User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Dmcdevit!

Request for Arbitration I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses by the user/ adminstrator "Gwernol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwernol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwernol (or his allies) then took the extraordinary and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the hisotry of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwenol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do).

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwendol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He shuld know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of peopkle trying to improve articles.

I believe Gwernol has abused his power as administrator to punish editors for content he does not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also belive Mr. Gwendol owes me an apology for the intentional infliction of emotional distress he has caused me. Please consider my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Wikipedia. Thank you very much. 71.111.117.99 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] T-man ban

I took the liberty of recording your enactment of the 6-month ban on T-man at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Hope that's OK. It probably should be noted at AN/I as well, I suppose, but I'll leave that to you — I don't want to put words in your mouth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it was routine, I had spoken to Tito and Shanel about the possibility before, and in any case, arbcom is not about to overturn its own ruling, so the discussion at AN/I would be rather pointless. Thanks for cleaning up after me and making the necessary log though. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I only mentioned AN/I because of the clause in the decision about T-man's probation, which says "a note must also be placed on AN/I", but I suppose that's about the probation rather than his six-month ban, which was put aside while the mentorship was tried. I didn't mean to be telling you how to do your job! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ericsaindon2/Coolcaesar

I feel kinda iffy about putting up all those redirects for deletion (see Special:Contributions/10171990snow for the redirects) from Ericsaindon2's attempted renaming of that arbcom case. Moving the case pages would probably result in rapid reverts, so he just keeps editing the template to change the parameter to "Ericsaindon2/Coolcaesar" so it points to redirects. If the redirects go, its harder. Could you consider just deleting those redirects (they're sort of implausable typos for anyone but eric himself), else would you mind if I threw them up on RfD? Kevin_b_er 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSTCrow

While I (obviously) agree with you that there's enough troublesome behavior to warrant ArbCom action, a quick look at the ArbCom page tells me that you folks are already up to your eyeballs in work, so practically it may not be a good idea -- especially if, as seems likely to me, MSTCrow is on his way down the slippery slope to a community ban. Under the theory of "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves", it won't take much more edit-warring, insults, pointless wikilawyering -- note his defense of Lingeron (talk • contribs) -- and occasional outright lies for him to alienate a critical mass of editors/admins, which would render ArbCom action moot.

Besides, if he's true to form, any ArbCom case involving him would be wikilawyered up the wazoo, all intended to prove that it's everyone else's fault. His blocks certainly haven't taught him a damned thing (I've been blocked twice, not five times, and both times the blocks were vindictive and not based on fact..., as he claimed on his talk page) and I kind of doubt ArbCom sanctions would do more than provide him a martyrdom issue, either.

We'll see, I guess. So far, no other ArbCom members have weighed in, and depending on how they feel, this may be moot. Note: Copied to Bishonen. --Calton | Talk 07:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I award Dmcdevit this barnstar for his efforts in clearing the Common duplicates from Wikipedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA and your vote

 Hi Dmc,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I thought about what you wrote. I've reached the conclusion that it is best to support a user in a time of crisis, but to not defend it if there is nothing to defend. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.


Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

[edit] My comments on Ambuj.Saxena's RFA

Hello : - ) Sorry about questioning your wording. I'm annoyed at other users comments about English literacy. I was trying to make the point that our most experienced and trusted users do not always make the meaning of their comments perfectly clear. Take care, FloNight talk 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb case:Kehrli

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambuj's RfA

so what irritates me more are the garbled and grammarless netspeakers like, for example, Deon555, above

Retreived from WP:RfA#Ambuj.Saxena
Excuse me? --Deon555|talk|e 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

Hi. In view of your recent remarks in a RfA, I thought that this WikiProject could interest you. Cheers, Redux 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honest apology

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologized [1] —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the best thing you can do is come back after your ban is over and try to work cooperatively with others next time. Dmcdevit·t 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
But a year is too long, i'd easily go on parole and probation, but a year is too long for someone who has stopped doing these things, perhaps we should discuss the matter. I also got a barnstar for growing into a posirtive way, so please see my talk page, chers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 10:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TuzsuzDeliBekir

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that 85.100.72.198 (talk • contribs) and 85.97.104.189 (talk • contribs) is TuzsuzDeliBekir. First off, the IPs are located in Adana, his hometown and where he currently goes to university. Secondly, you'll notice that 85.100.72.198 only has 3 edits but somehow doesn't think too highly of me (and before I reverted him on the Malatya and Trabzon articles, too). Should those two articles be semi-protected? I recall that TuzsuzDeliBekir used to log out after he was blocked as he had a dynamic IP, which makes me even more sure that it's him. —Khoikhoi 07:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Which diffs?

Dmcdevit, there is some uncertainly in the H.E. ArbCom case as to which diffs you'd referred in recommending I'd be sanctioned, as you'd only cited "evidence". I disagree with your proposed finding, but have little hope of speaking to all the diffs put forth in "evidence" in the requisite time. On talk, it's centered on Muhammad, but for my part I'm not certain from your statement that this is the subject to which you'd referred. It'd help me address your concerns if you could be more specific.Timothy Usher 08:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm not ignoring you, I just got caught up today. I'll make sure to put specific diffs into the finding tomorrow. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, I've been apprised that Tony Sidaway is on break. Can I ask if you'd received the e-mail I'd sent him?Timothy Usher 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I'll take a look.Timothy Usher 07:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, yes, your first email has gone through to all the arbitrators via the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I've created this subpage of my user talk page for your, and other editors', review. Comments are appreciated.Timothy Usher 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ya know

