User talk:Dominic/Archive19

Active discussions

Image:Mouldy_bread.jpg

July 10 last year you deleted this image with the summary it had the same name on the commons. The link is now broken with no trace of any such image on the commons. Where did it go? - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by me simply as a matter of housekeeping, as it was a duplicate. However, looking at the Commons logs, it looks like the image was deleted recently as a copyright violation: [1]. Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block me?

I want to know why my IP address was blocked. I do have an account, I just don't feel like logging in everytime I want to correct a minor misspelling (I occasionally use my account, I just prefer anonymous editing, is that wrong?). How did I abuse my IP address? I never vandalized any articles and I think it's unfair that I get blocked without any explanation. Let's see if we can work something out. I can understand you'd want to keep trouble makers out of Wikipedia (trust me, I hate them too), but I assure you I am not one of them. Hurricane Andrew 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am asking you why my IP address has been blocked, I haven't done anything wrong. I am posting it here: 66.217.38.111 Please respond, I don't want my questions ignored. Thank you. Hurricane Andrew 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been ignoring you. In the future please put your messages at the bottom of talk pages, so people you are trying to talk to notice it. :)
As for the block, you are on a dynamic IP range, which means that you share it with many other users, whose IPs change periodically, along with yours. That means that blocking a specific vandal is harder, and we sometimes have to make range blocks. This is why we have anonymous-only blocks, so that legitimate users like you affected by the block can simply log in and edit. I did not block you personally, it is simply a case of collateral damage. If I had intended that, your account, not your IP, would have been blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RFAR

I'll keep this short. Could you reconsider your recent RFAR request, giving the new process a chance? I would that perhaps we can assist these two, and they could add good content. In the interest of the project. Thanks, Navou banter / contribs 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, it doesn't make sense to me to come up with some communit-imposed sanction when the two were already on revert parole and have a history of gaming and violations. In particular, the revert parole was recently used to unblock them by an overly rules-oriented administrator, so it seems counterproductive. To be frank, I think a ban is the best solution. Dmcdevit·t 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev

Whatever you did, it seems to have stopped him cold. Thanks very much for handling that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like I spoke too soon, he's back at it. Still, your help is greatly appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I noticed. ;) I just blocked that newest IP (same range), but it's not as much of a problem: he's running on old sleepers he already created, but once he runs out, account creation is already blocked so he'll be out of luck. Dmcdevit·t 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's hoping he runs out soon! Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, is there any way to add to the account creation page a warning not to use an obvious password (like the same as the username)? He's apparently been compromising accounts like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it possible to know that? I suppose if the account was created recently enough that the IP for the log entry is still stored, I might notice the sudden change in IP, but I haven't seen that on any of the accounts I've checked. Is there some other way to know he didn't pesonally create an account he used? In any case, it's not a bad suggestion; how does this look? You can edit that page however you think best. Dmcdevit·t 04:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi stated he did it, I haven't tested it myself, but it does appear that at least some of the accounts in question have made a very sudden shift in interest and contribution areas. Regardless, the edit you made certainly makes sense, people like to use really stupid passwords sometimes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, please check out Special:Contributions/7777. You'll notice that the account clearly wasn't created by him, but he was able to use it because the password is the same as the username. I was even able to log into it myself: [2]. Khoikhoi 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, take a look at Special:Contributions/Kuk. It was last used a month ago before Ararat arev first used it. Khoikhoi 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

  The Working Man's Barnstar
For your seemingly tireless efforts in improving Wikipedia, I, Khoikhoi, award you this barnstar. 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh, and Ararat arev is back on Armenia under the following IPs:

Ciao, Khoikhoi 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like those were mostly old range blocks of mine that expired. I've extended them. Thanks for the barnstar. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenia and Ararat Arev

I am one of the editors who first had to deal with this user over five months ago. Quite simply, no power on earth will ever stop him from adding his material rabidly if the semiprotection is removed. He's already returned once again just after you unprotected it. You might want to put it back. Thanatosimii 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection wasn't doing anything anyway, these are all old accounts that can edit over it. However, they are old accounts because his main IP is blocked from account creations. I think he will run out of steam soon. Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope he will stop, but I am not sure that will be the case. He might just go to, say a library, and create his accounts again, he might have done this already. Do the editors need to make some number of edits to be established editors, or will they be an established one after some preset time? I guess we will have to use editprotected in the mean time. denizTC 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous

Hi. Could you please check the activity of 72.18.138.210 (talk · contribs). He has been edit warring on some pages, deleting content added by other users and ignoring talk, and has previous warnings from admins about his actions being vandalism. Regards, Grandmaster 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Undelete

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of abbreviations for names. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Swpb talk contribs 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Review of Block User:The_Behnam

I think that the decision to block this user was a bit premature. The cited reverts in the 3RR were for undoing POV vandalism POV pushing (this last resulted in the page being fully protected). The 300 article's edit page - in an effort to maintain stability, requested that users bring their proposed changes to the Discussion Page first. This request was also meant to build consensus for changes in the article, and cut down on edit warring. Benhams's edits were not of the tendentious sort, and were actually constructive.
Benham has been harassed by User:Agha Nader, whom he apparently knows in RL. After looking at the edit histories of both, I do see a tendency of Nader to follow Benham around, contesting his edits. I never believed in cabals, and for the most part still don't, but I have noticed - at least in the 300 article a definite, overtly cooperative effort to maintain a pro-nationalist sentiment within the article. Both ArmenianJoe and Agha Nader (and a few others, such as Khoikoi, Azerbaijani and Mardavich) seem to work in very close coordination of effort, via external email (fully aware that any conversation within talk will be recorded). While of course there are no cabals, the best of these "non-cabals" maintain a NPOV to work towards a better article; that is not occurring with the aforementioned users. They work to undo edits that that challenges their nationalist view, and to discredit and remove those editors who disagree consistently with this view. Often this view fiolates one or more of the Five Pillars. After viewing the ArbCom you are part of, I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about here.
Benham has clearly angered this group, and you can see that the edits he reverted were non-consensus edits that served solely to push a POV that was in the specific minority in the article. If you cannot see your way to removing the block after evaluating the environment in which Benham was editing in, perhaps you could lessen the length of the block. Typically, a first block lasts for 8 hours. Benham has not received that same consideration that any other user would have for 3RR on non edit-warring edits. Arcayne 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil, see WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not. The proper response to harassment is not response in kind. While teh content of the edits may have been constructive (I make no judgment), the edit warring was not. Please read through WP:DR#Further_dispute_resolution for proper responses to hostile editors. Dmcdevit·t 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I would ask that you not accuse me of mistaking vandalism with disagreement - I am well aware of the difference. While I completely agree that fighting 'fire with fire' is a close approximation to WP:POINT, your blocking of those editors ensuring a NPOV only serves to encourage POV "vandals" (your term, not mine) to continue those tactics which remove detractors.
As well, I agree that an An/I might be the only method by which to resolve the underlying issue, but your narrow interpretation of the violation here actually hurts that AN/I. The first block that the user received was a 24-hr block, when in most cases, 8-hr is called for (and I've seen the original block reasoning by Khoikoi - the edits were neither egregious nor valid). If you truly felt that the block was necessary, you might have AGF and allowed for the block to be of a more reasonabl length.
That you seem to be blocking the indivdual according to a warning that you gave him on another page, and using it as a further justification for the block here implies that you are exerting a sero-revert policy, which isn't WP policy. It seems to allow additions without correction, so any sort of completely POV nonsense can be added, as anyone who reverts it will be blocked, according to your warning This hasn't appeared to foster much in the way of discussion on the Discussion Page. It instead appears to have encouraged sockpuppetry, which seems to have increased significantly since your warning.
Clearly, you have issues with the edits taking place in the Koryun and Azerbaijan (Iran) articles. After taking a look at some of the nonsense going on there, so would I. However, penalizing someone and citing special rules you have devised on other pages as the reasoning seems invalid. This implies that you might have a conflict of interest in this matter, and should not have weighed in on the complaint. Since the block has already taken place, you could either remove it completely or reduce it, in order to correct this CoI. Arcayne 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make ill-considered accusations. If you look at my edit history, you will not find a single POV, or nationalist edit. To accuse me of conspiring with other editors through email to "harass" The Behnam is unacceptable. Do you have proof for any of your accusations? I wish that you would AGF, and not snipe my on various talk pages with accusations.--Agha Nader 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Er, what "various pages" are you referring to, Nader? And why are you following my edits? I believe reasonable people would consider that stalking. Arcayne 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your talk page, Khorshid's talk page, and Behnam's talk page. You once accused my of stalking your page then you were admonished by The Behnam. Please review the Wikipedia policies on stalking. Looking at a discussion about a review of a block of a user that I reported, is definitely not stalking. Do you think you can make these sort of ill-considered accusations on various talk pages without me noticing.--Agha Nader 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I guess I am a little confused. How is it that Benham's, Khorshid's, Dmcdevit's and my Talk page are all on your watchlist?? As well, I keep the AN/3RR board on my watchlist, which I am pretty sure isn't against the rules, either, any more than requesting a blocking admin review the evidence. All of the people I named seem to be extraordinarily well-connected to one another. However, if it's this single accusation that bothers you, I will withdraw it unless or until you prove me correct.
While I cannot expect you to remove my talk page from your watchlist, I want you to know that I consider it pretty odd. It isn't like we edit a lot of the same pages. Whatever. This convo is taking up another user's Talk page, when you could be addressing me on mine or on yours. Let's leave the guy alone, shall we? Arcayne 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Who said they are on my watch list? I only responded to the personal attacks you made. Do you think you can make personal attacks on your talk page without people seeing them? I referring when you called your fellow editors "Petulant, vengeful children" on your talk page. Please refrain from making personal attacks on all Wikipedia space. Agha Nader 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

As I said before, you can address these issues on my talk page, so long as you remain polite. That you are posting it here simply suggests that you are cheaply trying to complain to this user. As for the comment, I have already clearly answered you there; the comment was not directed at you, and I am quite certain that your time would be far better spendt not stalking my user history or talk pages. After this post, you can write all you want - I am not going to take up another inch of this user's talk page. Arcayne 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF. The reason I am commenting here is that you attacked me here. At this point I hope Dmcdevit would comment on what appears to me to be personal attacks you made here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agha Nader (talkcontribs) 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Re. Azerbaijan (Iran) and 72.18.138.210

I made a bad call there. Another admin who is involved with the article contacted me and I reduced the block to three hours last night. However, you're right and I should not have blocked them in haste as I did. I will immediately apologise to that editor. I'm only a 2-week newb admin but I should have known better and slipped up on this one. AIV was kinda busy last night! - Alison 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero revert rule?

After my recent block I realize that your edict at Azerbaijan (Iran) is essentially a zero revert rule. I don't know if such a rule has legitimacy on WP as an alternative to protection but I ask that you implement protection instead. If people want to add something they can just use the formal request template on the talk page. On the other hand, 0RR allows things to be added but never removed, and may encourage sockpuppetry. Full protection seems to be a better, WP-endorsed mechanism for freezing edit wars, so I ask you do please use full protection there instead of 0RR. Thank you. The Behnam 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolfo Holley

  On 6 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adolfo Holley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen RfB

Hi,

Response now available there. If you'd prefer to talk the discussion to any particular talk page, that's fine with me. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oguz1

This kind of looks like he is evading his ban, [3] and the revert by the IP are the same, [4] Artaxiad 09:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mauco

According to the block log, he is blocked for two months for using suckpuppets. See link. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes...? I was the one that blocked him. Dmcdevit·t 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then you should know; so why remove the notice? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't blank people's user pages because they have been temporarily blocked. Dmcdevit·t 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The page was not blanked. You just removed the notice where it said that he was blocked because of using suckpuppets. Have a look at the history. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah! My mistake. I somehow misread the diff and thought that the userpage had been replaced with the template. All I meant to do was retore the userpage (due to my misundersanding), not remove any template. Ignore me. :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, well, I don't mind either way. I just found it strange, that's all. :p --Thus Spake Anittas 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=87046132#William_Mauco

Person Needing a Time-Out

This anon user seems to be having some difficulty working with others (1, 2 and is often uncivil (1). The user has a short but unhappy history within the WP community. Usually, one can find at least one or two positive edits that a user has made. Unfortunately (and surprisingly), this user has none. What might we be able to offer the editing community in the way of protection from this user? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Can you checkthis case out? This is a really big sock case. Kingjeff 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that you made an accurate assesment of the case? Can you please recheck them? Kingjeff 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look here and here, then you'll see evidence of an evasion of a ban. Here is a giveaway for IP Address 81.211.198.6. Kingjeff 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The technical evidence doesn't support a connection. Of course, CheckUser isn't a magic wiki pixie dust, and adept users can evade detection, but you'll need an admin to make a judgment call on the matter if that is the case. Dmcdevit·t 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis

Just to be clear, I assume that TropicNord (talk · contribs) is not a confirmed Arthur Ellis Sock? I just want to verify before I fulfill the requested removal of tags from his/her userspace. Thanks!--Isotope23 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Thatcher131 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Dmcdevit, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK and tell how any of these accounts are in violation of the specific prohibited uses of sockpuppets, and I'll check them out. And if they are, please provide a possible culprit, if you can, so I can compare the two. Dmcdevit·t 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Did you check 62.31.146.25 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) against Xmas1973 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) and John Smith's (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))? The IP shows as in the UK, which I know John Smith is from. If they are connected this would be a 3RR vio. Thanks.Giovanni33 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - two users from the same country. What a coincidence.
Giovanni, I suggest you see a psychiatrist to deal with your paranoia. John Smith's 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Watch it. We won't tolerate attacks or incivility. Giovanni isn't paranoid, if the IP is reverting to your version and is the same country then it's reasonable to think it might be a sockpuppet and get it checked out. The fact that you're getting incivil kind of supports the allegation. How about rather than requesting it all from Dmcdevit, go to WP:RFCU and file the appropriate reports. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have a question. Dmcdevit, did you check where there is any relation between the anon IP 209.160.65.68 and User:VietFire? John Smith's 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for being the voice of reason with your comments on Zeq's talk page. I reiterate that I am not, as he claims, involved in any content dispute with him, and in fact, am trying to spare newer admins what I and others have gone through; to ensure that all the work that went into the arbitration case was not for naught. Also, I am sorry about the slight unpleasentness we've had in the past over this. Regards, El_C 07:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't recall that was over something related to Zeq. See WP:AN/I for lengthier comments by me. Also, I have no grudge either, no need to worry about the past. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Goodstuff, I didn't think so. Thanks again. :) El_C 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko Sivonen

User is complaining so I took the liberty of starting a thread here to endorse your block (which was past due, IMHO). --bainer (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Documentation of Checkuser reply templates

Hi, I came across Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matthead where a user wonders what does   Possible mean. I must admit I am a bit lost myself on the different templates you CU use to answer the cases. I started a discussion some time ago on the clerk noticeboard on the meaning of all these. What do you think of expanding the Indicator page to emphasize a bit more the answers? -- lucasbfr talk 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

Hi. Please check recent contribs of User:Azerbaijani. He is waging a slow revert war. Just today he reverted 3 pages. See: [5] [6] Here he reverted the page: [7] To this version: [8] And this edit [9] is a partial revert, as he deleted the following line under a guise of adding info: However, official reports from international organizations, such as the leading human rights organization in the European Community, the Council of Europe, paint a favorable picture.

Entitlement to 1 revert per week does not mean that he should go around and revert the pages once a week, he makes no attempt to reach a compromise with other editors or try a dispute resolution. Grandmaster 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am entitled to one revert per week per article, Grandmaster cannot dictate to me in which ways I choose to use my reverts, because I certainly do not go around talking about Grandmaster to admins for every little thing he does or every revert he makes. He is trying to continue to the character assassination that Atabek and AdilBaguirov started. Note that Adil Baguirov has already come back several times with IP's and even created a new account, which was banned, just so he could continue edit warring and attacked several articles. Furthermore, the COE quote on the Talysh Mughan Autonomous Republic was selective, Grandmaster and Adil picked the only part of the report which praised Azerbaijan, and left out all of the criticism which are talked about in the same source! Since it was selective, I removed it, yet because of Grandmaster's insistence, I expanded it to include the rest of the report. Furthermore, the source is from the Council of Europe, so I merely changed However, official reports from international organizations, such as the leading human rights organization in the European Community (of which the underlined portion is POV and not sourced) to According to the Council of Europe.
Secondly, since Grandmaster is talking of compromises, why did he revert my first edit instead of talking about it on the talk page? I had left a comment on the talk page, but nope, Grandmaster wouldnt discuss it, he simply reverted me and left another comment, so this in itself contradicts Grandmaster, as he is saying that I am the one not wanting to compromise! He assumes that he doesnt have to compromise, but that I do.
Furthermore, my edits speak for themselves. I have compromised on many many articles, and I myself have asked third party users to comment on several articles.
The character assassinations have just started again, and soon I'm sure Atabek will also be here to make a few comments against me.Azerbaijani 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like I should post a note at the top of this page to the effect of "This is my personal talk page, not a noticeboard". I'm not the only administrator in the world, and this conflict has drained enough of my time already. Could you please take this to the community at a wider noticeboard? Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hi, I was wondering if you would like to look into this case. Artaxiad seems to be still editing: [10]. He says he wont stop. -- Cat chi? 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis

Thank you for the very prompt and efficient reply to the request. TropicNord

Zero

Arbcom rulings are prescriptive, though, which is what we're talking about, and which isn't a small point. Just so you know, the problem Zero is getting at is the problem you have any time one person writes and interprets the same text. Let's say you wrote the ruling poorly; is that something you're going to be as ready to admit as a third party? Beyond that, are you going to be as perceptive to ambiguities in your text? I don't know that it's anything to inform arbcom about, but I do think it's something for you to consider.

