. If they are not him, he is controlling them, plain and simple. The frog-jumping between Olawe, the IP, and DrGabriela on "Allegations..." the last two days, each one picking up after the other as bans/prots are imposed and expire, is a pretty neat example of such coordination. If you want even more in specific regards to SGR, how do you explain SGR's post after the case was filed on my/Ultra's talk page that conveniently contained three bits stolen from my edit history, which were then presented as linguistic "evidence" by G33? There is no single thing that more clearly shows the association between these two accounts. I know you like the guy; a lot of people do. But one does not accidentally acquire Wikipedia's longest block log. Being a nice guy and having the project's interests at heart are two independent qualities. - Merzbow (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your detailed replies to my posts here, I'll leave off replying with this one so I don't clutter your talk page any more than I already have (and I mean that in all seriousness, I'm not one for excessive user talk postings). I did not notice that second comment from G33 where he inappropriately capitalizes "UltraMarine," and obviously that completely destroys my argument with respect to Ultra-Capitalization. That is significant, but I'm still not convinced by your explanation for why Giovanni would disagree (which is what he did, when it comes down to it) with his own sock in a 3RR report yet not mention it now when it could be used to absolve him. In that respect, the Transnistria ArbCom link you provided did not remotely address the very specific question I was asking (which was the main question I was asking). I could say more but will leave it at that for now. I'm not nearly as convinced in the scenario I've outlined above as you are in the one you lay out in the evidence page, but for now I still think a lot of the questions you ask are just as easily answered by a situation where SPTS is the controlling account. Just for the record, I'm not going through all this because I "like" Giovanni per say - he seems like a nice enough guy but really I don't know him at all - but rather because I think he deserves to be treated fairly and for all possibly relevant evidence to be considered. I'll probably post some new evidence on the evidence page when I get a chance in the next couple of days because regardless of how things shake out I think it's worth it for others to consider the information above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Community topic ban
I think you can also make a motion for a temporary injunction on the arbitration case for those accounts to be restricted from editing that and other pages for the duration of the case - you might want to ask the clerk about that. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured that, but ArbCom hasn't ruled on any of the other motions, they seem very busy. It's fine with me if the article just stays locked. - Merzbow (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification
As one of the people who do not like me, I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Requests_for_arbitration. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.96.154 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI
See here - there's considerably more to it than what we had discussed above. I'm not fully convinced that these accounts are controlled by SPTS, but I think at least one is, and it's getting harder to believe that G33 is involved.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think you're 180 degrees off the mark here; analysis coming soon. - Merzbow (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SoD etc etc
Hi. I think you're paying more attention to this than me... I've just been reading your evidence at. I've corrected it, assuming you mistook TenOfSpades for Diamonds. Anyway, for me at least the chain of socks and proof thereof is unclear. Could you do us all a favour and lay out clearly (here) the trail of edits that makes the full conncetions clear? If you can, then the entire case becomes pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I made an attempt at a superior organization, also adding a timeline. If you want any particular points clarified, let me know. - Merzbow (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that should be good enough. Its still quite hard to follow though, for those browsing. I'd suggest (if you have the time, or feel it needed) a full list of socks, grouped into those that are known to be connected (via confession of RFCU) and indicating where those groups connect only via circumstantial evidence. Presumably the arbcomm will lift its gnomic silence one day William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for the purposes of the case, the short version is: TenOfSpades confessed to being NU and SoD. RFCU says TenOfSpades is WheezyF. Logic says WheezyF is SoD. I'll make this point explicit in the first part of the statement and leave it optional for others to read on. - Merzbow (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lewis reference
Dear Merzbow, could you please revisit this issue. Is the new source statisfying you? Is the tag still needed?

And of course you are also welcome to comment on the rest of the quotes situation. Str1977 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor Denial
Please do get involved in cleaning it up, or possibly deleting it. If you can't, please at least recognise how bad it is, rather than arguing for its "mechanistic" inclusion! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)
 * Certainly the article needs improvement, but it's an unarguably notable term, and relevant to the subject of the Holodomor; that was the extent of my argument vis-a-vis the template. - Merzbow (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, its a completely non-notable term. That's the problem. Its entirely sourced to community newsletters. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why was the AfD an overwhelming keep? In two seconds I found this: - "None of this, however, is deterring President Yushchenko. He says he wants a new law criminalising Holodomor denial..." Anyways, this is not the place to argue it, could you and Irpen please start a new AfD if you believe this? - Merzbow (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, as I demonstrate on the talkpage, there is place for a scholarly survey of the use and abuse of the memory of the Holodomor by both the Soviet Union and first the Ukrainian-Canadian, and later the nationalist Ukrainian community. (See Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine by David Marples.) Oh, and the hideous votestacking that will take place. Eastern European AfDs are broken.
 * And you know as well as I do that phrases don't equivalate to concepts. Israeli Apartheid, anyone? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the ahistoricity as well as the agenda behind the "denial" comparison, see Making sense of suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian historical culture, by Johan Dietsch. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps time to ask for allegations to be unprotected?
With G33 and his massive train of puppets now community banned, I think it's safe to say some progress might finally be made on that article and others. No doubt we will still have some issues with Kendrick, but, well, one person. Jtrainor (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's wait until Olawe is banned first; as soon as the case closes I will open a WP:AE on him. - Merzbow (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been taken care of. Going to request unprot now... - Merzbow (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Asked the most recent protting admin. Almost certainly new G33 proxies will show up, but now with official case remedies and WP:AE as a tool hopefully peace can be had. - Merzbow (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)