I wonder sometimes why I bother. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's just frustrating. I must say though, I am grateful that Penny slipped up. :) I had no inkling it was her until that last post on the Halle Berry talk page. The part where she mentioned that there is no source because Berry never said it was the dead giveaway. But yeah. Me leave? Nah. I think the most I've gone without an edit in my 20 months here is about 2 days. Just gets frustrating after awhile. And they never just take their block nicely. Ever. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshua Z just reverted a post she made to this very page. God I love trolls. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Looks like she has stopped for now. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Recall

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's open season! lol

Be still my heart. lol --Woohookitty(meow) 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian's been getting worse lately, yes. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, too. The only solution I can think of right now is dealing with the ISP or waiting it out... Dmcdevit·t 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M/z dispute

Hi Dmcdevit, I wonder what made you vote against me on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. Could you give me some hint where, you think, I am wrong in this issue? --Kehrli 11:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tangotango/Sandbox

Indeed, I only looked in Category:Fair use images this time. I'll talk to you later if I catch you online about the bot. Cheers, Tangotango 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Usher placed on Probation

Dmcdevit, Just thought you may haven't seen Timothy's defence here[2]. --Aminz 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The his excellency case

I brought this up with Fred as well. Just making sure I get the ear of a couple of arbcom members. :) I am wondering if you and the arbcom can clarify something on the proposed decisions page. Do these sanctions cover just the His excellency account or do they cover the His excellency account and the previous account that the user edited under? Otherwise, I'm afraid of H.E. simply switching accounts. What's on the page now is not clear. --Woohookitty(meow) 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Well, I have been thinking about your (second) offer to nominate me for admin status. I accept. I suppose it is time, and I do want to be of more help to Wikipedia. However, this is probably my busiest time of year. In addition to work, and teaching, I will be away from home on family business/activities for almost all of September. So, can we target the nomination for the 2nd week in October, or so? And I would appreciate any advice you might have? Thanks for your interest. WBardwin 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I won't have reliable internet access for a few more days until I'm all moved in, so I'll talk to you more then. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! Just found out that I'll be sent out of state again, from October 11th to the 19th. I'll have internet access, but not much time. So, how about the 4th week of October instead? Sorry, my schedule is really subject to change right now. User:Bishonen has also expressed a willingness to help in the process, so you may want to contact her. Thanks. WBardwin 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Not a problem. I think you'll be an easy pick whenever you apply. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

I come here not to tell you that your statement in response is a load of hogwash (although it is) but that you ought to have recused. David | Talk 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a new tactic. And why is that? Dmcdevit·t 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable comment on your part

I take exception to your mischaracterization as to my purported involvement and conduct, and am seeking for you to provide actual evidence to that effect so that others be able to verify your claims; that is, beyond the realm of speculation & superficial appearences. I fear you might be inadvertantly absuing your role as arbitrator, so perhaps a more substantive explanation on your part is due. El_C 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Huh? How does "I am not sure you are [uninvolved]" purport anything? You demand I provide evidence of my uncertainty? Sorry, but that was a good suggestion: enforcement should only be done by uninvolved admins, and I'm not sure if you are (and your attitude doesn't particularly motivate me to look more closely). How about you tone down the misplaced hostility. Dmcdevit·t 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful for you to actually review the material you are commenting on; if you question my involvement, please offer something substantive, or it comes accross as misplaced hostility and disrespect for my tired efforts in dealing with this abusive user. El_C 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure whether you are involved or not. That is a basic declarative sentence which does not question anything. I was just giving you a straightforward answer to the question posed. Your accusations and assumptions of my meaning, frankly, don't make any sense. Dmcdevit·t 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tis unfortunate you did not find it fit to find out; I suppose declerative speculations are easier as they do not involve any effort. El_C 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am speaking plainly. There is no speculation involved, as I made clear; you are just playing with words because for some reason you have animosity towards either me or the Arbitration Committee as a whole or both. It isn't welcome. The courtesy of answering your question as posed, even if I didn't perform any further research, was clearly wasted. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Plainly or otherwise, you are continuing to speculate and it is not welcomed. While I appreciate you answering the question, I take exception to the speculations and the innuendo. I think I deserve more support than that from you. El_C 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, I haven't. I'm done with this useless discussion. (In case you didn't notice, I gave you good advice on how to deal with Zeq, namely, to put the issue to ANI if a ban doesn't fit into arbcom's ruling.) Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've asked another arbitrator to discuss the matter with you, and I'll refractor the comment you removed (discourtesy, I find) on his talk page. Feel free to remove this one. I will not attempt to speak to you again. El_C 08:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Hi. You deleted Image:Wikiprojectbeautypageants.JPG with the reason "listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons". However, no image with that exact name is on commons. So, there is now a redlink on {{User WikiProject Beauty Pageants}}. --Rob 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Hi. You deleted Image:Raisinbread.gif with the reason "listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons". However, no image with that exact name is on commons. So, there is now a redlink on Metric expansion of space. -- ScienceApologist 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag was mistakenly copied from another NASA image that did have a copy on commons. --ScienceApologist 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public record of checkuser on Syphonbyte and Clyde Wey

Based upon your claim of the results of checkuser at ANI, I created this archive page as we've done for several usages of checkuser not through RFCU at the RFCU case archives. The record is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Syphonbyte with a diff on the timestamp. The 'discussion' is tagged as closed, but please feel free to fix it if anything is wrong. --Kevin_b_er 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though I'm not sure why it's necessary. I would venture to say that many, if not most, productive CheckUsers don't originate at RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right, but then, people always go immediately afterward, "where was the result?" when action is taken as a result. See the AN discussion where someone immediately asks such a question. For this, truely useful results are good to keep note of. Kevin_b_er 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:World Map FIBA.png