My point here, in any case, is simply that a misreading of an ambiguously worded arbcom ruling isn't the time to resort to harsh sanctions against a guy who has been contributing extremely productively here for some three years. Just a thought. Mackan79 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN#Disclosing real IP – something a checkuser should not do

Just to inform you, not long ago on the Admins noticeboard, a pretty serious allegation was made against you regarding possible abuse of your Checkuser privileges. Whether you reply or not is up to you, but I'm sure you would want to provide your point of view. Just passing on the message. Harryboyles 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Transnistria

Can you protect the page? 3RR against user Alaexis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) He was blocked before 2 days ago for 3RR.--M-renewal 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dmcdevit. I saw you were already anounced about the report I made against you. If you don't want to comment publicly this report I would be interested to know in private your opinion, through e-mail. Regarding the edit-war actually going in Transnistria article, I think is staged to show that even without User:William Mauco there are edit wars on this article. In 7 April, at "Romanian Wikipedians notice board" where I asked advice about Mauco's case, somebody point at a vandalism made at Vladimir Socor article by the newbie User:M-renewal, suggesting that M-renewal could be a sock of Mauco [11]. I didn't took this seriously as Mauco was not a simple vandal, as M-renewal appears, but considering latest developments I believe this would worth a check - for you is easy to do.--MariusM 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

An uninvolved user has posted to WP:AN requesting a review of your 48-hour block of User:The Benham. I see some mitigating circumstances, while two other admins (one on AN and one on the user's talkpage) have agreed with the block. Your input at AN is requested. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:The Behnam

This block is being discussed on WP:AN#Request Admin Second Opinion on Unblock Request for User:The Behnam. At least two editors have supported an unblock. Your comments would be welcome. DES (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

A case you commented has been filed an ArbCom request by me, on Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Transnistria, please go take a look, thank you! WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

It looks like you have been engaging in edit warring at Iranian women. Please be aware that User:The Behnam has just been blocked for this, and the same will happen to you if it continues. You need to read WP:DR and follow the non-confrontational processes outlined there for resolvin the conflict. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the guidance. In the meanwhile, I would be grateful if you kindly point me to the right direction. There is an editor (FullStop), who due to his religious intolerance and dogma is constantly RV my edits in number of pages. HE has taken this to a personal level, to the point of accusations; What can I do about him? Many thanks in advance for your co-operation? ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to try mediation (WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB) and ask for outside opinions (WP:3O and WP:RFC) to get more eyes on the conflict. There is more advice in the essay at WP:DR. Dmcdevit·t 09:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 10:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey look! ParthianShot tried DR right with his next edit [12]! The Behnam 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, would you have approached this differently had you known that ParthianShot was formerly Surena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), twice blocked for edit warring and a checkuser-proven sockpuppeteer? BTW, his behavior continues to be a problem, I will look into it tonight. Thatcher131 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, please note that there's an ANI thread on this (in which Dmcdevit noted the same observation). Newyorkbrad 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I might have blocked both instead at teh time, but by the time Behnam emailed me and I realized ParthianShot was experienced, it had already been one or two days since the edit war, and he didn't continue, so I noted it on ANI and took no action. Of course, if he's reverting elsewhere now, it might be a different situation. Dmcdevit·t 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and edit warriors

That was a refreshing read. Btw, Slrubenstein introduced me to a recent essay of his today which you may be interested to review. Regards, El_C 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on the JB196 RfCU

I see a lot of the accounts listed were not blocked (the later ones), were they unrelated, or was just burntsauce unrelated? SirFozzie 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

User:209.217.67.146 is requesting unblock. I have contacted you, as in guideance with our procedures. Part Deux 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This range block is needed to deal with a persistent banned user. However, it is only an anon. only block, which means the person just ahs to log in to edit. If they don't have an account, either the person behind it can find another internet connection (library, school, etc.) to create an account, or can email an admin with the request, and they can fulfill it following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators. Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, will notify. Part Deux 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ombudsman Commission

Hi, Thankyou for offering to assist in the investigation. I shall be in touch shortly to discuss any issues. Feel free to provide an email address to cartmanau-at-gmail.com if you wish it to remain private - Cartman02au 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can email me through the "Email this user" link, or, in any case, you already have my email from my comments at checkuser-l. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this out...Buffadren is MaGioZal...


Buffadren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

MaGioZal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

MarkStreet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

William Mauco (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you believe me ?

If I tell you that I want to see a better encyclopedia ?

I know you think I am hopeless, and quite honestly I can see why.

However, most articles from which I was banned (even for a year) have all had continued edit-war without me.

I did not receive 8 blocks for editwars. Some of my blocks were on nonsense like I left a message on few people talk page asking them to participate in an admin vote. That was enough for a young admin to block me (twice - once more fro asking to be unblocked) . That admin has later given up his adminship on the ground that he realize he is not mature enough (he is only a kid)

Anyhow, Wikipedia is missing amechanism to ensure NPOV and lack of edit wars on issues such as the ME articles. People like my self, Zero and Ian could never agree without a 3rd party activly mediating. Just banning me from articles I had conflict with Zero Palestinian Exodus and the 1948 war has done nothing Zero continued the POV pushing and edit war with others. This is endless and this is not just a personal issue but also a process issue.

as you can see I don't have problem to admit my guilt (in places where I am guilty) but I do want to move beyond guilt to find a process that can work. Just blocking the Pro_israel side of the POV and doing nothing to the anti-israel side of the POV is not a way to get to NPOV.

Best regards, Zeq 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I believe you. I have infinite confidence in the good faith of editors, despite shortcomings; Wikipedia would never have turned out to be such a success if cynicism were right. However, sometimes good faith is not the same as good behavior; one of the best ways to work to improve the encyclopedia rather than to promote your POV is to avoid contentious topics that excite you enough to cause such hostile editing tactics. I'm afraid though (see my comment about not being cynical; Wikipedia has good articles on most contentious subjects because of ideologically dissimilar editors working together cordially) that I can't accept the claim that Middle Eastern articles, or any set of articles, invariably lead to conflict between opposing editors, by the nature of the topic. To say that is to ignore the body of good articles on contentious subjects at Wikipedia. Inability to communicate or to work together or to follow content policies—conduct issues—are the problem here, and need to be dealt with if you cannot moderate your behavior in the face of a concerted effort by the community to get you to do so. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I accept what you say at least in large part. I wrote it after I read this: WP:User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts - in which you focus on the personality of the editor. My point was that it is not always just the personality of the editor but the subject matter as well.
I tend to agree with you regardless of what is the origin of the problem the solution is in what you wrote here:

"one of the best ways to work to improve the encyclopedia rather than to promote your POV is to avoid contentious topics that excite you enough to cause such hostile editing tactics."

Best, Zeq 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot part trey

MedianLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Possible sock puppet and/or sock puppet of another user looking to stir up trouble [13]. May be a backslashing open proxy. [14] Thatcher131 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy is right. Actually it's the same person as whoever this IP at Denial of the Armenian Genocide was. (This is why I don't block open proxies anon.-only; anyone who knows how to use an ope proxy knows how to use another internet connection or another open proxy to create an account to get around the block.) Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So why was ParthianShot blocked? was it her? I requested a CheckUser on her regarding another I.P and it was unrelated so is this someone trying to frame her? Ashkani 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the IP and MedianLady were obviously carrying ParthianShot's disputes for him, so it seems that he was evading his block through sock or meatpuppetry. As for that IP he could have just gone over to a library. Considering the subsequent creation of MedianLady I think there is more reason to believe that this is ParthianShot himself and not some conspirators. The Behnam 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay than how do we know he is telling the truth? CheckUser has confirmed I.P is unrelated I'm sure they know if its a library. Ashkani 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the specifics work for that. I just pointed out the IPs work to Aksi_great since it was obviously suspicious and appeared to be a block dodge. It was up to his judgment as I didn't expect PS to be foolish enough to operate under a related IP. The Behnam 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay? Ashkani 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
ParthianShot was blocked for edit warring. The block was extended for sockpuppetry, then dropped back to its original length after the checkuser came back unrelated. Exactly why jpgordon said the two were unrelated is privileged; another checkuser can check his work but the details will not be released publically. I originally blocked MedianLady as a suspected sock puppet; since she edits from open proxies that can't be confirmed or refuted. But she was pushing allegations that ParthianShot's block was a racially motivated conspiracy, which we do not need here, so she is still indefinitely blocked. ParthianShot's comments against user:Fullstop on his talk page sound very similar to MedianLady's accusation that Fullstop secretly got Ashki to block her for edit warring, so my suspicions are still raised. I'd also like to know how brand new user Ashkani got involved in this; I certainly wasn't even aware of blocking policy and sockpuppets on my second day. However, even if Ashkani is someone's sockpuppet, that's tolerable as long as he isn't a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. Thatcher131 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Ashkani also gives credence to the nationality conspiracy [15] "there also is skirmish between nationalities not being fair because of the admins nationality" The Behnam 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to be neutral giving the other users claims. Ashkani 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
From the way you put it it sounded as if you believed that there was really a nationality issue. I apologize if I erred in that judgment. However, of new concern is that PS is now treating Fullstop and I as one (Fullstop/The Behnam), is insulting admins ("have gone mad"), and calling Fullstop and I puppets of the Islamic regime ("ploy by Islamic regime’s puppets"). Which, by the way, is very similar to the ideas of that IP on the talk page for The Lion and Sun. Hmm... The Behnam 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm. So anyway. This is my talk page, not a noticeboard (I know they look alike sometimes). If this discussion needs to take place, please do it in a more appropriate place. (Shoo!) Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You really should put a notice, archive your page than do it since so many people do things like this. Put a link to the notice board. Ashkani 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing this users (Ashkani) contribution as per your WP:RFCU/C/Artaxiad findings? He seems to be obsest on Turkish related topics just like Artaxiad. -- Cat chi? 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn

Hello, I found that you have declined the cases on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. My request is to run a checkuser for the my userid and check whether these users are sockpuppet of mine. It is clear from my evidences that these users are not in my IP domain and there is no reason to put them under my user id. Ptu them int appropriate places. Not under my user id. As the request says the checkuser was for the "Pens withdrawn" and all the users are put under my id!! --- Sundaram7 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not our policy to have self-requested CheckUsers. Please see the directions at WP:RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Close

It wasnt so much as a sockpuppet abuse, this user used his IP address AND his account to post on it. If I nominated him in the wrong place, please direct me to the correct location. I remember reading somewhere that this could be done, so I gave it a shot. Thanks DietLimeCola 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is not prohibited. Abusive sockpuppetry is. Please read WP:SOCK and only file another request if there is a specific abuse according to the criteria there. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk

This user is practically asking for a ban. See here:[16][17] Click on the links there to see his personal attacks. He is making it very clear that he knows that he is personally attacking me and that he doesnt care whether he has to face the consequences. This is coming from a user that just got out of an Arbcom. I'm sick of his personal attacks, and I think he should be banned for a period of one year for these attacks (thats my opinion, I'll leave the actual decision to you guys).Azerbaijani 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I don't know why this revert was made [18] without any discussion. He also reverted all the changes I made yesterday, back to back within a minute so either he's a speed reader or he did not read any comments or content.

  1. 04:42, 20 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m Armenians in Turkey (Reverted edits by Oguz1 (talk) to last version by SmackBot)
  2. 04:42, 20 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (rv per source cited) (top)
  3. 04:41, 20 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Van Province (rv) (top)

I made a direct appeal on his talk page , on the article talk page, and on my edit summary on why the change was made [[19]] , alas.

He claims Primary Sources are completely out per WP:NOR. But I provided three sources which is acceptable per WP:NOR, and WP says they're even encouraged.

What did I do wrong that warranted a revert from an admin. And he won't discuss anything with me, nor does he comment the edit summary.

I am asking you for help because, if I ask anyone else for anything, I get blocked.

So, please, I really need to know what I am doing wrong here. Thanks. --Oguz1 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dazed

  • Minutes later 86.137.146.147 appears trying to frame me I am not from the United Kingdom I had to leave for a family emergency and now there saying nonsense, there going to use that against me now everywhere that I am a sock. I guess this gives Cool Cat the right to harass me of a sock and stalk my contributions I am helpless right now. Ashkani 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: A editing war has started been started by Makalp, he hasn't discussed any of his reverts I have left the user a note on his talk the user who added the material for third party sources and NPOV. [21] how long may I take this users harassment? Ashkani 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't appreciate users harassments theres other interwikis. Ashkani 03:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial of AG

Thanks for the comment on the talk page. I think we can reach a relative stability there with my last edit. I think it also reflects the bbc reference well. denizTC 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you this time, anyway I am quite busy, I should possibly take a break. denizTC 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Your input might be helpful on an unblock request at User_talk:Megaversal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OttomanReference

User:Dmcdevit says: You have multiple reverts at this article since its unprotection with no edits to the talk page at all. You were just blocked for edit warring there. Please stop continuing the current edit war, and intead work the problem out by discussing it. If the edit war continues it may be dealt with by blocks. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These are six edits and summaries of all the editions (more than three months) by me from 12 "January" 2007. My summaries:

  • 6- 20 April 2007 (rv -2 (introduction has already been discussed) please obey the general rules of editing see: the discussion Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide#Revised_opening_line)
  • 5- 20 April 2007 (rv -please use the discussion page for changes.)
--I 'm blocked here by an ADMIN for the 3RR of because of the reversion of ArmenianJoe's added "added text"; which I did not responded to ArmenianJoe with the third revert of his deletion of the section.
  • 4- 16 April 2007 (rv - vandalism deletion of block of text with no apperant reason.)
  • 3- 15 April 2007 (All the items are cited; please be more specific; perform your editions in small increments and give their reasons. Thanks)
User Armenian joe reverted the added text
  • 2- 15 April 2007 (Let me divide the introduction into two pars. One that ""agrees"" other that ""disagrees"". This will minimize the edit wars....)
  • 1- 15 April 2007 (citations from "The Middle East: A History) added a text

Regarding "no edits to the talk page," I'm the one who asked the use of talk page and inspide of the other users gave an extensive reasoning, which the respond never solidified. I would appreciate if, you follow this link and see the response and how the introduiction section should be shaped.

Could you please be more specific; especially why do you feel the need to threaten me?? It is hard to understand the reasons of me being targatted.?? Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding the blockage: Besides the fact that I have never been in the 3RR, there has never been a warning by Admin user:Cbrown1023. This can be easily recognized if you follow my talk page. The Admin User:Thatcher131 tried to war me about the 3thr revert but I was blocked by then.

  • 3 [23] Admin User:Thatcher131 reverts his message, which s/he recognizes that eventhough there is no warning the action already performed by user:Cbrown1023
  • 2 [24] message that I'm warned
  • 1 [25] message that I'm blocked (there is no link that that I can produce for the warning)


While asking me to discuss the content of the introduction section; and giving me a warning not to edit the page; The introduction section has been removed not just a single sentence but two paragraphs [26] without any discussion at the talk page [27]. I just do not get your position. Thanks. --OttomanReference 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After my unprotection of the article on April 20, you made 2 further reverts, and gave no rationales for either of them on the talk page, you last edit there being April 18. The point is this: you were just blocked for edit warring on that article; please stop with the repeated reverts and develop talk page consensus for contentious changes. Dmcdevit·t 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. That does not really clear the feeling that I'm victimized. What about your position that changes at introduction should be discussed at the talk page and the latest deletion/removal of the whole introduction section. I thought this behavior was the reason behind my blockage, but obviously there are different perceptions of it. As you did not act on deletion of the whole introduction, this form of edit should be normal. Currently this article has virtually no introduction and I guess this is a form of solution. No introduction, no problem. Have a nice Sunday. I have a workshop to attend. --OttomanReference 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, your accusations of bias are patently absurd considering I blocked Aivazovsky before you pointed out that diff to me. But, he was blocked for edit warring, not for the content change he made. The point is, I don't have any stake in teh content dispute at all and it is not the reason I'm making the decisions I am. The problem is the behavior of teh edit warriors on either side. When you have a dispute, work it out according to dispute resolution procedure, not sterile edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Pam55

Hi. I suspect that Pam55 (talk · contribs) is a sock account. Please check his contributions, he only turns up occasionally to revert Iran related articles. Grandmaster 10:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use the WP:RFCU process. Dmcdevit·t 09:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

  On April 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José de Garro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Do I know you my dear sir? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK! :) - Aksi_great (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both! :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev

He's been back, on the Turkey and Armenia pages. Would it be possible for you to nail some more IPs and/or socks? (If you'd prefer I make the request on the main checkuser page, just troutslap me and I'll be happy to, just figured you were already familiar with the situation.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Silveriver

Hi, I have added another one that i forget to put before. Can you please check it for me. Thanks DXRAW 12:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. DXRAW 09:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hello Dmcdevit, can you take a look here please? User_talk:Blnguyen#Any_ideas_about_what_to_do_with_this_article.2Feditor.3F. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Pat Binns

Your article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Pat Binns contained the sentence: "As of publishing, the television segment was still illegally available through Pate’s YouTube channel." with a link to the material. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works and note that linking to copyright infringements is prohibited on Wikipedia and may constitute a copyright infringement in itself. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If I simply said, but didn't link? I was using this to demonstrate a lack of integrity in Pate. -- Zanimum 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That's probably fine (though I'm not an expert; your guess is as good as mine). Dmcdevit·t 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz and Nasser Pourpirar