Can you explain how and why is this deleted? It screwed up a lot of pages. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was marked as having been moved to Wikipedia Commons, except that it wasn't. I restored the local copy. Dragons flight 04:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I thought my computer was screwed up. Now I'm confused. Thanks, anyway. --Howard the Duck 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. It appears to have been wrongly tagged leading to my deletion. Sorry for the confusion. Dmcdevit·t 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Inanna-

Hi Dmcdevit, could you please check your email? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You've got mail from me too. - Mgm|(talk) 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, thanks! :) You sort of read my mind, I was thinking of bringing that up with Tony. I sure hope I don't ever have to go through an arbitration again. As for email, take your time. Thanks again for all your help. —Khoikhoi 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCT into CSD - No.

I noticed that you added the CSD category into the NowCommonsThis template. This is not a good idea. CSD is busy enough as it is, and having hundreds of non-urgent images added to it is simply counter-productive. Please don't do that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is odd that putting something that is a CSD into the CSD category would be a problem, but, heck, images are generally odd. ;-) As for suggestions: use an {{adminbacklog}} tag, mention it at the CP list of mantainence tasks, and make sure it's linked from the CSD cat page, even if not included there. Hope this helps... JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasegoforawalk (talk • contribs • count) requesting unblock

Pleasegoforawalk (talk • contribs • count) is requesting to be unblocked. You blocked him as a vandalism only accouny, but he doesn't appear to have any contributions. Is the account connected with another vandalism account, or is there some other reason for the block? Thanks, -- Natalya 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the block on this account? He's asking for an unblock. Your summary was "vandalism-only account" but he doesn't have any contribs, is he a puppet? Herostratus 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I came across the account blocking a bunch of socks uncovered with CheckUser. This one, however, having acted sufficiently different from the rest in requesting unblocking, that I have unblocked on an assumption of good faith. Thanks for asking me. Dmcdevit·t 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When are you/arbcom going to stop His Excellency... and his attacks

His Excellency... has continued his racist attacks, now he has forced Pecher a longtime editor to leave completely, are you going to do something or should i start using the same tactics to force His Excellency... and like off wikipedia. He's posting his hate via the Amibidhrohi sock puppet at the moment, again do something.Hypnosadist 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats another user has left because of H.E. keep up the good work! Its User:Timothy Usher if you are interested!Hypnosadist 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a temporary injunction would be nice indeed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the case should close soon, with His excelency's banning. It will only take one more arbitrator to reach quorum. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion summaries with links

Hi Dmcdevit, I noticed you clearing out CSD I4s last night when I was doing the same, and wanted to greet you and express some gratitude for doing this. I also wanted to ask how you get the link in the deletion summary, if you could provide script to help me that would be great. Also if you can point out any tasks like this that I could participate in, I would appreciate that too. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:NCT

Hello again Dmcdevit. CAT:NCT is a little difficult for me to clear upon thoroughly reading CSD I9, and cross-referencing it with the files. I wanted to ask you for a second opinion. I9 requires that "the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages" is present on the commons file, before deleting and in most cases it isn't. Does that mean they need to be re-uploaded to the commons? In other terms, according to [3] item 4, a history of revisions is necessary per GFDL, basically the same thing required by I9. I am not really sure how to procede, I'd like to clear the category out, but am not really sure. Hopefully you have some advice that can simplify this. Maybe I should focus on PUI or IFD for tonight. DVD+ R/W 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I get it now, I wasn't finding the history information on the commons pages (I haven't spent much time there), but I found them now. I was just trying to be sure that the image creators were being credited and linked, and they are. Thanks, I'll clear it out now. DVD+ R/W 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your e-Mail

How are the things you mailed me about going; any progress? - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNBLOCK GIBRALTARIAN NOW!!

STILL there has been not one attempt to justify my initial ban, nor any ewxplanation as to why a person can be banned for calling a racist a racist, but the racist himself goes unpunished. My initial ban cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination, and no-one has been able to even attempt doing so. I expect, and demand that it be reverted IMMEDIATELY!

I do wonder what universe he exists in. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discretion blocks by Admins RfC

FYI, I compiled a new RfC on the use of administrator privileges entitled Discretion blocks by Admins. As the issue involves one of your blocks, I am informing you about it and, if you feel like responding, invite you to do that.

I'd like to reiterate that, as I wrote in the RfC, I have no personal grudge to you for blocking me and I have no doubt that your act did not involve any foul play on your part. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with a particular action of yours, and, most importantly, I think the issue of admin's discretion block needs to be urgently addressed as we need to find a middle ground between admin's being too indecisive that may lead to Wikipedia becoming a trollfest (something that was happening as recently as several months ago) on one side and avoiding to hurt the legitimate development of the articles, and, especially, insult editors unnecessarily through unneeded blocks imposed in haste.

My intention is solely to draw the community attention to this important issue and in no way is directed against you in person. Nor do I challenge your fitness to continue to exercise your admin discretion to help make a better Wikipedia.

Respectfully, --Irpen 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerkship

Thanks! Now go wake up the arbitrators that haven't voted on some of those old cases so I actually have something I can work on. Most cases either don't have enough votes to pass the facts or motions, and one doesn't even have a motion to close while all proposed findings and remedies passed a while back. - Mgm|(talk) 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I will get going as soon as I can. - Mgm|(talk) 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Quest

Thanks for taking the time to move the Dragon Quest articles to their proper namespaces. If you're not busy, could I ask you to move Dragon Quest Heroes to Slime Morimori Dragon Quest as well? The article currently discusses the series as a whole, though not to any length and it would seem more suitable to discuss the first game in this sub-series in its place. Combination 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, done. Dmcdevit·t 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision

The lead section says 7 is a majority, the motion to close says it's 6. Where did the discreprency come from? - Mgm|(talk) 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are currently only 11 active arbitrators (WP:AC#Active), but probably when the case was opened there were more that have since become inactive, and so the 7 is out of date. Ideally all the cases are updated when an arbitrator becomes active or inactive, but usually that's a hassle and we just have to check again to see what the current figure is before motioning. Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I closed "Israeli apartheid". (Quite a hassle too with informing so many involved parties). Can you please review my edits and let me know if I did it all right? - Mgm|(talk) 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks right to me. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh and another stupid question. Why do you have to open a day to open a case after the 4th arbitrator accepts? Please leave a short note reminding me to come here on my talk page if you answer. - Mgm|(talk) 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, I didn't even realize the procedures page said that. In general, when votes are involved (at the opening and closing of cases), it is a good idea to wait a day to allow for either someone to change a vote, or for another voter to affect the net vote. It's not terribly important when opening a case, because only 4 acceptances are needed and we are unlikely to have changes of oinion, but it makes more sense when closing, because that needs four net votes, and we wouldn't want to close too early when someone else had an objection. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grigori Perelman

Runcorn has asked me to review the edit history, of Grigori Perelman where you blocked him, and I think you've misread it. He was not a previously involved editor, but on RCP, when he noticed the deletion of properly referenced material because of an unsourced POV that it didn't count. I agree with him that this deletion is vandalism, which of course does not count for 3RR. He did make a mistake of not making the basis of his actions clear, and hence presumably you thinking he was abusing admin powers to gain advantage in an edit war. He was just upholding policy. I have changed back the article to the referenced version and left a note on the talk page that deletion of the same is vandalism. I don't know if you realise that Runcorn has only just been sysopped, so we can tolerate some teething troubles (and BITE also applies to newbie admins). In the light of this, I hope you can see your way to unblocking him and maybe giving some good advice on what went wrong. Thanks. Tyrenius 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing partially with Tyrenius here. While the edits could not be reasonably called vandalism, Runcorn's behavior was somewhat understandable due to 1) the editor Runcorn was dealing with was using offensive edit summaries in clear violation of policy and was engaging in repeated personal attacks. This makes Runcorn's assumption of bad faith much more understandable 2) Runcorn was uninvolved with the page until the editor in question's edit summaries brought his attention to the page (as far as I can tell). 3) Runcorn is a new admin and it is therefore understandable that he may make some mistakes in regard to protections and such. Therefore your call for desysoping seems unnecessarily extreme. JoshuaZ
I think what he did was inappropriate. I realize it could have been, and probably was, a mistake and made in good faith. To clarify, though: I only gave the strong warning that the action of protecting to a preferred version in an edit war is "desysop-worthy", I did not in fact call for any desysopping, and I don't really intend to do anything more. However, especially for a new admin, I want to make it clear how unacceptable this is. (By the way, I think your assessment misses the fact that many of his reverts were against Pjacobi, a good-faith editor who, as far as I can tell, wasn't involved in any attacks.) Dmcdevit·t 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Runcorn's only interest was in upholding policy, as is clear from this conversation. He is not concerned with the content, only that the editing conforms to policy, which it did not, since properly referenced material was deleted because it did not meet the editor's point of view as to what the proper definition was. We do not go by editors' POV of what is so; we go by secondary sources' statements of what is so. For an editor to continue, despite being warned of breaking policy, then becomes bad faith editing. Runcorn was acting in an administrative capacity, not in an editorial one. The fact that one of the editors is an admin does not give him a special exemption. He should know better, and is the one whose actions need to be scrutinised. The fact that Runcorn tried reason and discussion is to his credit, not a cause for censure. Tyrenius 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. Runcorn was acting in good faith, but edit warring nonetheless. Editors get blocked for edit warring for the sake of their version of NPOV or verifiability all the time. It's not because they shouldn't be upholding our policies, or that the others are allowed to, but that edit warring is an inappropriate way of doing so. Saying he was "upholding policy" is not making a useful distinction, and does not necessarily make it a non-content decision; it was edit warring nonetheless. We should use dispute resolution when editors disagree as to the interpretation of NPOV and verifiability. Dmcdevit·t 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed the point that properly referenced material was repeatedly deleted, because of a POV (which was not backed by any reliable secondary source), despite warning. Runcorn was not making an edit decision. He was enforcing a point of policy. Had the content been exactly the opposite, he would have done the same action, because for him the content was not an issue. The violation of policy was.Tyrenius 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your interpretation. In the case where a reference's properness is the dispute at hand, calling something "properly referenced material" is a content decision. Frankly, your definition of enforcing policy would immune most edit warriors from blocking. Dmcdevit·t 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please, Tyrenius. It doesn't make a difference if one person is "right" in an edit war, it's still an edit war, and they still should have gone to the talk page and tried to discuss their disagreement over the content (you might even call it a... "content dispute" ! Look at that!). Yes, there are other issues here, with the sockpuppets and whatnot, who have been blocked (and rightly so), but the point is that there were other, good faith editors who felt that the issue of the subject's religion was irrelevant and/or not important enough to be mentioned in the intro, which is a perfectly reasonable position. This is not nearly as clear-cut and obvious as you make it sound.--SB | T 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Sean too, it is not a question of whether it should be mentioned in the intro or not. That was not the debate. Nor was it a debate whether the individual's religion was irrelevant or not. It was a matter of an editor stating that their POV on something should prevail over a reputable secondary source's statement on the mattter. An edit war is between editors who dispute content, not between an admin who is pointing to violation of policy, and an editor who is not referring to any policy, but solely to their own POV.