I understand tha User:Ahwaz was unblocked under his promise not to edit war on Nasser Pourpirar. Indeed Ahwaz account has not touched the article ever since. On the other hand the history of the article shows a number of throw away accounts reverting it. Do you think they are Ahwaz's puppets? If, yes, he probably should be reblocked. Alex Bakharev 07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the accounts, it's hard to say because of all the open proxies: Bizbilirdik = Alif Lam Meem, but both are on an open proxy, so it's a dead end. AbedHo is on an open proxy. Someone 1984 is on an open proxy. Atashparast is already confirmed as Khorshid. The one interesting result is that Discipleoftruth = Nazcas, and it's geopraphically in the same area as Ahwaz, but a different ISP. This could happen if someone just goes to their work or school and uses the computer there. The open proxies in general are fishy, but there's not much I can say from a techical standpoint about whether that is evidence enough. Dmcdevit·t 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!Alex Bakharev 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Diyarbakir

Since you were an arbitrator on the case involving Moby Dick, I was wondering if you could provide some insight at User:Ben's comments at the Community sanction noticeboard using Moby Dick's edits as evidence (or something like evidence) -- Cat chi? 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see the relevant checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir -- Cat chi? 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev redux

The user is back with several socks, all of which can be found here, here and here. Just a heads up. Anything that can be done? Cheers, – Riana 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to be away from the computer now, but see my block log. I've been watching this since before your note. The problem is that normally he'd run out of sleeper accounts by now and semi-protection would work, but instead it looks like he has a bot to hijack old accounts with insecure passwords. The Earthlink range is completely blocked (it should be returned to anon-only if he goes away for a bit) and the big Level 3 and Pac-West ranges are blocked from account creation. His only recent accounts came when that block expired and he created more accounts, but it looks like he ran through them pretty quickly. Outside of that, we just have to keep blocking the old accounts until he goes away. Tell me if there are any more recently-created accounts. Dmcdevit·t 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Figure they'll ever reconsider using a captcha for login, rather than just creation? At the very least, that would force this type of idiocy to get done by hand. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Added a couple dozen here, but I have to duck out. Perhaps someone else can take up the slack? – Riana 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Will do, I should be around a bit. CMummert's watching as well. Don't worry about going back too far though, the server doesn't keep logs very long. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Haven't gone further than March 2007 yet. There's a lot I skipped over in April. – Riana 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That should be very much far enough, I don't think they're ever kept more than a month. (Though Dmcdevit can troutslap me if I'm wrong on this one, and for holding a conversation on his page. :P ) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What are the chances of me getting access to User:Kitty again? :( El_C 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried talking to the blocking admin? Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, that idiot is not returning my calls! El_C 08:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So the subject of the sentence "must have guessed my password" is omitted. I am still trying to figure out whether Ararat arev guessed Kitty's password (which was Kitty) and so you blocked; whether Kitty is the real Ararat arev and was blocked for guessing others' passwords; whether Kitty guessed your password (Kitty) and did something naughty so you blocked Kitty as punishment; whether Kitty guessed your password, and is still operating the El C account (you) now and blocked Kitty because of, um, difficulty typing with paws... Or what. I could try and see if I can get through to the blocking admin, though; maybe he'll reply to me. Actually, I think he's watching this page. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why spoil a good mystery? All, or most, of the above! Kitty 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser autoblock

B.Wind is suffering from an autblock which appears to be connected to a Checkuser block you placed. I do not intend to undo the block, but as the blocking checkuser-admin, I would appreciate you taking a look. The user also states he/she has sent an email to the blocking admin (I'm assuming you). - auburnpilot talk 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just replied to his last email, but I'm off to bed now. This is related to the Ararat arev vandalism at Turkey-related articles, and I think it' too severe to unblock right now, as he's still active. Dmcdevit·t 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik block

You have blocked user:Tajik few weeks back and he is now using a new user name, which is user:Tajik-Professor. He is purposly using bad typing during his edits, at the same time, using a name tajik-"professor". both, tajik and tajik-professors, are involved in anti-pashtun (see talk:Pashtun people) and anti-Afghanistan.

Somebody needs to stop this user who is hooked on spreading false, misleading, and incomplete information online. Herdtrid 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Beh-nam placed false welcoming tag on User talk:Tajik-Professor [28]. In the green section, your contributions links to someone elses contributions by the user name "NisarKand" who is already banned from editing. Herdtrid 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

300

I've only made two reverts and an edit, on something which is a clear NPOV violation. Miskin 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For example have a look at this edit which I didn't even bother with: [29]. What about WP:NPOV? Does the opinion of a group of partisan editors count more than NPOV? Miskin 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts is my limit. This article has been pov-pushed too much by partisan editors, who have btw established a status quo version by means of numerical superiority. It is ridiculous to seek DR for such a fundamental question. They claim that their pseudo-consensus is more credible than npov. Miskin 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As well, I thank you for pointing out my, Miskin's and AlienTraveler's eidts. However, I couldn't help but notice how these were the only three folks you took it upon yourself to "warn." One might ask why you didn't bother notifying the other editors in the dispute. Of course, you might have not gotten around to doing it as of yet. As you know there is a major concern expressed by a number of other editors about the presence of a pro-nationalist group of editors. Your failure to properly notify the other editors in the dispute might very well be construed as bias. I won't take that step with you, although I have found at least one other admin working with this group. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make ill-considered accusations. Accusing your opponents of being "a pro-nationalist group of editors" is in violation of WP:CIV.--Agha Nader 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My accusations are never ill-considered, but thanks for making part of my point for me, Nader. However, I don't believe I know why you are here. I didn't refer to you by name, and I can assure you that I don't consider you an opponent. In point of fact, I hardly consider you at all. I believe you have been warned numerous times about stalking and plotting against other editors. You are excused, sir. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hell abusive blocks

Something evil has happened and I wonder if you could explain and follow up; it appears user "66" signed his last discussion post for Richard Hell entry as "Roosterer" and then proceeded to get you to block every single anon on that page as "blocked as abusive" EXCEPT for "66" (ie, he got "Roosterer" banned too) AND he got the version he wanted put up (CLEARLY showing beyond all doubt he won't engage in gd faith discussion) protected; there is no edit history for the reversion; Please follow up; I also think this behavior should have "66" banned; if that is not possible a SEVERE reprimand if such exists. It was highly abusive, dishonest and disturbing. AND he got his goal of his page version up so no edits would be done (See Talk page for STEEL for discussion of why his version is NOT to be the one up, and the purpose for the original protect). THis behavior is severe; every single anon on that page (multiple people over multiple years) were blocked by him, at his request using a false account set up ("Roosterer" - who refers to prior posts when there are none registered for Roosterer on that page). This appears obvious; please confirm why you did those blocks and reversion of protected page (and why no history is there to trace it). 4.236.15.182 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've never heard of Richard Hell before now, and never blocked any editors there, to my knowledge. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The block went away and then came back the next day, and now is gone again; "this account or IP address has been blocked...by Dmcdevit...for persistent abuse; your IP address is 4.231.241.60" comes up; a search of your block log reveals many # blocks on 26 April, and when I clicked on many of the #'s the message refers to the same IP address even though the blocked # is listed on the log as a different # (eg, 22:21 26 April 4.231.0.0/16 (clicking on contributions, says "none"; clicking # gives above message; also 67.150.120.0/24 block, yet some other blocks you made 26 April show correct/matching IP address on block message). A search of that referenced # says "IP address not blocked" yet attempting to edit I got that same page, referencing you and saying my IP address is 4.2... All of the other IP's from RHell talk page other than 66. came up as blocked when I clicked them, but I guess there is some broad range blocking going on unrelated to the Hell site from what you say. I assume complaints by others lead to the fast unblocking or could it be a virus? Some glitch anyway. 4.236.12.42 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I placed several range blocks then because of a persistent vandal. It looks like you share the same ISP as that vandal, Level 3, which is a dynamic IP range. The range (4.231.0.0/16) doesn't have contributions because it is not any single IP address. Any blocks caused by collateral damage were inadvertent, and not related to perceptions of abuse by editors at Richard Hell. This can be avoided in the future if you register for an account and log in when anonymous-only blocks are placed. Dmcdevit·t 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Check on User: Kd lvr User:Kdkatpir2 User:WTAEchick

Does this [[30]] mean we are okay? - was posted by User: Kd lvr

I would like to know how these three are not related. Seriously. It is pure sockpuppetry. - SVRTVDude (VT) 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read what sockpuppetry is and how CheckUser works. Dmcdevit·t 07:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it means you are okay; it means you are likely to not be sockpuppets, though. Dmcdevit·t 07:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith FAR

Bahá'í Faith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

checkuser

Hi Dmc - can you please check up Paraqueet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) and Herr=dab= (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) - these two ids were caught trolling on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence by me and user:Newyorkbrad in a relatively short space of time. I am suspecting Kuntan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar but it could be another involved party as well. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is Kuntan. The following are all confirmed:

Dmcdevit·t 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Note to the peanut gallery, all blocked. Thanks, Dmcdevit (now you don't have to hide from me on IRC tonight). Thatcher131 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Freedom skies

Since the checkuser results indicate likely sockpuppetry, what do I do next? JFD 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Either an admin will take care of it soon, or take it to WP:AN for help if not. Dmcdevit·t 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. JFD 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - let's just make sure the issue is crystal clear

[31] Zeq

Use square brakcets for urls/diffs. (I did it for you) El_C 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a key evidence and I want to make sure you see it:

[32]

This has been discussed before. Zero was told not to ban Zeq 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? And why are you commenting in the Arbitrators field? El_C 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*Ugh* Zeg, I'm irritated enough about Zero' assumption of your bad faith; I didn't realize you were doing the same of him. Please don't. Questioning judgment is fine and proper, but not good faith, after years of good service. I'm not sure why you say the issue is the ban and not the block; it's both, which are functinally the same act of poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

devit,

You need to realize one very important issue about wkipedia which is especially true for people who come from non-english speaking places (like I do): 1. I do not graps fully what is the difference between "good faith" and "good jusdgment". 2. Any exchange in written english lacks the basic human comunication mechanisms of tone of voice, facial expression etc.. - as such the opportunity to misunderstand is high. So I am not sure what is exactly you are now further complainaing about me. Zero should have known not to ban me (he was told by Fred not to use ban as the first step if he has a conflict) you want to call it "bad judgment" this is fine by me. Zero have demonstrated all along that he does not take descision truly as a neutral party. He takes decision based on his clash of POV with me. call it as you like. Zeq 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While I do not have a good grasp of what american english speakers mean in the word "judgment" I do think I can identify when someone doubt that someone else is acting in bad faith. Is this (the bottom part not the highlighted on top) [33] one of those instances ? I am asking. this is a question. Zeq 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe do you consider this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop#NPOV_requires_both_views_to_be_represented to be a violation of AGF ? But what if the evidence support that this is modus operandy that Zero is using again and again ? He makes article POV by removing the other POV. I have showed this in the evidence. Zeq 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

here it is again: [34] supreme intelegence able to turn everything to his prefered direction. That is how he has been also editing for years. Always he is right and the other side is wrong. Zeq 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To question one's good faith is to question their intentions, to assume they are trying to harm the project, not help it, and not simply that any harm they may do was an attempt to help. To question one's good hudgment is to question solely their decision-making capabilities. Dmcdevit·t 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good definition. I understand better. At least I know now that I am acting in good faith. It is beyond my ability to judge other people motives. I really can not tell what they are. I can only look at their results without knowing if it their motives or their judgment that got to those results. Zeq 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC access

Hello DMC! Hope everything is going well for you. I am seeking access to the admin channels at IRC. You apparently have the keys. (Are they attached to a brick on a chain like at the Sunoco station?) Let me know how to proceed, if you would be so kind. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Best regards, as always, Hamster Sandwich 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warning

Hi, I am reporting an editor who is engaged in edit-warring. HappyInGeneralhas done about 34 reverts on ([35]) page alone in the last two weeks. He and I were warned on May 1st. [36] I have refrained from editing that page, but HappyInGeneral has continued edit warning.

In ignoring the warning and 3RR rule, HappyInGeneral has declared himself an edit warrior. If he is not punished for this behavior now, no one will care about Wiki rules any more.

The edit warning on that page is mostly about a provocative and contested image added by HappyInGeneral. Many editors have rejected placing this picture in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro thus starting a round of revert war.[37] --Samuel Luo 06:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo, I am not connected to the dispute in question but happen to have this page on my watchlist, so you comment prompted me to respond. Picking an admin known as more eager to block then most others amounts to Forum shopping. Report technical violations of WP:3RR to WP:AN/3RR. Otherwise, if blocks are under 3RR but still qualify for a general disruption (which is admittedly also a possibility) post them at WP:ANI. Attendance of these boards is more representative to the general community stance on disruption than a single admin you pick selectively. --Irpen 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, I appreciate your concern, but please don't impugn my judgment by implying that other admins are more appropriate than me to look at edit conflicts. I am not a forum, but an admin like any other, with the same standing as any other. You also seem to ahve assumed a bit much about Samuel Luo, considering he posted to 4 admins talk pages which (regardless of any problems that might pose) does not seem to me like "picking an admin known as more eager to block then most others". Having said that, it's past midnight here so I wasn't planning on having the time to give the matter Samuel was asking about the consideration it deserves tonight. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I had to look up impugn but after doing so I assure you that my intent was not to impugn anything or anyone. I keep my opinion about the propriety of your activities out of that message as well as of this one. I post a simple statement of fact that the post to the board specifically designed for such kind of messages and attended by a wider spectrum of admins would result in an action (or lack of it) more likely to be in line with the general community stance on such a non-clearcut issues like whether a particular series of reverts amounts to disruption or not. I am pleased by your appreciation of my concern. --Irpen 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you have an overly-bureaucratic view on matters, which is also not shared by most of the community. No noticeboard is necessary and most admin actions are not the result of noticeboard posts. What would be more appropriate would be for an admin to ask for more opinions there if he looked at the situation and decided the complexity demanded it, but not to recommend everyone go there as a matter of course. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

I think that this contribution is essential: [38] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [39] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [40], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

A few questions:

  1. Is the information well sourced?
  2. Is the information relevant?
  3. Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

  1. +
  2. Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
  3. If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [41] however this was deleted: [42]. Abusively and repeatedly [43]. Also please review this section of the evidence page: [44]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [45]

I would really like more input on this issue, from you or from anyone else, this would be very much appreciated. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for your response, this is the type of answer that I wanted more then a month ago[46]. Also another question, how can you hold back POV warriors in this case? --HappyInGeneral 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me first read WP:DR, and after that, if this I don't see that this special case is covered I'll get back to you for some more info. Thank You so much. --HappyInGeneral 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I have engaged in edit warring. However, the point here is that while I stopped, Happyingeneral continued his aggressive edits. His defiance and violation of 3RR is blatant and yet he is not punished. With examples like this can you expect other editors (that includes me) to follow the rules? If Happyingeneral is not blocked more people will follow his examle in forcing their pov with edit wars. This link takes you to the edit history of the suppression of the falun gong page[47]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Luo (talkcontribs) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Can anyone check if my edits were legit? Samuel wikipedia has vandals, and somebody has to hold them back, don't you think? How about discussing twoard a consensus and contributing more to the talk page, where you express your view. Just deleting well sourced materials repededly is Vandalism. Check out WP:VANDAL. --HappyInGeneral 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Content disputes are not vandalism (see WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism). The essential feature of vandalism is bad faith, and there is not evidence of that for either of you. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Both Happyingeneral and me got our warnings at this time--16:39, 1 May 2007. As the record shows [48]happyingeneral made another revert at this time 20:43, 1 May 2007 just four hours after the warning. He went on to make three more reverts on May 2nd. I resumed my reverts on May 3rd seeing that happyingeneral was not punished. Happyingeneral is a Falun Gong practitioner and there is a group of them working on Falun gong related pages. They are here to prevent anyone from reporting the true teachings and practices of the Falun gong. They often provoke edit wars when removing well sourced material. The conflict on suppression of the Flaun gong page was provoked happyingeneral who insisted on placing that picture in the intro. He is so bold, if he meets no punishments he will only be bolder. I am leaving Wiki soon, blocking me means nothing to me now. Bye --Samuel Luo 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket is Selket

I am also Selket on FreeNode IRC. --Selket Talk 06:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the Licorne ban

The concern I have about the Licorne issue is that it was unilaterally extended to indefinite by one admin, with no discussion whatsoever. To be fair, I believe that anti-Semitic hate speech shouldn't be tolerated--hell, I gave the admin who indef'd him a Barnstar yesterday for booting him. But how's it gonna look in court if Licorne shows up expecting to edit under the restrictions imposed by ArbCom, only to find himself indef'd? It wouldn't be worth the inevitable disruption he'd cause. That was my rationale ... I was concerned that a one-year ArbCom ban that was extended to indefinite without discussion (no matter how merited it was) wouldn't stick in court, and the guy would drive people off Wikipedia before finally being booted for good. I'd have mentioned this on ANI, but didn't want to get jumped on in case anyone considered it trolling.Blueboy96 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Licorne is still banned by ArbCom, so I don't understand your premise. More importantly, I have absolutely no clue what Wikipedia bans have to do with court at all. The Wikimedia Foundation is on solid ground in prohibiting anyone it wants from accessing its site, and there are no appeals of Wikipedia bans to government authorities. I have a hard time understanding how anyone even thought that was an issue. Dmcdevit·t 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
He was only banned for a year--a ban which technically ran out on March 23, 2007. It was unilaterally extended by Fastfission for anti-Semitic personal attacks ... see Licorne's entry on WP:LOBU, Licorne's talk page and the block log to see what happened. Like I said, I agree with the logic behind the indef--anti-Semitic personal attacks can't be tolerated here. I was just concerned he might have a window to try to take the Foundation to court. In any case, he evaded his ban four times, so it wouldn't have been too much trouble formalizing Fastfission's action.Blueboy96 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if you actually read WP:BAN before we go any further, especially WP:BAN#Community_ban and WP:BAN#Restart_and_extension_of_ban_duration_when_evasion_is_attempted. Dmcdevit·t 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
True, I don't dispute that. I could have missed something here ... but it seems that Fastfission's action occurred before the first of the four instances that he evaded the block. Though in any case, since evaded four times, for all intents and purposes you might as well say it's an indefblock (since under the original ArbCom ruling, he wouldn't be allowed back until 2010).