Dmcdevit, a national newspaper of repute is considered a proper reference. If an editor doesn't like what that source says, but has nothing else to back that apart from their opinion, then they are in the wrong.

Tyrenius 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, that's what you should tell the mediator in describing your case. You are making things seem too black-and-white, when it isn't. This edit clearly demonstrates that yours is an opinion, not a fact. He says the issue is that "the reference given neither asserts religious belief nor self-identification," meaning he isn't asserting that his opinion trumps that of a reputable source, but that he disagrees with your reading of it. That is a content decision. It requires discussion, not warring. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference was not being used to assert religious belief or self-identification. The reference was being used to describe ethnic background. It is the editor's belief that it is not valid to state ethnic background: this is a POV which has not reached consensus, but the editor insisted on it to delete the material, despite it being pointed out that it was POV and therefore in breach of policy. If a reputable secondary source sees fit to state this as the subject's background, then the non-negotiable policy of WP:VERIFY sees it as a proper statement to be included. Tyrenius 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think admins can enforce content decisions (by edit warring, no less) because content is governed by policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. That's not how it works. If, apparently, someone asserts that Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity, and there is not consensus, that is not even close to making it acceptable to exceed 3RR. Non-negotiable does not mean self-evident or obvious. It is a content dispute. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone asserts something without verification, it is WP:POV and in breach of policy, especially when they delete verified material on the basis of it. The content itself is not the issue. The following of policy is. Admins are here to point out and uphold policy. Tyrenius 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is here to point out and uphold policy. Admins have no more jurisdiction in content-wise policy like NPOV than anyone else. To assert otherwise is very big misunderstanding of what adminship means and how admins are expected to act. Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not the intention of what I said and is a red herring. Perhaps I should make it clearer by saying that the difference is that admins can enforce policy. You have not addressed my point:

If someone asserts something without verification, it is WP:POV and in breach of policy, especially when they delete verified material on the basis of it. The content itself is not the issue. The following of policy is.

Tyrenius 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was responding to. Where is the red herring? I'm saying that you are wrong, admins cannot enforce content-related policy like NPOV, except as any other member of the community, by soliciting consensus. NPOV is not up to the admin's interpretation and enforcement. Admins are not charged with enforcement of the WP:NPOV policy, the community at large is. We do not block for or treat as vandalism POV. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of your argument, anybody could come up with their own unverified interpretation of anything and delete any referenced material they chose to. That is clearly not acceptable. Tyrenius 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying that an administrator has to use dispute resolution (and not the revert button) in these cases just like anyone else. This is what I have been saying all along. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Had both parties provided substantiation for their viewpoints, I would agree that this is a content dispute. When one party insists on deleting material from a verified source because of their point of view without any substantiation, and continues do so, then I consider admin action is appropriate for disruption. It's simply not acceptable behaviour. Policy was pointed out even before Runcorn intervened.[4][5] Tyrenius 00:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a content dispute. This is a discussion about it, where the other side provides substantiation, however much you may disagree with it (eg "The source doesn't say, that he is Jewish. It only says that his family is Jewish."). However, the others' conduct, namely edit warring, was not appropriate, as you say. Which is why all parties were blocked. You seem to be under the misconception that edit warring is allowed if you are "right". In fact, Runcorn should not have edit warred either. Others' misconduct does not excuse one's own. Dmcdevit·t 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Runcorn is a very considerate (too considerate maybe) individual, who got drawn into reasoning in an attempt to reach an amicable outcome. Unfortunately, this now lays him open to the charge of taking part in a content dispute. He got sidetracked here. The argument presented to him was false, as the article did not say the subject was Jewish either. The article said the subject was "of Jewish origin" which is exactly what the source says.

The context of Runcorn's intervention has to be considered. He was not previously involved in the article and only intervened with a responsible view as an admin to stop policy violations that were provoking an edit war. The bottom line here is that we are on the same side, and we want the good of the encyclopedia. We have a different emphasis of how to interpret something, but we should be able to sort it out. I agree with Runcorn's intervention, but consider he was a bit clumsy in effectin it. You disagree with him, and think his actions amounted to a content dispute. You haven't disputed that he was acting with the right motivation. As he is a new admin, I think in the circumstances that the best approach would have been discussion in the first instance. JoshuaZ has pointed out that his actions are understandable. As Runcorn has informed me he doesn't have any intention of returning to this article in the circumstances, the block is currently serving no useful purpose, and is keeping him from the area of *fD which he does know his way around. In the circumstances, I think it would be unjustified and serve no useful purpose to maintain the block for any longer. Tyrenius 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rucorn seems to be a newly minted admin, and we should consider cutting him somje slack. It takes a bit of guts to get make your first intervention as an administrator, and he may have been sidetracked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a block for 3RR, edit warring. Why is his admin status relevant? A 24 hour block is not much; it's mostly symbolic. I don't understand the rush to overturn it. Of course, I don't feel that strongly about it, and you are welcome to see if you can find another uninvolved admin willing to unblock and I won't mind, but I'm not inclined to do so. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the only reason he did these actions was in his capacity as an admin to enforce policy. He was not a previously involved editor, and made no edits apart from restoring referenced material which had been deleted on POV grounds, on one occasion at least by a sockpuppet whom you indef blocked. Tyrenius 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've spent the last little while reviewing the page and actions in question. I'm in favour of leniency, and, if there are no objections from you, Dmcdevit, I will unblock Runcorn (as I'm pretty positive his intentions were only to help), under the understanding that he will take a little bit of time off himself -- Samir धर्म 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a small postscriptum from me: First I have to apologize for breaking 3RR and for failing to communicate my point effectively. The current version in the Perelman article ("Jewish family" instead of "Jew" and moved from intro) is fine with me, at least as lesser evil.
What makes me uneasy is the perception by some, that removal of "properly referenced material" from articles is always vandalism. I strongly disagree. An encyclopedia article is not conglomerate of press clippings, and even if the reference is correct, and even if we can assume honest reporting by the source, the sentence in question may be entirely inappropriate. A better example than the Perelman article may be Caste, where there is a tendency of newspaper reports of anti-Dalit and anti-Brahmin violence being included by the respective POV-pusher. Single incidence reports have no place in an overview article, so removing them is no vandalism for sure.
--Pjacobi 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that and I hope it doesn't happen again. I do, in fact, agree with your second point, and the accusations of vandalism in this case were deeply troubling. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad this situation is behind us, and have no wish to resurrect it, but I must point out that I do not consider such removal is "always" vandalism, and any remarks I made were to the best of my judgement in a very localised situation. I hope we can move on in peace. Tyrenius 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bellbird seems to be the same problematic user under yet another user name. Could you please run a checkuser and tell the user to stick to one user name? JoshuaZ 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Note that he is claiming to not be the earlier disruptive user. JoshuaZ 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser doesn't confirm it, so I'm leaving it alone. Unless a consensus of administrators decide to block based on behavior alone. Dmcdevit·t 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it is the same editor so I'll drop the matter then. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your help!

A user (User:Halbared) is claiming i am a sock puppet! This is wrong! I am not a sock puppet. Halbared and i are not friends, though he refuses to admit that. I am no sockpuppet and i believe he is just trying to get me banned, though i do not know why! Is there anything you can do to make him stop accusing me of this? He is going to get me wrongfully blocked, i know it! You can check my contributions. I am not a vandal, so i can NOT be a sock puppet! I dont vandalize! Can you help me stop this? You are the only user with the ability to block users that i know! Thank you for any help, --Cookie 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to unblock

Regarding your block for 3RR of user Pjacobi (talk • contribs)]. I understand from an email that Pjacobi sent me, that he made a mistake of judgement (and of basic math...) and got himself dinged for 3RR. Peter is a judicious editor, and even if often times I find myself holding an opposing POV in disputes, I would want to vouch for his previous behavior that has been nothing but impeccable. Hence, I would want to unblock him, but would like to know if that is something you would not oppose. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another CAT:NC(T) question

Hello again, I was trying to make a dent in the backlog at CAT:NC and was requested to stop by another user here. My inclination is that I should continue to clear the backlog but want to do it correctly and could use your advice. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarvagnya's warnings

Then why dont u delete Sarvagnya's warnings on my page which he issued for using the word 'Kannadi' when in Central and Western Indian the Kannada speakers are known as Kannadis.(see Kannada and watch for Marathi wikitag there).

I would urge to DELETE his warning on my page too. mahawiki 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already replied to it. Everyking 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Meetup

I believe your best bet is Amtrak. A round-trip fare between Seattle and Portland costs only 60 something dollars, and I'm sure you'll enjoy the ride to some extent. For schedules, fares, and reservations, you may go to www.amtrak.com. Scobell302 03:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope you can make it. DVD+ R/W 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging living people as Jews

There is a general discussion now in the village pump. Care to join it? Bellbird 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For being the best Wikipedian there is. For always looking out for the project above everything else. For always being available for help. Just for being terrific and for being terrific for a long long time. Woohookitty(meow) 06:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for reverting my userpage. I can't seem to leave the computer for long- I had it protected yesterday because it was so bad, I'm a magnet for this kind of abuse. Thanks again. DVD+ R/W 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? Everthing up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why did you block me?

"Since, despite your previous block having just expired, you continue to engage in edit warring in the same article, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, and elswhere, The Jews of Islam, I have reblocked you for another 48 hours. When you return from the block, please work constructively towards consensus, and use dispute resolution when necessary, noe edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)"

The block has now expired but as I look at the history of the articles you cite at the time you blocked me ,I do see no valid evidence of your edit warring claim so I would be interested to know exactly how you came to decide to block me? --CltFn 11:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CltFn continues to edit war on articles like Hagarism and Craig Winn fresh off of his week-long block. BhaiSaab talk 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principal at Deir Yassin Massacre RfAr

The proposal from which you've dissented reads that "[a] single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a Probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban." In additions to the reasons you expressed, this suggests that the user would need to start a whole new arbitration case, which is contrary to the recent dialog on RfAr - requests for clarification. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My account of choice