I support him being booted--I just want to make sure we get it right and don't give him a window where he could possibly return.Blueboy96 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I don't get: where did you get the idea that a real world court has anything to do with this? How could anyone take the Foundation to court over a ban, and if they did your assertion that Fastfission's block was not a ban is wrong. It is completely in accordance with WP:BAN#Community_ban, and, for good reason, a noncontroversial ban doesn't need a formal "ratifying" process, it is simply common sense. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So your logic is if someone is indef'd and permabanned for egregious racially motivated personal attacks, it's OK not to discuss it since it's common knowledge that this behavior isn't acceptable here. I can accept that explanation. I was just thinking that since I want to be an admin someday, I didn't want to be the one to have to unblock a really onerous character because we were forced to do so. Blueboy96 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Some advice if you'd like to be a reasonable admin: Wikipedia does not run n rules, it runs on understanding the reason such rules were written down, and taking action in accordance with good principle. Licorne will never be unblocked so long as there is a good reason for him to be blocked and no one contests it; there is no reason for discussions about that. Dmcdevit·t 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you go (Re:ArbCom/CSN)

Here's the diff of FIVE members of ArbCom endorsing CSN and it's ability to topic ban problem users. [49] SirFozzie 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that and would have voted the same were I still on ArbCom. No where does ArbCom endorse WP:CSN (which, by the way, was still called "Wikipedia:Community noticeboard" at that point). As I just noted on Durova' talk page I keep repeating that "the CSN did not invent such things, that they can happen as a result of any discussion, and that the ArbCom supporting the community's ability is not the same as the ArbCom endorsing the Community Sanction Noticeboard." No one has explained the claim that this is some innovation connected to the CSN. Dmcdevit·t 23:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
From the peanut gallery, I also view that case as the ArbCom endorsing community action—they say nothing about the particular forum. In the past, I have applied 1RR parole to articles to cool edit warring entirely on my own discretion, and for the most part they have been honored. The idea that only the CSN can authorize the imposition of remedies less than a ban is the creation of CSN itself. Thatcher131 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. The system appears to be working. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline and endorse both the specific community sanctions, and the right of the community to do so. Essjay (Talk) 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline; Essjay speaks my mind. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Maybe I'm reading something into the words you're not, however. "The SYSTEM' appears to be working". SirFozzie 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One arbitrator said "The system appears to be working" and you seem to be taking that to mean that he (and all of arbcom?) thinks WP:CSN is ideal. Why don't you ask him? From my interaction with Jpgordon in the past, I sincerely doubt that's how he would like it to be take, and suspect he would go support deletion if you brought the nomination up at his talk page.

Thatcher's point is what I'm trying to get at. Maybe an example will help? Back in the deep primordial ooze before WP:CSN existed, I thought about a community ban for ParadoxTom and broached the subject at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Community_ban_for_ParadoxTom, where it was decided to restrict him to 1RR. A month later, after a few violations of this community-imposed, completely uncontroversial 1RR, the case was brought up at ArbCom [50], where I instead recused and imposed a community ban on ParadoxTom, since I felt confident there would be no objection. There was no objection, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive150#Community_ban_for_ParadoxTom, and ParadoxTom was quietly banned by acclamation without resorting to ArbCom. This is in no way an innovation of WP:CSN, to claim so is a red herring, and what I am in opposition is the bureaucratic hoops that CSN is trying to impose that will constrain such reasonable actions. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, just between June 2006 and Feb 2007, there are at least 5 cases listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests where ArbCom endorsed a community ban rather than open a case to make a formal ban. Not quite the same as endorsing a topical ban, true. However, even if "the system is working" was to be taken as an endorsement of CSN, that does not mean it was an exclusive endorsement. Thatcher131 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


A bonnie old friend ...

Latest batch of socks, with account creation times:

Could you check if there's more where those came from? Fut.Perf. 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern

If you trust my good faith I will tell you one more thing. 90% of my edits in wkipedia have been in an attempt to NPOV blunt POV by people like Zero, Homey etc...Wikipedia has a serious anti-Israel problem and this is btw, why almost all Israeli editors (very active in Hebrew wikipedia have left the english wiki - only El_C has remained but he has viwes that are of a tiny minority). In a world in which Zionist is a 4 letter word Wikipedia is loosing a valid (yet unpopular) POV.

In my arbcom case there is evidence. Yet, it looks that once again Fred, who has admitted before to being anti-Zionist, is ignoring the evidence page and rushing in the workshop page to offer yet another defense (3rd arbcom case he does that) for th anti-Zionist Zero and accuse only the behaviour of the Zionist Zeq.
Does this seems fair ? maybe it is time to put the issue on the table: It is not the behaviour that is the problem here but the POV on a specific subject. Some people who have strong POV should not be editing those subject . This would prevent all the edit wars. The solution that ArbCom took so far (banning just the pro israel side) has not solved the peroblem: Zero is running into massive amounts of edit wars with people other than me. Please look at the evidence. My concern is that it is being ignored. Zeq 06:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you had a opprtunity to think about my concern ? the evidence is not getting much attention and already decisions are being discussed . Zeq 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't really say about Fred's personal persuasions, have you had a content dispute with him before? As for your edits being "attempt to NPOV blunt POV," this is good, but the problem is not your intentions, it is your aggressive way of doing things, by repeatedly reverting instead of seeking mediation. I do think the problem is people with strong personal feelings editing controversial articles with no mind for compromise. And I do think Zero has edit warred and have added evidence to that effect. There is still plenty of time left in the arbitration for such concerns to be raised. Dmcdevit·t 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


You still think the process is fair ? that it looks fair ? that Fred "anti-zionisim" is not part of what goes on here ? Look I respect your political view (as far as I know you are anti-zionist as well, I was a green-party supporter my self once) but the issue here is to be fair and not biased. I think you are and I think that Fred can not be. Zeq 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I did seek medaition (for example in the Amin Husesini article) but it was refused.
  • There is pleanty of evidence that I interduced and it seemed to be ingored.

I did not had any recent direct edit dispute with Fred. I respect his viwes as he admitted to be "anti-Zionist" and he charterze me as "Zionist". So clearly this is the samr old problem I have wrote to you before: 2 opposing POV.

It is the same as with Zero. I respect his POV. All that I ask is that his POV will be presented fairly, side by side to the other POV. Howver, Zero has a technique to nullify the opposing views - I describe it in the evidence page. In many articles it is working. I have e-mails from people telling me they are afaraif to edit the Nakba article because Zero and his tag-team "own" that article. In previous arbcom case Jayjg promised to mediate the article but he bailed out at the first sign of opposition to this move by the editors who control this article.

  • Now please bear with me and imagine this: assume that there is a user (say me) who hold two wikipedia IDs. In one I edit in an area that has no opposing POVs (example: with that ID I only edit articles about japaneese art - an area in which I am world known expert) but in my 2nd ID I edit articles on the middle -east and run into problems because there are people with a different POV who want to ablance my views (or push their own views). In such a case would you still say that the problem and the edit war are behaviour or personalty issues or that they are subject-based issues ?
  • In any case I would ask that you read the evidence in the evidnce page. I admitted my wrong doing and as I said in my previous arbcom case: all I seek is NPOV. Zeq 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the propre prcedure to make sure that ArbCom rule on the request that Fred ( a self described "anti-zionist") will recuse ? I would like to get a rulling on this prior to Fred already making "finding of facts" (so far some of his finding have turned out to be wrong and in some of those he actually admitted it as well as being rude toward me) apearnce of fairness is already lost in this case - is this what you expected when you filled the case ? Zeq 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Fred bauder just the "god" of wikipedia ? there is ton of evidence on Zero edit-war , removal of sources and more (in articles I was not even involved in) but somehow not a single arbitor (other than Fred) is at all commenting in the workshop, no one asked even a single question on the evidence, no discussion on the request for Fred to recuse and Fred already rushing with the only finding that Zero was "rude". Zeq 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • sorry for being so saracstic but it seems that in the name of "anti-zionism" everything premitted in wkipedia. Don't you get the impression that there is policy that sais that editors with strong anti-zionist views can operate in impunity and disregrad all other policies. ??? Zeq 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kd lvr

Now this isn't a post about what you think it is going to be about. I have apologized to User:Kd lvr on his talk page, which is easier said than done. Let's just say I let my pride and my stubborness get in my way alot. So, it was hard, but I apologized. Whether he accepts it or not, I am not sure and I don't expect him to. Just seemed like the right thing to do.

I would like to say, that I am a little disheartened though that my apology on my talk page explaining my actions was shot down as "half-hearted". This hurt just a little, cause I was apologizing whole-heartedly and it was shot down. You can't really show emotion through computers, so it kinda hurt that I was blocked and told to "take to heart assume good faith" and my apology was pushed aside by someone assuming it was a bad-faith, half-assed apology.

Anyway, just thought you would like to know that about my current post on User:Kd lvr talk page. - SVRTVDude (VT) 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mangojuice thought of your other remarks, I really like the gesture here [51], and I'm sure Kd lvr does too. Hopefully it will take you far in cooling the dispute and resolving the problem amicably. I wish you luck in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help

Currently there is an edit war being engaged by a user who is obviously reading something I am not or just making things up. Could you revert his changes and protect the Stoop!d Monkey page until the logo situation can be worked out.

The Stoop!d Monkey page was subject of an AfD and the result was "Keep". The admin who closed the AfD said that "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it) I have asked that the user's changes be reverted and the page be locked til this can be worked out. Perhaps you could help, I don't need to be in anymore trouble. - SVRTVDude (VT) 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've both reverted too much. I'm not going to revert to anyone's preferred version before protecting, because that's not how it works: admin tools are never to be used for content judgments, since admins have no more say in content decisions than anyone else. They just have the buttons to stop an edit war when necessary, but protection is not an endorsement of the version. In any case, you're right that there was no decision about the article content in the AfD, logos or not. Typically AfDs only decide whether the subject merits an article, and, as long as the article doesn't merit speedy deletion it can be kept and cleaned up if so. It means that there is no rule against removing them, if that's what ought to be done, because of the AFD, and many articles have even been redirected after being kept at AfD, since that's an ordinary editorial decision anyone can take without needing an AfD decision. Basically, you should go on as if there had been no AfD; the logos should still be discussed if someone wants to remove them, or to not remove them.

If you want my recommendations about how to resolve the dispute, I would say just cool it. Maybe the other guy is being unreasonable, we all have to deal with unreasonable people at Wikipedia at some point. But seriously, it's not a big deal, in the long term, to leave up the other version (especially if it's only about a bunch of logos) while you discuss it. It's not good to continue discussing it as long as you're still going back and forth poisoning the atmosphere on the article itself. You might want to ask some of the people that commented on the AfD (not just the ones that agreed with you) to weigh in at the discussion, as it's always better when it's not a head-to-head negotiation. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to be able to have a conversation with User:Calton, but it is normally one sided (as his side is the only side that matters and is the only side that is right, according to him) hence why I bring it to an admin's attention.
Also, the reason I suggested reverting, was I thought admins switched it to the previous version before locking the page. So, that was my mistake there.
I will go through and ask the people who made comments on the AfD, like you said, about their opinion on it...if it comes out that the majority want the logos, do I revert them back? Cause User:Calton will just revert again. User:Calton is one for wanting things his way and no one elses. - SVRTVDude (VT) 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
One-sided discussions are not very useful, so yes, that's why I think getting other interested people involved will be useful. (WP:3O is another way for this, though less directed.) If the discussion concludes with a consensus, then you won't even have to worry about reverting back, because there will be others in agreement with you. However, in theory, demonstrating consensus is indeed a good reason for reverting back, and no one should revert unless they can successfully argue their perspective on the talk page first. If someone continues to revert against demonstrated consensus, then you might need an administrator to deal with that. Dmcdevit·t 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I kinda mass posted, if you will, my request for the opinions of the people who responded to the AfD. What I posted was the exact same on each page (simple cut and paste) cause I was lazy. But alot of people are responding and I said either way their opinions go, I welcome them. So, this is ALOT better. Thanks for you help. Many thanks....SVRTVDude (VT) 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you an update. After talking with several people, I had incorporated the Stoopid Monkey explanations of the logos and their respective links into the episode list for Robot Chicken (the show the Stoopid Monkey logos are a part of). The Stoopid Monkey page itself was locked by another admin, but that is OK, there won't be a need for that now since the information has been moved. Thanks for your help and Take Care...SVRTVDude (VT) 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar/Wonderfool RfCU

Hi. FYI if you haven't seen it, there is ongoing discussion on WP:CN about, and some questions have been raised regarding, your checkuser finding on the above. Part of me doesn't want to see any more time spent on this situation, but I and am sure others would still be interested if there is anything you can add to the discussion there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Release of Checkuser Information

Your edit here released the IP addresses of editors in a manner inconsistent with http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Wikimedia_privacy_policy. I have removed such addresses from the current version [52]; please oversight all revisions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which contain this information. Thank you. John254 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. This is in most certainly accordance with the privacy policy. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What provision of the privacy policy permits the release of this information? John254 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the policy? This is vandalism, and that information is vital to the investigation, to protect the encyclopedia, and to make a block on the IP. Now, listen closely: someone just deleted the main page, this is important and time-sensitive, and I don't need you fooling around, I'm trying to ensure the safety of the project here, and you are just trolling for old grudges. Your attempts to harass me need to stop now. Dmcdevit·t 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You've blocked the IPs already. The claim that you need to release them on WP:ANI, precisely identifying the users with whom they are associated under the provision which states "Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers" is therefore unpersuasive. You could have revealed the checkuser results without stating the precise IPs in question. John254 03:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Due to your improper release of checkuser information, I am filing a request for arbitration against you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Dmcdevit. John254 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I distinctly remember asking you to stop harassing me, but instead, your rate of trolling is increasing. Please try harder. Good luck at ArbCom!. Dmcdevit·t 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonder

How can someone who made this accusation (without being able to support it with facts): [53] continue to take part in this case ??? Can I get an answer and a decision from ArbCom on this ? Zeq 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I get an answer about this and about my request that all evidence will be considered (including the evidence about Zero's deletinons which leave the article POV, removal of sources and off course his extensive edit-wars in articles that I never edited . Thank You. Zeq 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Jiang

Jimbo reblocked Jiang after you last comments on Jiang's talk page and hours after the rogue actions. You may also want to see the comments at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Since you did the checkuser stuff, you are probably best suited to sort this out. Cheers, NoSeptember 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I sent Jimbo an email, because I think he didn't see my comment before blocking. If he;s not around, I'll raise the matter on ANI, or unblock myself, as the matter looks settled already, from what I see. And there's still no admin bit to worry about on that account anyway. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PNSD TY

OMG, PNSD Fix.