There's no way to move watchlists through accounts is there? If not, because you and other admins have sent the message that I am banned from Wikipedia (>:| nice job there by the way), I would prefer to edit under the Ya ya ya ya ya ya account and have Freestylefrappe permanently blocked. I would also like... actually no, I insist, that the other accounts I have used in the past redirect to Ya ya ya ya ya ya. You can protect the pages if you wish, though I dont see the point. The other accounts are as follows: User:Freestylefrappe, User:Tchadienne, User:KI, User:Republitarian, and User:NOBS. I have never used sockpuppets, and even if I had, in this case because it involved WP:BLP it would have been irrelevant. I dont know why you cant seem to understand this. Also, since I am not allowed to edit without getting blocked, I'd appreciate it if you would revert the undisputable vandalism on Andrés Manuel López Obrador and protect the page. That's the least you can do for that page. Cheers, freestylefrappe 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the blocks have been switched over. You may now use Ya ya ya ya ya ya. I don't mind how you configure the userspaces, you may redirect them. (The vandalism appears to be dealt with before I checked.) Dmcdevit·t 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal

Since you disapprove of discussing the matter on Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration, I'm obliged to say that I'm extremely disappointed after having received no answer to my letter that I had sent to you even before a newbie launched the arbitration. That is, the arbitration looked like a response to it. Now you say that you have no involvement with me. If you had not repeatedly aired allegations of my incivility on WP:ANI, the case would have never been launched. It's as simple as that. Now, instead of writing new articles, I have to browse through admin space and subdue my anger after reading this or this. During these days, as a member of a "fickle and ill-informed populace" I understood more about Wikipedia than during two years previous. Not that my findings were particularly pleasant. I would have been a happier and more prolific editor without them. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that thinking that arbitration was the proper place for the case is not involvement, or else those that accepted the case have involved themselves as well. I didn't reply to your email because you were quoting Tony and Cowman, saying we're working in tandem, and asking me to respond. I can't, and don't see any reason to do do. Dmcdevit·t 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a kind reply. From what I know about civility (maybe my Soviet upbringing is to blame), responding to good-natured letters is considered polite. But then my notions of urbanity differ so much from those of some of our administrators, that I'd better proceed. I don't think I quoted Cowman in my letter, because I don't know the man. As for your arguments that two other arbitrators accepted the case, who had doubts that they would, after several months of campaigning from one of the arbitrators? Don't bother responding this time. Since I was found guilty of "persistent incivility" in advance, I will not post to this page any more, lest be accused of something worse, such as "disruption" (a word so vague in meaning that it may be conveniently applied to any hard-working editor). I leave this shining Olympus to crawl in the mediocrity of "fickle and ill-informed populace". Regards, Ghirla -трёп- 18:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Unsolicited query: Ghirla says in his response to the RfAr that he understands the concerns that have been expressed. Does it make sense to put the case on hold for awhile and see if things improve? At the moment, I fear it's just intersecting with some other disputes and stirring up rancor on a number of fronts. Just a thought from a bystander. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am neither a party to the case, nor an unrecused arbitrator, so I'm not the one to ask. But, considering it's an old problem, and two arbitrators have accepted the case, I don't think withdrawal is the best option. Again, though, just a personal opinion. Dmcdevit·t 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if perhaps this correspondence should be disclosed to the other arbitrators. If there have been false accusations of malfeasance, those should be addressed. As Wikipedians we must not succumb to the temptation to take false and potentially malicious accusations by trusted Wikipedians against other trusted Wikpedians seriously without good evidence to support them, lest we all descend into civil war. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretties For You

For the hard work that you do, for your temperate, pleasant nature and for being (IMHO) an all around good egg.

Hard as nails
Enlarge
Hard as nails

Hamster Sandwich 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userpages/user talkpages

My userpages and usertalkpages are still protected. In order to redirect them to the Ya ya ya ya ya ya account, I need them unprotected. Also, I've started an arbitration case regarding the Vicente Fox incident, though primarily actions taken after the incident was resolved. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Vicente Fox. Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notvoting

Thank you. Could you please take a look at the talkpage of WP:VIE as well? >Radiant< 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I read over the discussion and weighed in. Thanks for pointing me, I think this is an important issue. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

You voted to place me on probation without ever notifying me that such a move was even being considered, thereby preventing me from defending myself, and without providing any evidence whatsoever.[6] --AaronS 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion at WP:ANI. I believe this user has a legitimate grievance. Newyorkbrad 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your WP:ANI comments, Dmcdevit. --AaronS 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica massacre protection/unprotection

Dmcdevit, I see that you have unprotected the Srebrenica Massacre article.

My first question is what the reasoning behind this was. The editor who had first protected the article Blnguyen, had asked the editors on the Talk page wether or not the article should be unprotected at which the majority of editors replying stated that it should not be unprotected until a concensus (or at least some type of agreement) was reached. I felt that the protection improved the chances for constructive progress on the article. Something which I now fear will not be the case. In light of this I would very much appreciate if you were willing to involve yourself in editing the article, or if you can recommend someone.

My second question regards your comment about Probation. What does it mean and to whom is it indended? Regards Osli73 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that Blnguyen has already essentially answered this question on the article's talk page since you asked it. Tell me if you still have questions. Dmcdevit·t 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-posted from WP:AN

(Regarding the AaronS case) If the other arbitrators join in the fair and sensible approach of Dmcdevit, it looks like the problem is solved. Speaking for myself, at least, no accusatory tone whatsoever was intended; I stated several times that what happened was clearly an inadvertent oversight, and was concerned only because there were suggestions (not by arbitrators, and some since withdrawn) that perhaps it shouldn't be fixed. ArbCom is busy, and Dmcdevit is one of the two most active arbitrators (being one of the two arbs who actually write the decisions), and the community (well, the small subset of the community that follows ArbCom matters) understands and appreciates that. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk.
I follow the ArbCom pages for a number of reasons, and I think that the committee gets most things right, both procedurally and substantively. I even like the writing style of the decisions (it reminds me of the official style used at the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (probably a redlink, it's on my to-do list). My biggest concern about the ArbCom process at the moment is the delays in getting cases disposed of, but since you're one of the two most active arbs you're not the one to gripe to about that, are you? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you at least get the St Chris case voted through? It's the easiest case ever (of course having submitted evidence that's easy for me to say :) ). Pushing to adopt Mindspillage's suggestion in Ghirla's case would also reduce the docket by one.... Newyorkbrad 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bormalagurski and CWoI