TY, HAND! --Kim Bruning 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG WOTTA! Dmcdevit·t 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Polling on WT:AN

I actually agree with the principle, but I thought that WP:RM described how I was supposed to do this (and that failing to do so would result in the idea being rejected). Those specifically instruct to use {{WP:RMtalk}} to start the discussion, and note its present form. --Random832 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Even with common processes, it's still a good idea to discuss before taking them, so things don't devolve into bureaucracy. 2) The fact that Wikipedia:Requested moves has a nice little delineated process for you to follow, doesn't mean it isn't crap that defies common sense. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In this edit you altered my comments on the talk page (removing the significant and bolded word "oppose") You also did the same to the comments of several other users. While i am temped to simply revert wholesale, i have instead simply reverted your changes to my comment. Comments made in the context of a poll-structured discussion are not the same as comments made in another structure, and changign them wholesale falsifies, in some degree, the views of other editors. Please don't do this again. DES (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't add big bolded headwords like Strong oppose when we are trying to have a discussion, not just a string of opinions. In fact, you did clearly oppose the idea ("The gain, if any, is trivial, the cost is high.") and that is obvious to me from reading what you actually argued, not your bolded vote. "Strong oppose" however, does no more than add unnecessary polar dichotomies while conveying no essential information. Fortunately, as you'll notice, the discussion is no longer a "poll-structured discussion," but a consensus one because of the refactoring. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Converting, as you did, a poll-structured discussion to a different format inherently misrepresents the views of the contributors. It eould have been far better to simply archive the poll, if you were feelign bold, adn ask that a non-poll discussion start. i am more and more tempted to restore the poll you removed. DES (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Please read what I said: it was abad poll. Reverting back would be unnecessarily disruptive. Editors are free to refactor their comments as necessary now, but should not re-add the ill-advised vote. Dmcdevit·t 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem in Wikipedia

This is a sockppupet who edits like Zero: [54]

The diff was sent to me by e-mails from few people. among them are those who told me that they are not going to participate in the arbCom case since they are afraid that speaking out against Zero will cause them to be banned. so you see: people are even afraid to revert a sock pppupet and they send it to me in hope I will..... Zeq 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, is this removal of sources or not: [55], [56],[57],[58],[59],[60] - surly it is not even an edit-war (after all Zero never edit-war but if he does it is for a good cause) btw, this last edit is similar to the sockppuepet. Zeq 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop&curid=10733826&diff=129152391&oldid=129145154

Question on procedure

Hi. I wanted to ask a checkuser a question on procedure. I am being harassed constantly by a never-ending stream of SummerThunder sock puppets (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder), and I'm wondering if there's any way for a checkuser to look at the unusually large number of "samples" he's provided lately, do a traceroute, determine his ISP, and contact them about the trouble their customer is stirring up. It's getting absolutely ridiculous and needs to be stopped ASAP -- just look at the edit histories at University of California, Riverside, Harvard University, and my Talk page, for starters. I have an updated list of the socks he's used in the last few days going at AIN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SummerThunder_going_apeshit_.28be_on_the_lookout.29). Thanks for any help or advice you might be able to offer. --Dynaflow 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX

I decided to contact you directly about LionheartX since you're the blocking admin for the first sockpuppet of RevolverOcelotX, User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH and the admin who proposed community banning him after several instances of ban-circumventing. I consider this strictly an issue of policy enforcement or maybe we should regain community consensus to ban him?--Certified.Gangsta 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence about Zero

[61]

[62] Zeq 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving

I've heard several complaints about the overly formal structure of RM lately. Perhaps it's time something is done about that? >Radiant< 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's the most vote-like and legalistic of the XfD-like processes, I think. Have a look at #Polling_on_WT:AN, if you didn't see it already. I'm on the plane soon and out of internet access until tomorrow, but I'd be happy to get moving on some change soon. Dmcdevit·t 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new user

This user has already broken 3RR (last stand), displayed unvicil behaviour and instigated rv-warring in his first day of editing [63]. I'm not sure what I should do. Obviously can't report him under 3RR. I think he needs to hear it from someone else other than myself. Miskin 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lakers (talk · contribs)->Artaxiad (talk · contribs)

With the incredible amount of vandalism reverts and warnings, I wanted to give Lakers the extra benifit of the doubt. I know Artaxiad is banned. Does Lakers actualy have the same IP address, or what suspicious activity did the account of Lakers do exactly that prove as evidence that he/she is a sock of Artaxiad? I've read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad, but I didn't see where it stated the evidence that Lakers was a sock of Artaxiad.(I sent the same message to Anetode, and he advised me to ask you for a more precise reason for the evidence of Lakers being a sock of Artaxiad.)--U. S. A. 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see meta:CheckUser. CheckUser results are based only on the IP evidence. In this case, it was very clear. Dmcdevit·t 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred

Fred seems to have a personal issue with me.

This accusation is 100% false: [64] he simply does not understand what I wrote and there was clearly no disruption that I caused. but since Fred avoids even the workshop page I can not even discuss it.

Does this whole process seems Fair ? or is it just based on zionost Vs anti-zionist.... ?

cvan I get an answer from you. I trust that you are fair even if your polouitical views are not as mine. Tnx.

btw, is one of the arbitors have a presonal connection to Zero ? Zeq 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am out of town and don't have regular internet connection right now, and have been busy for the end of the semester in any case. I haven't been checking this daily. However, I think you are not helping your case by obsessing over it. It's probably better to just make your case and then leave it alone. Messages to all and sundry every day are not likely to get results any more than just asking and waiting for an answer. Dmcdevit·t 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. please focus on evidence not on my messages. Thanks. Zeq 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Demilitarization in Liberia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Demilitarization in Liberia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

r u an admin?

i saw you warning Miskin, r u an admin of this site? can you look at Last stand, Miskin undos everyone else's edits which are contrary to his thinking, i counted and he's undone 7 edits of other users in the last two days alone...is unoding users' edits like this allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmender6767 (talkcontribs) 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I am an administrator. However, I think you are going about this wrong. If you disagree with someone's edits, please pursue dispute resolution with them, rather than trying to win an edit war. You don't need to find an administrator for dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. Considering you've blocked him before, commentary might be useful. SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

Hi, you probably don't remember it, but you moved this article last September to its new location. The article ended speedy deleted by mistake under G4 a few months later. I am wondering if there was any talk page associated with it commenting the title. An editor is willing to rename the article into "The Algerian Genocide". I personally have strong objections, but well I have an obvious POV bias in the subject. Could you stop by, check the probably deleted version and voice your opinion? (Yeah I know, that article should probably go to AfD, but I think it is starting to be more balanced) -- lucasbfr talk 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the history for now [65], but I'm out of town at the moment and probably won't have time to get to it for a bit. Dmcdevit·t 08:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hey dmc, could you do me a favor and semi my talk and user pages for a couple of days? I seem to be getting hit by a disgruntled user. I'd do it myself but I'm leery about protecting my own talk page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, though I don't think you have much to worry about doing it yourself when it's vandalism. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev again

Hi Dmcdevit, you requested to stay informed, so just to let you know that Ararat arev is back on Turkey and Aryan. Cheers, – Riana 06:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reimposed the range blocks that had expired, so that should slow him down. I bumped teh protection down to semi, feeling hopeful. Dmcdevit·t 07:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Question about sockpuppets

I see you work very hard, Dmcdevit, but I have a question... I must admit I never realized so many anti-Falun Gong editors (Yueyuen, Pirate, etc.) were all sockpuppets (of Samuel / Tomananda)! Can I ask what criteria and evidence this is based on? Jsw663 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see meta:CheckUser policy for information about this. They were connected based on IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim to have evidence that shows I am a sockpuppet of samuel, this is a absurd. I don't know how you come up with this "evidence" but I demand you to disclose that. --IamYueyuen 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit, the above editor, besides being a self-declared sock of a now banned user, is actively editing at Teachings of Falun Gong. --Fire Star 火星 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit·t Why can you respond to my question? I know you do not have evidences to back your claim because I am not Samuel. This is really unfair banning me for nothing? --Yueyuen2 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my question, you are not providing evidence and yet you claim that I am a sock of Samuel. I hope you know that you are being very wriong and unfair.--Yueyuen3 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hi DmcDevit, can you provide checkuser on the original account of Retiono Virginian because the account went insane and did page-move vandalism. Please see this.--PrestonH(Review Me!)(Sign Here!) 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at the thread. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you be able to check whether Eaomatrix was, at any point, Mr Oompapa (or any of his blocked socks)? As I've said on ANI, the person behind these account has a long history of abuse using some accounts, even when a respectable editor on a "primary" account. An abuse report has been filed in the past with his school (the most responsive link to him that I could find), but as this seems to have failed to have an effect the first time, I would like to get as much info as possible before compiling another. Thanks, Martinp23 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your move of Kven

Regarding your move of Kven to Kven people. The move created many double redirects, some of which are protected due to a nasty sock puppet war (see:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven). One of the tactics of the now banned user was to create parallel articles under different known and unknown spellings of the word. These have been converted to redirects to Kven. My suggestion is to keep Kven, Kvens, and Kvæn as redirects and delete all others. I am not an administrator so I cannot do it myself.Labongo 17:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Of the three redirects I suggested to keep, only Kvæn is protected. I have already changed the other two. Labongo 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for unprotecting Kvæn, I have added requests for deletion to the other redirects.Labongo 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the non-response. I was in the middle of looking at it and unprotected the redirect before getting distracted and never wrote a reply. Tell me if you need anything else. Dmcdevit·t 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Koavf

Koavf has made an appeal of your block; the appeal is located in the clarification section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help. Please block an edit warrior.

I made a few edits to the article Russian language in Ukraine explaining each my edit in comments [66]. Then User:Kuban_kazak reverted my edits without providng any reasons. I tried to restore them, but he reverted again, and again without providing any reasons.

I would like to avoid an edit war. Could you please help me?--AndriyK 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Andriy, I think it's time you actually use dispute resolution rather than just jumping back into conflicts. If this is how you plan to return to active editing after your last block, I don't have high hopes, unfortunately. As you explain yourself, your response to being reverted was simply to revert back. Not a single article talk page edit, and not attempts at productive communication, only an ill-advised warning from an involved party. Try mediation instead of reverting at all. Dmcdevit·t 08:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I am sorry, I again did it wrong, making reverting the Kuban kozak's revert. But it is because he reverted without any explanation. And one of my edit was trivial: I just pointed out a wrong link.Although you do not "have high hopes" ;), I indeed would not like to engage into edit wars. I'll try to follow 0RR (zero revert rule). It would be helpfull if somebody would explaine me how can I go through all these guys that revert edits just because they were made by me. I would be very greatfull, if you help me or sujjest me somebody who could do it.
I answered Irpen's comments on the talk page. According to my experience with these guys, discuusions with them lead to nowhere. And if I propose mediation, they usually refuse.
Let's hope that this time it will be different.
Thanks again.--AndriyK 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to disturb you once more, but I would like to give you an example how these user act.
I found some POV problems and inaccurances in the article Russian language in Ukraine and explained them in detail on the talk page [67].
I also added a tag to the article to warn the reader about the problems [68]. Then Kuban kazak blanked the tag without making any effort to resolve the dispute on the talk page [69].
His two short comments on the talk page did not help to resolve the dispute.
I'll follow 0RR as I promiced and won't restore the tag. Still I would appreciate any suggestions how to deal with such situations when people just revert my edits and do not make any attempts to resolve the dispute.
Please let me know if I did anything wrong.
Thanks in advance.--AndriyK 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well if this discussion has started about me, then perhaps I have a right to express my view on this. Here we have a user, with a reputation that Dmcdevit knows all to well about. This is his third time that he returns to wikipedia. Why not begin with an apology for previous wrong-doings? Why not, in order to gain some respect, particularly of newer Ukrainian users, write a few dozen of good articles and keep a maximum distance from those that could be biased? Why not be a User:DDima who never reverts and avoids edit warring, as a result his collection of barnstars and awards show about how much he is respected by Russians and Ukrainians alike?
There has been NO change in his behaivour whatsoever. Ok after everything that we have seen prior to his last departure, AndriyK makes essentially an identical type edit on one (for now) article, knowing that it will be reverted, and soon enough comes tattling here, playing the role of an innocent victim... What else has changed? well he does not have his meat- (or even sock-) puppets User:Mbuk, User:Andrew Alexander, but I imagine it would not be long before we see them again...
In any case I am disgusted by User:AndriyK's repeated approach. I reckon that if anyone who should be blocked then it is him, and permanently. If this is the third time round we are not going to see anything productive out of this user, when will see them? I know the wikipolicy of appeasement and the idea of giving people second chances, but how long does one here have to tolerate the same pattern over and over again? Dmcdevit I ask of you to be vigilant in this case.--Kuban Cossack 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is one more example, how this group of users provoke edit wars. (I am not involved in the dispute this time).

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After his 3rd revert Kuban kazak tried to recruit another edit warrior [70].

The reverts are not literal, but all edits include replacing "Ukraine" with "Little Russia", "Ukrainian" with "Little Russian" etc. (This is a terminology used by Imperial Russia and considered as offensive by many Ukrainians.)--AndriyK 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know it is not a revert war but a constructive article debate, these are different things, the article is still in its primal stage and the talk page has nearly trebled with different issues. Thanks for not getting involved, but when I was asking for help, I was not asking to revert, but to find consensus and to bring more balance to the article. However AndriyK's misinterpretation of everything is not new and I am not surprised. --Kuban Cossack 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think, Dmcdevit is an experienced user and admin and I hope that the situation is perfectly clear to him.
Kuban kazak, please use my talk, if you address to me.--AndriyK 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AndriyK, while I see the reasons why you choose this particular page as a substitute for non-existing Wikipedia:Request to block if you have a content dispute with the user and want to say something, you start from the article's talk rather than make forum shopping the first and only step to ensure you get an article your way. As for your edits, they were rightfully reverted, though not by myself, and if you insist on explanation, I will explain at the article's talk why I would have revetred them. Irpen 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bluntly, they are not welcome. As I said the first time, I do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on the part of both people that you have now accused of forum shopping for having the gall to use my talk page, and I do not appreciate the repeated attempts to discredit my judgment. If you have any other useful input it's always welcome, but not repeating the same comments I've already asked you not to make. It's utterly obvious you have serious disagreements with my wiki-philosophies, however, my own talk page is not a great place to continue your shows of disrespect and, frankly, following me around. Let's just drop it. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You know, Dmcdevit, I learned to ignore incivilities long time ago. Your dislike of being criticized for your actions is not so unusual even if it contradicts your earlier pledge (breaking pledges also happen from time to time in life and in wp.) Your talk page does not belong to you, as you undoubtedly know. You can censor it but not tell others not to post there. Also, believe me, I don't do it for fun but only by necessity. Also, please do not overestimate your importance by assuming that I "follow" you. I really have much more fun things to do and when it is Wikipedia, those things are writing articles, which is my main activity (if you haven't realized.) I am not interested in wikipolitics and its people except in those cases when I see those issues affecting the mainspace and my ability to edit it without undue obstructions. For whatever reason I never had a pleasure to meet you in the articles' space. That's why the exchanges we had were in the wiki-policies or wiki-politics related matters. True enough, your page is on my watchlist for a simple reason that we talked in the past. However, I do not read it routinely and never once I clicked on your contributions to "follow" you, as you put it. When the most recent edit of your talk page that shows up at my watchlist catches my attention (usually by an edit summary or the title of the thread), I occasionally look and leave a comment when I see it warranted. Knowing your habit of a liberal use of a block button imposing your views rather than the policies and guidelines and seeing how it hurts the project I do step in to comment when I see a threat of this happening again and as long as your activities affect the encyclopedia, be prepared to live with people commenting on them. As for this particular incident, I am Ok with dropping it. The unwarranted brute force intervention into the content dispute did not take place here anyway. --Irpen 05:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No one said anything about censoring or owning pages, nor disliking criticism. However, your repeatedly taking opportunities to cast aspersions against me is what I object to, not reasoned criticism. You can go around repeating the claim that I broke some pledge because I dislike you criticizing me, but that's obfuscation: I said that your assumptions of bad faith are unwelcome. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things: your calling reasoned criticism as "casting aspersions" and "going around" seems more like an attempt to dismiss it without addressing it. As for repeating the most oft-cited and mis-cited references to "faith", please consider rereading that policy page, what it is about, what it applies to and what it excludes before invoking it next time. Best yet, do not ever invoke it when you speak to experienced editors. They know what they do. Happy edits, --Irpen 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
More of the same. As I say, your assumptions of bad faith are unwelcome, sugarcoat them how you like. I'm not interested in going in circles, however. Dmcdevit·t 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to go in circles or in ovals. Just make sure you are familiar well enough with the AGF policy itself before citing it as per my advise above. And best yet, avoid patronizingly invoking policies except to newbies and stay on topic. That's all. --Irpen 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly (oh irony!) the only one of the two of us that has asked the other to read a policy is you right now. And I'm glad that you agree there is no need for taking this discussion in circles, unfortunately, though (irony upon irony!) it seems you managed to do nothing more than repeat yourself. Let's continue this ad infinitum, shall we? Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One more example

First Kuban kazak was edit warring reinserting the same derogatory stuff about Ukrainian language [71]. Then after he did three ... well, not exactly reverts but very similar edits he asked for help from his friends [72], [73]. One of them came and reverted [74]. As I promiced, I did not revert again, but tried to as him about the reason of his revert [75]. And this was the answer: [76]. What can I be done to resolve the dispute, if these people do not want even discuss?--AndriyK 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is you who does want to discuss, take your freind Hillock's contribution, he refuses to discuss anything on the talk page, just uses the undo button each time re-inserting numerous grammatical errors that I fixed in the process. --Kuban Cossack 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your CheckUser

  The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
As you were the first person who exposed Samuel Luo's egregious sockpuppetry that went unnoticed for an entire year, I, Olaf Stephanos, award you this barnstar.

Thank you for CheckUser

Thanks a lot for clearing my name of this groundless accusation by running the checkuser. I am ready to provide additional evidence in private, if necessary, that I do not have sockpuppets and that I do discuss all my edits on all pages I edit. My accusers, mainly User:Vartanm and User:MarshallBagramyan are the two users constantly edit warring and taking advantage of the fact of being left out of ArbCom. I am the subject of their attack for a simple reason, I have never violated any rule since the ArbCom decision, while many of the other users got one or more blocks of varying length. You may want to check their edit warring history, and I think both must be placed on the revert parole through ArbCom. Their editting pattern is not at all any different from those who were banned or restricted on either side. Atabek 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ip check

Hi Dmc - could you please verify if User:213.122.29.63 is user:Indian50? This user is edit-warring on Punjab (India) and Gujarati grammar and may be socking to harass user:Tuncrypt. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very likely to be him. Dmcdevit·t 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Russians in Ukraine

Since you left a message on my talk page I felt, I could address you directly. I did try to follow your advice in regards to dealing with User:Kuban Cossack but he is absolutely impossible to work with. Vindictive and petty, clinging to every little thing and unwilling to compromise over anything. I spent two days over definitions of Little Russian with him, and when it seemed we agreed on something, here he wakes up again and goes on revet rampage, destroying not only hours of my work but contributions of other editors. I suggested we talk first, he however, prefers to revet instead. The article was protected already, nothing seems to be working. We need intervention and some kind of control over what he is doing. Thank you.--Hillock65 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is four times my work has been destroyed today: [77], [78], [79], [80].
Dmcdevit, this is unacceptable, each time I ask Hillock for some sense, he replies with the same childish accusations of Personal attacks and harrasment. How would you judge this?. It is clear that the user has a non-neutral approach, and it is impossible to work with him like that, I mean just look at the history, of the article, each time I log on to wikipedia and try to add or edit something in that article (two new maps, a new table, completely new section written by me solely today), and instantly he is on, as if Stalking on my page. 3RR will be useless, because both of us know of it and we make sure that each new version is different from the next one. Also is this a good faith comment in your opinion? Please I ask of two things, either a stern intervention, or somehow prevent both of us from editing on that particular article. --Kuban Cossack 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't even comment that, I hope facts can be seen in history, on discussion pages, rudeness on talk page and in comments on numerous revets. Let's see.--Hillock65 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you one last time before I leave, but the above situation has progressed in the unfortunate direction. It has become known to me that the above-mentioned user has been recruiting revenge squads to deal specifically with me. Here is the diff from the Russian WP with my nickname specifically mentioned and with the call to that community to "get me" [81]. Apparently he managed to recruit at least one, who participated in that talk on Russian WP and migrated here [82]. I am not sure which course of action to take, so I was wodering about your opinion on that. I am not interested in comments from the user himself as his intentions are expressed quite clearly there. If you want me to translate that I would gladly help or you can ask the third party.--Hillock65 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, you should be engaging in dispute resolution. Try mediation. Meanwhile, I can't read Russian, and I think if you have concerns about revenge, stalking, or incivility, you should raise it on ANI. Dmcdevit·t 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New shipment to Saint Helena...

This seems a pretty obvious case. Worth a check?

Fut.Perf. 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget St. Helena, it feels like we keep sending him to Elba... and then back again. The account uncovered a bunch more proxies to block. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out my (successful) RfA

I thought my RfA entered some bizarre parallel dimension before you came in and helped sort things out. I'd actually got a private email about the very issue before you went in. Thanks ever so much, I hope to become such an effecting Admin in the future. All the best. --Bobak 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: E104421-Tajik

I won't really object if another arbitrator wants to add that into the case, but I don't really see the benefit. They obviously won't be edit-warring in the future, and I think sending an unambiguous message that such attempts to screw around with the arbitration process won't be tolerated—pour encourager les autres—is more important than trying to clean up the loose ends here. Kirill Lokshin 05:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the community revert parole still in place for him, though? Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Hi Dmcdevit. Regarding VK35 (talk · contribs) and RFCU, see this (sorry for the essay-like length). I wasn't sure if I had notified you of this yet, or if you had otherwise become aware of it. I think the unblock is unwise but perhaps somewhat justifiable, but I particularly think allowing VK35 to resume RFCU clerk duties under the circumstances is a mistake. · jersyko talk 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, you're still fighting Jimbo Wales. See your talk page where I can use your efforts in a constructive way.VK35 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Molag Bal CheckUser

Thank you very much for running a CheckUser on Molag Bal today. We had a long talk with him on IRC, and he keeps claiming he'll stop making accounts, but we know he's not going to do that. I guess this thank you will be for the CUs done now, and in the future :P. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your archives

Hi, your archives were rather messed up by this helpful chap - [83]. I think we've managed to get everything back into the right place but you might want to double check... WjBscribe 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Out for a movie and look what Primetime's been doing while I was gone. I block the proxies. Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an alert

On User talk:Springbob Squirepants it appears that user may have been caught up in a checkuser block set by yourself, just letting you know in case anything needs to be done. Thanks :) Orderinchaos 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI

See the page Hindu_iconography. Now see Idolatry. The page starts out "Idolatry is a major sin", with the implication now that Hindus are sinners. I have no need to assume good faith with this ideological warrior. Also, I've noticed blnguyen regards this user as a troll, as does pretty much every other Indian user, I'm merely following an established train of thought. Thank you.Bakaman 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND. His edits fall under the tag of "Sneaky Vandalism" see "adding plausible misinformation to articles". Idolatry and Iconography are very close in definition except one has a negative connotation and is taken as a sin. Again his edit on Hinduism implicates that Hindus are sinners which is unacceptable under WP:NPOV. On TMMK a link to a reliable source attesting their links with terrorist groups was provided [84]. Removal of a reliable and relevant source is vandalism. If you feel it is necessary, I'll start a discussion on Talk:Hinduism about which word to use.Bakaman 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
We'll let Wikipedia take care of it. Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F.Bakaman 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit - FYI, that really was some very effective trolling by User:Anwar saadat. I'm not defending Bakasuprman's response, but I do want you to be aware that Anwar saadat vandalized Bakasuprman's userpage recently by adding a fake sockpuppet tag [85]. Regarding Anwar Saadat's edit, idol-worship "is the only sin that cannot be forgiven by God" according to Islam (see Idolatry article). For a Muslim to add that to the Hinduism article was quite clearly not a good faith edit. The reason I came across this is that the next edit at Hinduism after Bakasuprman's revert was this gem: "The largely pastoral Vedic people and subsequent generations relied heavily on raping monkeys and killing children for protein-rich milk and dairy products" [86] by brand-new user User:Mattskills. When the article about your religion is the victim of regular hate-attacks by members of other religions, a lack of patience in response is sometimes understandable. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nupedia

Hello, I have a question on the article on Nupedia, why the logo picture cannot be changed size? Thanks! WooyiTalk to me? 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work in preview either, but Picaroon was able to fix it. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. :-) WooyiTalk to me? 20:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oi vey

Oi vey. If you could put Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act on your watchlist, I'd be appreciative. Ben Gatti (who is still under general probation) is at it again. That proposed open defines POV. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I love your Daoist Quotes

Not that Confucius and Thoreau are bad, but Laozi and Zhuangze really do embody the whole Wikipedia experience. Go back to your copy of The Inner Chapters and look at the Accord That Reaches All The Way To Heaven and tell me if that shouldn't be required reading for all Wikipedians. Elijahmeeks 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I saw you gave the following: I agree that accusations of bad faith, and calling others trolls, is a particularly unwarranted and needs to stop in order for the content negotiations to be fruitful. In theory, the response refused or failed mediation is WP:RFAr, for cases that don't require obvious fixes like admin blocks. I'm not sure there is much administrators can do here: our technical tools are blunt. I can block someone, but for problems like assumptions of bad faith in a certain content dispute for an otherwise productive editor, that is not likely to be a net gain for the project. Administrators (because of the limitation of this being a website) don't really have many options outside that, besides persuasion. Perhaps arbitration is the way to go, if it continues. Arbitration isn't just for bans, but is designed to be able to handle targeted solutions for specific problems, like assumptions of bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that admins are somewhat powerless in this matter. It is what it is. Bad behavior, even if not appreciated is accepted or tolerated. I am tired of working in good faith to try to improve wikipedia, when all someone has to do is be a bully. I came to the article in question with no agenda but to improve an article that is soon going to be getting lots of attention. I wanted it to be well constructed. Despite my good intentions, I am abused -- even when I have not been "bold" in editing -- and despite seeking discussion first. Other people concede that the other editor is a bully and one person suggests that this is a sockpuppet of an editor already banned for abusive edit warring. Yet, no one will take that person aside or in hand to correct the behavior. I am exceptionally busy in real life. I have substantial obligations and my time is extremely valuable and expensive. It is difficult justify spending my time in fights with vain people and in a system that lets the bully win, contrary to what wikipedia states its purpose to be. I am not currently in a frame of mind nor can I justify the time to fight for what I consider to be right. But you have a position and longevity with wikipedia to consider these issues and I encourage you to do so. If these things are viewed as trivial nuisances -- not very disruptive -- then that is how it is. I can accept that. I tend to read it as a systemic rejection of my edits and values -- that in essence I am the problem; I do not fit in here. I do not have a clear vision of how I can be very productive in such a system. But I appreciate your attention to my complaint. It was more than I got from most folks. Regards... --Blue Tie 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't seen as trivial, and I don't think anything that happened is a judgment on you. After the revelation that this editor was Wyss, that discussion strayed into technicalities about possible violations of her previous arbitration, rather than addressing the problem of the moment. Before that, I was considering recommending arbitration when it looked like mediation had been refused, backtracked when Gwen Gale indicated willingness, but now that I know that this is a user with a much longer history of disruptive behavior than any of us knew, using a new identity to evade the previous arbitration, there doesn't seem to be any other option. Sooner or later, Gwen Gale needs to be at arbitration, as the incivility and edit warring has clearly continued for more than a year now and the previous arbitration was ineffective. If I were you, that is what I would pursue next, and I don't think it is "a system that lets the bully win" until you've given the system a fair shake. Dmcdevit·t 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, although I respectfully but strongly disagree with your characterization of my editing history, I continue to assume your good faith, please assume my good faith. I apologize to Blue Tie for anything I have said in the past which may have been taken as hurtful, unfair or unhelpful.

Only to provide some context and background, I was initiated as a Wikipedia editor in the Sollog wars, wherein I was encouraged and (I thought strongly) reinforced for an aggressive and confrontational editing style. I had no notion that the Sollog article was rather a fluke and not very typical of how Wikipedia wontedly works. About two years ago, I engaged in that editing style whilst dealing with another problematic editor (who is still under sundry probations and topical bans) and to make a very, very long tale very short, it blew back in my face (so to speak) mostly because of my own lack of understanding about Wikipedia and what makes it work. Since then, I have not very often, but often enough I guess, still been too confrontational with editors whom I thought weren't making edits according to my own interpretations of good faith, WP policy and so on. This has been my botch and mine alone, even if it was in good faith.

I encourage Blue Tie to not let this episode discourage him from expressing any worries he may have about content anywhere on this wiki. I am willing to edit cooperatively with Blue Tie and will assume Blue Tie's good faith. Blue Tie, I'm so sorry. Please let me try to fix any harm I have done. Cheers to you both. Gwen Gale 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I think what we have here is a conflict between communication styles. Gwen Gale is direct and to the point, at times to a flaw. You may call this aggressive. From what I've seen (the above being no exception) Blue Tie is wordy and wearisome, revisiting the same points ad nauseum. I might call this passive-aggressive. I see no attempt to resolve any active dispute - indeed, is there an active dispute? - but droning on and on about his victimization at the hands of "bullies" in order to get Gwen Gale in trouble. I'd be very reluctant to privilege Blue Tie's style of engagement, which speaking very subjectively I find borderline trollish. Calling someone a bully is a personal attack every bit as much as is calling someone a troll. Whining about someone on ANI, and keeping the dispute going for weeks thereafter (what is this about again?) isn't civil.

Re you statement, "Sooner or later, Gwen Gale needs to be at arbitration..." My understanding was that Arbitration is (at least in theory) not a way to target particular editors, but to resolve particular disputes. The idea that "Gwen Gale needs to be at arbitration" thus strikes me one relative to which Blue Tie might be viewed as a stalking horse. Disputes are to be resolved wherever possible, not seized upon as arbitrary opportunities to pursue preexisting conflicts. The fact is that the situation between Gwen Gale and Blue tie has nothing whatsover to do with the previous arbitration case,

It is also inaccurate to state that Gwen Gale is "...using a new identity to evade the previous arbitration...," as this identity was known to at least one member of the committee, and she's not used it to violate the topical ban. Instead we see Gwen Gale contributing productively to Lisa Nowak, Mountain Meadows massacre (to which it is indeed at least worth asking if she were not wikistalked by Blue Tie) and a wide range of other topics and articles. One editor restricted by that arbitration, User:Onefortyone, has clearly not moved on, his userpage is dedicated to that sole obsession of outing celebrities as gay, and he has accrued several actions related to the arbitration. Your focus on Gwen Gale, then, again seems misplaced.

Finally, I would like to address the question of your and Thatcher131's reference to former usernames. From our harassment policy: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name..) .is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself....it also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username..." Though Gwen Gale has not complained, this policy seems to me, as it is currently written, quite clear. Harassment is a strong word, and naturally something we should avoid.

If Blue Tie considers that there is an active dispute which he's unsuccesfully tried to resolve, nothing prevents him from opening an RfC. That might provide an excellent opportunity to gauge community sentiment and suggest a way forward for both parties. However, as Gwen Gale's latest comments are far more conciliatory than they should really have to be, I cannot see that it would be credible to claim that Gwen Gale is being uncooperative, unresponsive or unwilling to address your concern. Mediation - if not just dropping this pointless thread and moving on - thus seems the more appropriate step.Proabivouac 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivoac, you would be much more convincing if you weren't at the same time continually uncivil. In fact, as someone with no involvement in whatever content dispute underlies all this, I must say that you have repeatedly struck me in my interactions with you as the most insulting and unconstructive. My statement about arbitration has nothing to do with the idea that this has to do with the old arbitration, but that my impression that the behavior is continuing, especially since she has used the identity to violate the arbitration ruling. Claims of harassment are arbitration are simply ridiculous; they don't apply when username was used to violate an arbitration ruling, and, furthermore, I have never introduced the notion that her previous username was in any way connected to her real name: that is what you have just done. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I apologize that my tone has upset you. I acknowledge that I sometimes speak more strongly than might be advised when it seems to me that serious citizen-contributors (or any editors for that matter) are being treated unfairly, and certainly don't mean to exacerbate the situation. Instead, I mean to be constructive by ensuring that Gwen Gale is not driven from Wikipedia, whereas the way this has been handled thusfar appears to have virtually done so. I believe that such mishandling, whatever its intent, damages the encyclopedia.
More generally, constant threats of arbitration, contribute to a hostile and prosecutorial environment: this is true however coolly they are worded. Neither I nor Gwen Gale are threatening anyone; instead it appears to me that she wishes to resolve the situation amicably and move onto something more uplifting and productive.
Once again, I ask if you can't see some way forward which allows both Blue Tie and Gwen Gale (as well as the two of us) to walk away feeling good about Wikipedia.Proabivouac 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is not that you upset me, but that if you want to get anywhere, you should perhaps stop defending such blatant incivility as calling others trolls, calling for me to be blocked, accusing others of baiting, calling me a "clueless college kid," and referring to another administrator as a "teenager," and so on, as "sharp" or "strong" and instead stop doing it. You aren't going to solve anything that way, especially if you have the gall to call another editor uncivil and complain about it in the same post. Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Heard and absorbed.
So, what do we need to do to make sure Gwen Gale can keep contributing without random blocks and constant threats? Let's work together on this. What do you want?Proabivouac 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want anything except that everyone collaborates productively. Mediation was already mentioned. Working together is good, but I'm not the one that you need to work with. Dmcdevit·t 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

  On 28 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camilo Henríquez, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

After coming up with User:Simul8 on the WP:SSP/Newport, I think you should also check out User:Holdenhurst and User:Osidge, who definitely contribute almost exclusively on CfDs and AfDs where the other participate, usually with identical reasons. Bulldog123 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn a usual edit warrior

Here is a good candidate for edit warrior title: Dahn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). See his block log.


one of his endless edit war on a hot article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valter_Roman&action=history

And you may want to check the anonymous IP who left the above message - it most likely belongs to the banned User:Bonaparte, who has by now a history of tricks under his belt. Dahn 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a polish user. This does not hide the fact that Dahn was blocked before for 3RR.

  • 02:12, 28 February 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dahn (contribs) (page locked instead (many people mass warring on it), user can do what he does best, like write DYK articles)
  • 00:11, 28 February 2007 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dahn (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation)
  • 11:22, 30 January 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dahn (contribs) (page prot)
  • 09:53, 30 January 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dahn (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 8 hours (3rr on Getae)
  • 13:26, 15 October 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dahn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (3rr on Phanariotes)
Yeah, Bonnie, you make sure you pile up as much irrelevant garbage as you can, cause that is bound to be convincing, and maybe, just maybe, will allow some confusion before this new outlet of yours gets blocked... The Hizkiah tactic all over again. Dahn 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Bonaparte IP blocked. Dmcdevit·t 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Oi. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your insight...

...is requested in clarifying here your wording in your indef block for Dharmender6767, especially concerning the word "obvious". Thanks. NikoSilver 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is unclear? I came across it on an open proxy; it was a new account that started reverting immediately, and was obviously not created by a new user. Dmcdevit·t 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
People claim that an experienced user could not understand what you just said. People think that it would be irrational to think this instantly reverting new red username was a proxy account or a troll or a vandal; let alone "obviously". May I quote you on that, or can you bother spending a few seconds to do it yourself here? NikoSilver 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I could have been more clear about one point: I know this was on an open proxy based on the IP. I was blocking checking the open proxy because of another account on it (it may have been Bonaparte, I don't recall) and saw this. There is, generally, no good reason for an ordinary user to use an open proxy, and while some legitimate reasons exist and it's not a damning actin in itself, in combination with the instant reverting and familiarity with editing, I decided the block was appropriate. I don't know anything about the arbitration case this may be connected to, but feel free to quote that if you want. Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The history of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-28/Technology report

Is the 'inappropriate content' you removed still there, or has it been oversighted? If it's been oversighted, could the history be restored again now? (I was checking the page - last week's article - to help with this week's article, and went into the history to revert vandalism, and found that most of the early history was missing; it may be needed for GFDL compliance if it can be undeleted without too much trouble, or there are other possibilities if it can't be.)

Well, the article already attributes you in the byline, so I don't think GFDL is a problem. Nothing was oversighted, simply deleted; but since all of the revisions have the material we were trying to remove, so they can't be restored. In the future, please try to be careful not to include information that could be used by vandals and trolls to better evade detection. Dmcdevit·t 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
After comparing the revisions manually to find out just what it is I'd done wrong, I now see what the problem was. I didn't realise such text would be considered problematic; I'll leave such information out in the future. Thanks for responding! --ais523 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

I've replied your concerns on my commons RFA, thanks for voting! WooyiTalk to me? 01:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi

Dmc, can you answer my Email regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi? Thanks in advance Alex Bakharev 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletions

Category:Wikipedians by political issue and sub-cats

While I think I understand your reasoning, quite a few of those categories have gone through WP:CFD/WP:UCFD, so I would think a group nomination for discussion would be preferrable? - jc37 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also see: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria. - jc37 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I gave a sound reasoning in the deletion summary. I'm not interested in UCFD nominations just for the sake of process fetishism. Which ones do you actually disagree with? We can talk about them. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll bite. Category:European Union Wikipedians? Dragons flight 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm, it seems it was put in Category:Wikipedians by political issue because it used to say "Here is a list of Wikipedians who support the European Union." But that was changed in the last edit to "Here is a list of Wikipedians who identify with the European Union." The European Union is not simply a geographical issue (since its political existence can be supported or opposed), but if this is indeed simply a miscategorized user categorization along geographic lines, feel free to restore it. That seems not to be the case, however, since Category:Wikipedians in the European Union and Category:Wikipedians from the European Union both exist, and are populated by templates like {{User EU citizen}} ("This user is a citizen of the European Union."), whereas the deleted category is populated by divisive POV templates like User:Hexagon1/EU ("This user supports the European Union."). If it is restored, you'll have recreated the POV grouping, whereas if all interested users manually decide whether to switch over to the geographic/nationality user templates, the POV grouping will be gone. Dmcdevit·t 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons

I gave a sound reasoning in the deletion summary. I'm not interested in UCFD nominations just for the sake of process fetishism. Which ones do you actually disagree with? We can talk about them. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "process fetishism", it's preventing disruption, it's following policy. Mass deleting categories which have been known in the past to be contentious is disruptive, and according to WP:CSD:

  • Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.

And as I noted above, according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria:

  • This section aims to clarify some of the frequently used "non-criteria" that are commonly cited but are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion. These are not rules and intended only to be commonly-understood interpretations of the criteria above.
    • Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" are not part of the speedy deletion criteria. However, these reasons can be given at AfD nominations.

And so far, the rationale you left on most of the deletions:

  • "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose."

simply does not qualify for speedy deletion based on the above.

So actually, the onus is on you to show why you should be able to speedy these cats.

As an aside, I'm going to revert your attempt to bypass discussion at WP:UCFD, and reopen the discussions, for the reasons above, and because there is simply no reason to be so impatient as to not allow a 5 day discussion. (I don't see WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO concerns which might indicate such urgency.) - jc37 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So you do you actually disagree with any of them on their merits, or don't you? You have yet to provide any such arguments, other than quoting policy at me. You tell me it's not process fetishism, and then go on to demonstrate that it is. This is not a courtroom and I don't need policy quoted at me, I need reasonable arguments. Threatening to Reverting the administrator's closure of the nomination you made yourself is not a reasonable response, either. Dmcdevit·t 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would think that "quoting policy" should be enough in this case. WP:IAR is essential to a living, working encyclopedia, but there are reasons that the rest of the WP:5P (and related policies) exist (as I'm certain you well know). Honestly, what I'm asking you for is reasonable arguements for using the "Speedy process" rather than the normal deletion process. So far I've shown that your use was inappropriate, and am interested in your specific reasons why you feel that it wasn't rather than just a broad claim to WP:IAR. (And just to play devil's advocate to myself, I can think of one or two myself, such as User:Jimbo Wales's message about such categories. But then he chose to leave a message rather than delete them...)
And I didn't "threaten" you in any way, I left a notice on your talk page of why I was reverting your closure. Any and all admin actions may be reverted by another admin if the evidence warrants it. And I believe the polite thing to do is to leave a note on the previous closer's talk page regarding it. I apologise if you are taking this in any way personally, since I in no way intend that. And neutral nominations happen all the time on WP:CFD. (User:ProveIt often adds neutral nominations.) In addition to that, per several discussions at WP:UCFD (and user talk pages) we reaffirmed that if any of us disagrees with a close another can reopen the discussion for transparency reasons. - jc37 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is never acceptable to revert the admin that closed the deletion nomination you made. How can you defend that? You are also claiming that all closures may simply be reverted by an admin that disagrees: that's a very bad idea. Admins are given discretion to act out their judgment, not to rearrange any other admin's (discretionary) judgment however they like. Administrators are intended to promote an atmosphere of mutual respect; if you disagree with a closure, you talk to the person about it. As I've said before, I'm not interested in discussing which process was appropriate, despite your harping. I'm interested in discussing the merits of the deletions. I will be very sad if you cannot tell the difference. I find this little gem interesting: "WP:IAR is essential to a living, working encyclopedia, but there are reasons that the rest of the WP:5P (and related policies) exist (as I'm certain you well know)." In fact, I never cited IAR, and find such to be nearly always a bad idea, but I have cited the other pillars; I can guarantee you would be hard pressed to make an argument for these categories on the basis of the five pillars. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"As I've said before, I'm not interested in discussing which process was appropriate, despite your harping." - Just to be clear, you're refusing to respond to a good faith request by another editor to clarify your choice of action? - jc37 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am very much interested in clarifying my choice of action. I am not interested in discussing which process was appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? - jc37 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am here to write an encyclopedia, not to create an experiment in online government. Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"I never cited IAR..." - How else can you defend your accusations of "process fetishism"? Either we follow the rules, or not. So for you in this case, which is it? - jc37 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your selective interpretation of "the rules" as a monolith is very wrong. If you'll continue that quote, you'll find "I have cited the other pillars". Rules are fluid: if you think I'm not citing any, then I'm not sure what you are talking about. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT is a valid reason for a comment during an XfD discussion. It's clearly not a valid reason for speedy deletion. And behind that rule, the reasons are equally clear: It's because interpretation of WP:NOT is subjective, and should require discussion to determine its applicability. - jc37 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at your userpage and found out you are an administrator. How is that possible? What makes you think it is acceptable to revert the admin that closed the deletion nomination you made, and to continually resort to this level of process wonking to get your way? Dmcdevit·t 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
First, please calm down. It's not a matter of "getting my way". As you said, this isn't a trial, and there's no reason to get upset whether they stay or go. (And please pardon me if I'm starting to feel like I'm trapped in a m:The wrong version discussion.) It's about following policy when there doesn't seem to be a reason not to, besides a subjective feeling that such categories are "abhorrent" (as you mention below). - jc37 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"calm down" is a useful way to deflect criticism, I notice. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a sincere hope that you'll "calm down". You seem to be responding in a rather "heated" way. And I'd rather that we discussed as calm Wikipedians. Your given user-rights within the community would make me like to presume that you're more aware than the average editor of Wikipedian policy and process. And to be honest, it's kind of shocking to see you, of all people, opposing process (and opposing discussing process) in this way. - jc37 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I can calmly note that I am genuinely dismayed that another administrator seems to think obeying "process" is more important than making the right decision. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, then my apologies if I misread your "mood". : )
The problem is that "The right decision" is subjective. I find myself incredibly torn here. User:Jimbo Wales has said incessantly that we're all editors here. But at the same time, I won't ignore that the "esteem" of "editors respected by the community" may cause me to doubt for a moment. But everytime I "check my facts". This seems correct. The whole point of even having Consensus on Wikipedia would seem to be violated by such subjective action. Monolithic? Perhaps, there are definitely quite a few, but I don't think it's a coincidence that they're called the Five pillars. I often say: "If you don't like a rule, either be bold and change it (and be prepared for reversion and discussion), or simply start the discussion yourself in an attempt to determine community consensus. Ignoring rules, I presume, should be an exception, else the rule should be changed. Yes, there are times when the community needs to be saved from themselves, and there have been times in which process has "failed" (again to quote Mr. Wales), but since it's been shown in the past to be very controversial and by corollation, very disruptive, then starting a discussion would seem to be the best course of action. As I look over the current DRV discussion, it's turned into merely being a substitute for what should have happened in the first place, a CFD discussion. And several commentors have noted that it should have been. In the end, as I understand them, the "rules" should just reflect what current consensus is, and your isolated action seems contrary to that. You say you just want to discuss the merits of the categories, yet that is exactly what an XfD (CFD in this case) is for. I'm asking you to explain why you chose the "speedy" process rather than normal nomination, because the merits make no difference until we determine whether the process was "valid". Doing what you presume is the "right thing" for the wrong reasons is typically still wrong. - jc37 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The last bit is rich, considering you refuse to engage me on the reasoning. You've seen the DRV, too; I don't thik you have much of an argument at all against my reasoning. What you meant to say was "Doing what you presume is the "right thing" using the wrong process"—however, doing such is indeed still right. I don't care what you think about my record here: I find that irrelevant. I don't understand why you are referencing the five pillars. Policy is not a monolith: it is fluid at all times. Those pillars are the "rules" I based my deletions on, and you would have a hard time arguing that they in any way support undeletion. You haven't even tried, though. Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) Jc37, I sympathize with you. Process is useful (sounds like a good essay title). It helps ensure consistency and avoid needless conflicts. At the same time, process is not absolute. It is a bad idea to do things solely for the sake of process. For example, if you want to block/unblock/delete/undelete, etc. it should be because you believe that the action is objectively the right outcome, and not solely because you are concerned with how some previous action was performed. Would it have been better if Dmcdevit had started a conversation about this beforehand? Yes, I think it would have been. There doesn't appear to be any urgency here, and writing out a group CFD could have covered this easily enough while letting the community share in the decision. (Bad Dmcdevit, no cookie for you.) But unless you believe the outcome would have or should be different then the issue is largely academic. Aside from arguably setting a bad example, do you see Dmcdevit's actions as actually having harmed something? Dragons flight 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, my greatest "fear" in all of this is that we'd get another "wheel war" started over this, since it's been so contentious in the past (there's currently an arbcom case about such speedy deletions/closures, among other things). One irony for me is that in the past I've several times suggested that we should group nom all of these categories. (I previously grouped them in Category:Wikipedians by political issue as an aid as a result of other discussions.) We've had so many CfD and UCFD discussions about these which resulted in Keep or No consensus, that to just arbitrarily delete them without doing any previous research (as he noted below), seems a flagrant mistake. I'm glad that so far we haven't seen "much" further disruption, but I suppose "the night is young". Needless to say, I oppose any restoration, or whatever, at least until we've concluded this discussion here. I haven't reverted User:Tony Sideaway's semi-related action at WP:UCFD, (which seems to presume bad faith), for similar reasons.
As for "harmed"... I really think this is a bad precedent to set. Yes I know that we don't use precedent here, but at the same time, we have Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, and Wikipedia:Overcategorisation, among other such pages. Do we really want to set the idea that any well-meaning (not to mention non-well-meaning) admin can WP:IAR and speedily delete something that he decides is abhorrent? I've seen wheel-warring over just the placement of tags on a policy page or article, and "this" involves deletion. Incidentally, I agree with your entire post. - jc37 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) - (outside the discussion note: Time for dinner, be back later : ) - jc37 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted them because they should be deleted. It is that simple. In the absence of any reason whatsoever to undelete them, I will not undelete them. I'm not interested in further circular argumentation. If you cannot understand why a statement like "Do we really want to set the idea that any well-meaning (not to mention non-well-meaning) admin can WP:IAR and speedily delete something that he decides is abhorrent?" is patently absurd, and seem to either think that POV-advocacy user categories are a good idea, or that they aren't a good idea but that using process to argue for a bad idea is a good idea, then you simply have your priorities wrong. You seem to be using the letter of the policy to argue against the spirit of the policy. It might be a good time for you to return to article editing, that's what I'd like to do as well. Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thing is... It's your action that's against the spirit of the policy.
1.) You did a speedy deletion action, with a rationale of WP:NOT violations.
2.) WP:CSD clearly says that WP:NOT is not acceptable as a speedy deletion criteria, simply because interpretation of WP:NOT can be subjective, and so it requires community consensus.
3.) I agree that in some cases WP:IAR is applicable (and possibly applicable in this case), but you state repeatedly that this isn't what you're doing.
4.) Several other Wikipedians have suggested the same thing to you, that the categories in question should have been deleted as a result of normal process, and not speedied. (Though most agree that, in the end, they should be deleted.)
This isn't "absurd", "rich" or any of the other "dismissive" words you continue to use in this discussion. As I read this what I see is a refusal to discuss anything except what you wish to discuss. User:Dragons_flight hit it directly on the head in his statement above, and you tell him to "keep the cookie"?
Incidentally, several of the categories which you deleted were currently under discussion at WP:UCFD. And quite a few more had already gone through CFD/UCFD, and so, again, should not have been speedied per policy. But, as you note below, you did no reasearch, not even to click on the huge CfD template links on some of the pages you deleted? Much less go through the page history. Aren't these things which an admin is supposed to do prior to a deletion, especially a speedy deletion?
I'm sorry, but the attitude of "I'm right, and you're wrong", and "I refuse to discuss it" is not only unhelpful, it's "Un-wikipedian". And what really kills me is that it's you. Someone who has in the past received nearly every user-right, as a result of community consensus. Someone who I would have presumed is a conscientious editor as such.
See, I can understand how it happened, and that it was a simple set of mistakes. You noticed the category(s) as a result of something else. You decided that these violated WP:NOT, and presuming you were correct, you speedied them. Yes, you should have "done your homework" before speedying them. If you had, I doubt we would be having this discussion. But what's continuing to trouble me is that even in the face of hearing the mistakes, rather than say (as others have suggested), "Ok, I agree. I should have done x, y, and z, as that is what the current community policy is." Not to mention: "Since this has become somewhat contentious (as I expected it to be about at least some of them), let's group nominate them, and allow them the 5 days of discussion." You instead say: "I was right, and I refuse to discuss it, go edit the encyclopedia."
You've been an arbitrator, how would you interpret such attitude and answers?
Dismissive, and condescending? Acting authoritative without support of policy to back you up?
No personal attack whatsoever, but merely a sincere attempt to convey how it feels on this side of the discussion.
So now, it's also your actions after the speedy that have me concerned as well. You seem to be so focused on the presumed "badness" of the categories, you're apparently not seeing the concerns I'm raising.
If you still feel that I am "way off base", and have my "priorities wrong" please feel free to start the dipute resolution process with an RfC, or even jump to mediation, if you consider this page enough of an RfC. Or for that matter, if you wish to refuse mediation, feel free to start an arbitration case. I sincerely would like to hope that we shouldn't need to, but if you continue to feel that the discussion is "circular", perhaps that's the best route.
(Personally, I think I'm going to go find a copy of Crimson Tide...) - jc37 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you not understand what I mean by the spirit of the law? How can you possibly say it's "against the spirit of the policy" and then just quote back the policy at me again. I don't need policy quoted at me. The intent of the policy is that Wikipedia remain an encyclopedia, and not a place for personal advocacy. Policy is not end goal. This doesn't have anything to do with my refusal to discuss anything: in fact, I've been discussing this here with you for a while, and I have not been able to get you to discuss anything but policy, which is, actually, a very pathetic fact. Perhaps most of the other people commenting in the DRV are unwikipedian as well, but I think you need to take a step back and drop it. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I do, and the link reinforces that, but I think you may have missed it, or perhaps misunderstood what I was attempting to convey. By merely saying that "The intent of the policy is that Wikipedia remain an encyclopedia" begs the question. Of course that's the intent of policy in general. The whole point of having WP:NOT is to help with that (which includes the statement about advocacy). But what constitutes "advocacy" or any of the other "not" criteria can be considered subjective, and should be determined by Consensus. WP:CSD reinforces that by saying that WP:NOT reasons are not valid reasons to speedily delete something. While discussing the "spirit of the law", do you understand why WP:NOT are not valid reasons to speedily delete something? What the reasons behind the policy are? Wikipedia is not a battleground? Well, that's partially one reason. But if one reads Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Reasoning behind NPOV, perhaps one may get a better idea. An additional clue may be found in Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button.

As for the rest:

If you've been actually discussing, rather than just stating how right the deletions were based on content and how you refuse to undelete, or discuss anything, except concerning content, (or making personal "suggestions" about me, my priorities, and how I should spend my volunteer time aiding the Wikipedia project), I've missed it. Though I would be happy to be corrected on this.

No, I wasn't claiming that "the other people commenting in the DRV are unwikipedian as well". Though there have been, and are, discussions about how WP:DRV has been used quite a bit lately to just try/retry XfD discussions, rather than be about the process (which is the intent explained on WP:DRV). But that's a whole other discussion, and not worth getting sidetracked with here.

And yes, I think you've made your stance rather clear, You're focused so much on the content you don't see (or don't care about) the rest. This leaves me with several options, including the ones I listed above.

My choice?

Shrugs.

User:Dragons flight's post above actually allayed most of my concerns. I could be mistaken, but I think one indirect result of this "discussion" has been that additional action (and therefore the potential for disruption, or worse, "wheel-warring) has been minimised. At this stage, I've mostly just been attempting to re-clarify, in the hopes you may understand, as well as responding to your "rhetoric" and accusations. And there comes a point where that becomes pointless. (Though I learned that long before Wikipedia, I've learned it mostly in this venue by periodic reading of JustZisGuy's talk page. Fascinating stuff, it's amazing he stays sane : )

Do I think you're a bad editor or a bad admin? No, not really. I think you just made a mistake in haste in how you chose to apply an action. (I think that you, too, have a belly button : ) - The lack of research, and the application of WP:BRD applied to deletion (while refusing the "RD" potion), are both concerning, but I will at this time be quite content to presume that it's not something you would do again in the same way.

As for the categories themselves, personally, as I've stated many times before today, I've been "on-the-fence" about the "support/oppose" categories for a long time. Hence my "neutral" stance. One one hand, there is User:Jimbo Wales' comment about them (which I agree with), but on the other is the most common argument for their retention: Having them shows interest in related topic articles on the encyclopedia, and therefore helps foster collaboration between those of similar interest (which I also agree with). And needless to say, there are infinitely more sub-interests than WikiProjects can encompass. Hence, I'm on-the-fence.

And finally, if you're bored, or find you have the time or inclination, feel free to take a moment and read through the "Pages worth reading" listed at the top of my talk page (and "references" on my user page). They've been there awhile. I found them interesting and useful, perhaps you will as well.

And in case that it wasn't clear enough, I'm going to treat your last comment (despite it's possible appearance otherwise) as a good faith "suggestion" to disengage. Sounds like a good idea to me too.

Anyway, I do hope that you're having a good day : ) - jc37 10:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm rather surprised to find these shenanigans going on. Let's just get rid of this stupid crap, and no stupid wonking over it. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) It was about time someone took that initiative. I agree, well done, Dmcdevit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
jc37 is an admin, if an admin thinks a process should be done, then it should be done, because admins normally would have favored bypassing the process. If even an admin disagree with a bypass, then I assume the bypass must have been egregiously unjustified. WooyiTalk to me? 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
When a respected and sincere admin says "process be damned", he is almost always right. When a respected and sincere admin says "process is more important then product", he is almost always wrong. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Dmcdevit, for deleting these divisive and completely useless categories. If process hinders the removal of cruft, perhaps it's time to consider deleting the process along with the cruft it protects.Proabivouac 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a fair statement, and should definitely be discussed. - jc37 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

mass deletion of political wikipedian-categories

I was startled to discover your large-scale deletion of political/social issues categories for Wikipedians. While I can understand your reasoning, I'd like to know--was there any discussion or deletion debate about it before you acted? K. Lásztocska 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There may have been some discussions somewhere, but it was mostly on my own initiative. I was surprised to find out such abhorrent categories even existed. Dmcdevit·t 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Whole lot of categories deleted by User:Dmcdevit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Inherited a Flagged IP Address

Dmcdevit, my broadband ISP assigns static, global IP addresses. My address was recently changed due to a Verizon ATM backhaul change, and I apparently inherited an IP address that you had previously blocked as a zombie. How can I convince you that I am a tangible person with good Wikipedia manners?

Robfollett 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to know your IP to be able to respond to this. You can use email if you are concerned about privacy. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Furry Wikipedians

You appear to have re-deleted this category, after it was restored by another admin... You suggest a DRV, however the first step prior to a DRV is to contact the admin who deleted it. The category was deleted after at least two "keep" decisions, and did not meet any speedy criteria... The deleting admin, User:Shanel acknowledged this, and stated he/she would be fine with it being restored ("Feel free to revert me or create said category if you wish, or whatever else you'd like to do."). As such, it should _not_ go to DRV, and the matter should be considered closed... And, as such, could you please take the time to undelete it again? Thanks, Bushytails 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, Shanel nailed it when she wrote, "Does not further the project." I can hardly think of a more powerful argument against its recreation.Proabivouac 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already responded to that, on how it does benefit the encyclopedia, and won't repeat it here, nor is it relevant... you can check her and my talk pages if you wish. If you wish to argue it doesn't further the project, you're welcome to list it for deletion, but I think it's been "keep" three times so far. Bushytails 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something about the "furry community"…I'm not convinced.Proabivouac 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Lord knows there's plenty of stuff I'd love to see deleted... absolutely everything to do with pokemon except the main article, for example. but unfortunately for all of us, there's this little "consensus" thing, where "I don't like it" isn't a good reason to delete it. :) Bushytails 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
However much you dislike the topic, Pokemon-related articles (I assume) have been deemed to be encyclopedic. This was not deleted simply because it was disliked, but because it served no encyclopedic purpose. I agree with Proabivouac. If Shanel is wishy-washy about the deletion, I'll own it as my own. See the current DRV on the matter. Dmcdevit·t 07:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While I'm a big fan of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, I'm rather not a fan of Wikipedia:Ignore All Consensus. If you wish to delete things that recently were decided "keep" in deletion discussions, you need to consider community consensus, something you don't seem to have done. If you dislike the existence of the category, restore it, then list it at user categories for discussion, and see what community consensus is. Bushytails 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an arguable difference between this and most of the ones discussed above. This isn't a POV statement (e.g. Wikipedians for a Free Tibet), rather it is an identity statement (e.g. Catholic Wikipedians). Personally I tend to have more liberal feelings towards identity statements than opinion statements. Dragons flight 09:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Bushytails, I tend to agree with you about the Pokemon articles - of course no respectable encyclopedia could be bothered with such trivial matters - but see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If cruft X justifies cruft Y, and vice-versa, then none of it can ever be removed.Proabivouac 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can think of half a dozen written policies (like WP:Avoid_self-references) one could use to support speedily ridding the encyclopdia space of stuff like this. Gwen Gale 09:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And you'll have the opportunity to use them. But when it comes to deletion, it's the administrators' job to implement consensus decisions, not to make a snap call, take action (which ran contrary to two previous decisions), and then say "if you want to argue, take it up with DRV". That's an edit, not an administrative action, and it's one regular users don't have the ability to revert without being subjected to sanctions. This didn't fit speedy deletion criteria, so it should not have been speedily deleted. GreenReaper 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to undelete it while there is no encyclopedic reason for it, but if there is a use, I don't mind restoring it. You seem to think it's useful; rather than arguing the process, why don't you tell me what is useful about it first? Dmcdevit·t 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Curiosity from my side, Dmcdevit, will you draw any personal consequences if the community says your decision was incorrect - don't misunderstand, I am not screaming for your head or bit here, I'm just wondering if you would act a little less trigger happy in the future. Being WP:BOLD is one thing, screaming "FUCK PROCESS, FUCK CONSENSUS" is another, and I currently see you somewhere in the middle between both (though you are rather more leaning on the BOLD side than the other one ;). CharonX/talk 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this has to do with trigger-happiness or even boldness, at all, and certainly not bucking consensus. An admin (out-of-process, I suppose), deleted some categories as "Does not further the project." Another admin (also out-of-process) restored them and brought them to WP:UCFD, making "neutral" nominations that, since they were "neutral," didn't give any argument for deletion, and so predisposed the nominations to end in keeps, and reverse the previous deletion. I made the sensible (and in-process, I think, since the previous restores were not) of closing the UCFD and directing any contested deletions to WP:DRV, the proper venue, where a more useful discussion without such a predisposition could take place. This, of course, involved reversing the undeletions. Now, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but the current situation, such as it is, is that the category is deleted. I don't demand a DRV nomination to get it back, but it's not a lot to simply ask what good it is for the encyclopedia before I use my admin tools again to restore it. That's not a rhetorical question; I will genuinely discuss it and take back what I did, if need be. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a small piece of information, and not a comment in any way on this discussion: While in the past "CFD" may have stood for "Categories for Deletion", it now stands for "Categories for discussion". The reason is that Moves, such as renames and merges, are also discussed in a CfD nomination. So "neutral" nominations may happen, in order to determine community consensus about possible ideas for renames, merges, or whether the category is "unsavable" for various reasons, and thus deletion might be appropriate. This has broadened CfD into a broad consensus-finding discussion board concerning many factors about topics and the categorisation of them. - jc37 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If the initial deletion was out of process, I don't see how yours was any different. Both start from the same point, and both should have required an affirmative decision for deletion, rather than a review of it after the fact. The "of course" doesn't seem to follow if the initial action that caused the discussion was, in itself, incorrect. GreenReaper 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

In response to 'why is it useful', there are furry-centric articles (mostly comics, unless there's a film or two in there) whose continual improvement drives would be served by asking one or more users in Category:Furry Wikipedians. Blast [improve me] 06.06.07 0416 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as an academic resource until our collection of furry-centric articles is complete.Proabivouac 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
More seriously, user categories don't seem like a great way to coordinate things, when WikiProjects or discussion boards would probably be more effective. Is there are related project where these users can be listed as interested members instead? Dmcdevit·t 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not yet, though I'm considering a Furry Task Force or something similar - perhaps even a full WikiProject Furry (there's demand, since it has a whole wiki...). But I don't see where the "instead" comes from; these projects have to have somewhere to recruit, and it makes things a lot easier if we have a pool of Wikipedians who we know are already interested in the topic. Going through the edit history of furry fandom instead would catch a lot of people who're just interested in reverting vandalism. :-) GreenReaper 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I say that because I have a hard time believing it was used for such encyclopedic intents. The category existed for almost two years. Are there any examples of article collaboration as a result of this category? Dmcdevit·t 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any hard evidence of it - but I've not been very active organizing people on here to date, as my energy for that kind of thing is spent on WikiFur. I suspect you'll find it hard to get any. All I can say from my personal experience is that I've checked out the things people in the category were working on and even talked to a few of them about it, as I suspect did others who added it to their pages. Userboxes and their attached user-filled categories work well for that purpose - a passive networking tool to find editors interested in the same things.
They also help people feel more connected to the Wikipedia community; rather than being one in a million editors, they can be in a much smaller team of "100 Wikipedia editors from furryland" (or Washington, or Ecuador, or whatever). I think that's worthwhile, because feeling like you're a meaningful part of a community is important. We've seen that at Wikia - without a community, you don't have a good wiki, even if it's a popular topic. For furry fandom, maybe it's time to formalize that on Wikipedia, as well as off it. GreenReaper 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a category's current effectiveness should be a measure of how useful it could be. I'm not much into the editing any longer; vandalism reverting, project discussion and minor edits are my gig, but it seems a bit unfair to say 'nothing's happened yet, so nothing ever will happen'. Blast [improve me] 08.06.07 1542 (UTC)
I agree. We should probably look at some of our featured articles and comics over at WikiFur and see whether or not some of them would be suitable topics for Wikipedia. GreenReaper 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, maybe categories like this would be more helpful (and understandable) if they were in the project space, rather than the encyclopedia. Gwen Gale 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:European Union Wikipedians

Hello Dmcdevit. I seem to disagree with the reasons you cited for deleting this category and I think that it should have been brought to WP:CFD. Please comment. Best regards, Húsönd 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment on that already, here: [87]. Note that other categories already exist if you want to indicate location or citizenship. Dmcdevit·t 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry to pop in) Now listed at WP:UCFD. --Iamunknown 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Dmcdevit. I read your comment regarding this particular category, but as I look at those two categories meant to "replace" this one (Category:Wikipedians from the European Union and Category:Wikipedians in the European Union) I realize that they just won't make a good replacement. See Category:American Wikipedians for instance. Users listed there were "born or naturalized in the United States". Same should be for Category:European Union Wikipedians. Not much of a POV here IMO. If I want to state that I'm a EU citizen, I should be in Category:European Union Wikipedians, not in Category:Wikipedians from the European Union (which doesn't imply EU citizenship) or Category:Wikipedians in the European Union (which not only doesn't imply any citizenship as it would force EU citizens who are currently not in the EU out of the category). It just seems plain wrong to me, sorry to say. I would be most thankful if you could review this situation. Best regards, Húsönd 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your concern is that you want a category that implies citizenship? Why not "Category:Citizens of the European Union"? Category:European Union Wikipedians is already included in advocacy userboxes for support of the European Union, not for citizens, and populated from the, so using it for your proposed purpose would be counterproductive to your goal anyway, unless ou are going to remove all previous instances of it first, which seems like a waste of time. Dmcdevit·t 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Category:Citizens of the European Union" seems like a simple yet very effective solution. I'll create it soon if no one does before. Thanks. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily like that idea, but please make it Category:Wikipedian citizens of the European Union if you decide to make the category. (The "Wikipedian" prefix is standard in Category:Wikipedians.) --Iamunknown 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty

Can you please, check the Safavid dynasty please [88]. Banned User:Tajik is using numerous socks and has launched a very heavy revert war, not even discussing his edits. I also requested a semi-protection of the page. Thanks. Atabek 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the anon has used talk several times and has made legitimate edits. See history. I do think that a check user should be conducted to determine who the anon is.Hajji Piruz 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a CheckUser. The user editing with an IP already, and the IP resolves to NRW/Hessen, Germany; that's Tajik's IP range. Dmcdevit·t 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dmc. I don't have physical evidence, but based on behavior and support of User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, he is obviously meatpuppeting/coordinating with these groups. Especially surprising was the appearance and revert [89] by User:Houshyar on History of Azerbaijan page immediately after the "warning" [90] which User:Hajji Piruz left on my talk page. By now User:Houshyar is also already involved in a revert war on the same page. These provocations of User:Hajji Piruz, a.k.a. User:Azerbaijani, have to be stopped. It took us so long to achieve consensus at Safavid dynasty, many of us ended up in ArbCom because of it, and finally had stable version for the past month or so. I don't claim to own the article, but now these folks are trying to spoil everything and restart the edit war.Atabek 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Show evidence or dont make the accusation. What your doing is called a personal attack Atabek. The only changes of the anon's that I supported was the grammer, spelling, and Wikilinking corrections, which had nothing to do with the consensus, the anon was actually trying to improve the article. The funny thing is you reverted those edits and now the article is full of mistakes again. Why dont you actually try and improve the article Atabek instead of revert warring.Hajji Piruz 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG, of course my IP is NRW (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and Hessen, because I live in that area (check Dortmund), along with 24 million (!) other people. I have already explained in the talk page that I am living in Germany and that I have studied in Munich. I guess everyone who lives in Germany and is interested in the Safavid dynatsy must be "Tajik". It is laughable that the admins of Wikipedia do not even dare to read what the users write in the articles. I have spent more than 3 hours today to check spellings and to clean up an article that is totally messed up by months of extensive edit-warring. Just take a look at Atabek's revert: [91] All I did was correcting the spelling, correcting grammar, and so forth. I have neither deleted information, nor added anything controversial. This fake politeness of Wikipedia's admins and the rude and unconstructive attitude of many Wikipedias is the reason I do not want to sign up and to create an account. I am not interested in this silly community, in which constructive work and good faith are not respected. Atabek has reverted all of my edits, yet, he himself has not spent one single minute to clean up the article. 99% of his edits are reverts, nationalistically motivated POV, and in talk pages, he is accusing and insulting others. Honestly, I am not surprised that the admin quickly blocked the page and that Atabek quickly reverted to a messed up version. This is the policy of Wikipedia, and the reason why Wikipedia is still not accepted as a reliable encyclopedia. As I have said before: I really do not care. I was just trying to help by doing something that self-proclaimed experts such as Atabek do not feel responsible for: cleaning up an article. And it does not surprise me that Atabek is not punished by the admins, although he has violated the 1 revert per week rule, since my edits were neither vandalism nor edit-warring. Meanwhile, I have spent another 30 minutes to clean up another section of the article. See [92]. But unfortunately, I cannot update the page because it is protected. As I have already explained, Wikipedia's silly community is not interested in constructive works and good faith edits. Atabek is the best example.

FYI

Hi,

I did not think I would have to bother you at all and not so soon but here we go again:

[93]

Sorry, Zeq 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again - please see this: [94]. I am at loss at why I am being attcked by Zero and others. The article I created seems to already exist elsewhere so a merge and redirect may have been in order (if I would have known) but clearly the content is proven to be encyclopedic since part of it is already in wikipedia for a long time. (I focused on the use of the expression while another article pointed out the Quranic roots of the expression) Zeq 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Elba is now located in Romania...

Could you check 89.137.109.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - clearly Bonny, but unlike other of his IPs it doesn't look much like an open proxy, and it is in Romania. Fut.Perf. 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, (check the block log,) that appears to have become his new regular IP. Maybe it's a work IP or something. In any case, I hardblocked it already. Dmcdevit·t 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you check Vlachos (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) too please? Fut.Perf. 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Open proxy blocked. Dmcdevit·t 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:84.9.39.232

Could you take a look? It's a checkuser block you've placed and the user is offering $1000 for any proof that a vandal has been operating from the address...could be lucrative. ;-) Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, myself and John Reaves spoke to this user in #wikipedia-en-unblock earlier. After a protracted discussion the only thing I can say is that this guy just does not understand sockpuppetry and why his IP got blocked, despite it being explained over and over. – Steel 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs)

Hi Dmc, is there any chance of an CU request? It's just that I blocked the above user for trolling RFCN, then User:TortureIsBad turns up and vandalises my userpage and H's userpage. TortureIsWrong emailed me explicitly saying that was not him, and he does not want to be associated with that petty vandalism, I'm actually inclined to believe him. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can confirm that TortureIsBad is RJASE1 (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's shocked me, I've blocked the account indefinately, thanks for your help. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

another FYI

Despite this, there was this and this followed by this. Just in case you missed it - hope someone is checking the work. Tvoz |talk 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

SunFlower

 
A sunflower for Dmcdevit.

...and you know why ;-). Miranda 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

hkelkar sock

72.181.82.57 (talk · contribs), IP redirects to Texas.Bakaman 06:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community

If you are not aware Category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community was re-created.--Jorfer 04:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Dominic/Archive19".