Hello, I see you unprotected Croatian War of Independence with comment "parties placed on Probation". To be frank, I didn't see any probation ruling so I don't know what is prohibited by this probation and to whom it applies, but I'm quite sure User:Bormalagurski broke it. Check out the history and you will see that the first thing he did is moved the page. Now, I'm pretty sure Bormalagurski knew this is highly controversial move. So, what do rules of probation say happens now? --Dijxtra 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any administrator may ban him from the page. Post a notice to WP:ANI, and some admins will look at the matter. Dmcdevit·t 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom Case

Please read the post more carefully, I never said I didnt know about it, I actually said I was following it. My complaint is that after a month of nothing admins jumped on it and proceeded to move it 2 stages in 3 days without even informing me they decided to finaly look at it, preventing me from defending myself in the proposal phase. Its already passed the proposal phase as you have voted so you should be aware. Thought I would clarify that as your post seemed to imply I was stating I had no knowledge of the case, something I clearly state that I did. --User:Zer0faults 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I would also like you to reconsider one of your votes in section "Zer0faults has removed sourced information" located here [7]

Per WP:OR it states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Nescio never provided proof that the Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP Program were linked. He then links Smith-Mundt through the Informations Operations Roadmap making it a violation of WP:OR. As for the first piece I am removing it because if you review the article, its mentioned 3 times already. However the second is clearly a vioaltion as Smith-Mundt is only linked to Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi program is not linked to either in any source. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AaronS case redux

Come to think of it, the Probation probably didn't pass to begin with. On matters where no one abstained, there were 11 active arbitrators, so a majority was 6, and so the page stated. Here, there was one abstention on the remedy. The Clerk advises that an abstention should be treated equivalently to a recusal for computing the majority (debatable based on real-world analogs, but let that pass). That leaves 10 sitting arbitrators -- but wait a moment, a majority of 10 is not 5, it's still 6. Probation passed 5-1-1. And from AaronS's recently posted evidence, he seems a reasonable type. Probably best off just to wipe the slate clean and let it go. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that treating the abstention as a recusal doesn't really add up. In a case where there were ten active arbitrators, the abstention would have reduced the active arbitrators to nine and the majority to five, but here there were eleven active arbitrators. I think this apparent error may be a good case for revisiting the motion. Counting against it is the finding of fact that AaronS did edit war. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo arbitration

Some points I think are unclear from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision (regarding your edits):

  1. Probation: While it is true Osli73 has indeed engaged on edit warring on Srebrenica (i.e. restoring a POV tag), I cannot remember him doing so on Kosovo (at least to the same level shown by other editors). I have not followed the article for a few months so I could be wrong. My point is whether it is OK to use a Bosnian War article to justify a probation on Kosovo. I think this would need clarification (also referring to the suggestion I made here)
  2. Banning of PerfectStorm: While I do not condone his behaviour under his previous account (User:C-c-c-c) and his recent outbreak under PerfectStorm, he had managed to keep a head down for months and contributed around 1100 edits, unrelated to Kosovo. The administrator who enforced his permanent ban under his former account was made aware of this new account and decided against any punitive action on that sense. I personally think that a personal attack probation would make more sense than an outright ban.
  3. Sockpuppets problem: Any banned user would have to be subjected to a checkuser process. I am almost sure that there are sockpuppets in use.

Thanks a lot, Asteriontalk 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Could you let me know whether I should post this somewhere on the arbitration page?

In order:
  1. It's reasonably related enough for me. I don't see the reason to let a party to a case who is a heavy edit warrior get through arbitration without remedies because it wasn't mentioned in the request. It may be about a different named war, but it's very hard to separate all these conflicts so neatly, especially when users' edits are spread across all of them.
  2. It's a judgment call. I agree it's always hard to decide when a hard ban is necessary, but the recent personal attacks (bad oves, too) I cited convinced me he is incorrigible and a net negative to the encyclopedia.
  3. Do you feel that there are sockpupets in play now, or that anyone banned will resort to using them? If the latter, we can easily deal with that when it comes. The remedies and injunction apply to the person, not the account. If the former, give me the suspects and evidence and I'll look into it.
You can post this wherever you think it fits best: the evidence page, workshop, or proposed decision talk page are probably best. Dmcdevit·t 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And why exactly I should be banned from editing from Kosovo-related articles as you voted? Can you please justify your vote? ilir_pz 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Hi.

I've been meaning to ask you this for a while, but I sort of awaited the event of things....

In Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons it says at the top

  • If you plan to clean out the NowCommons entries remember to check if:
  1. The entry on commons actually exists
  2. The entry has proper source and copyright information on the commons page
  3. The file names are the same (if not remember to redirect all image links)
  4. The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions)
  5. The file was properly added to an article or category in commons


Now, when you last deleted all images in this category, I can not imagine that you checked this up, because you deleted about 30 images per minute.

Do you think it isn't essential anymore to do it? Why don't you then rewrite the guideline to reflect this?

Fred-Chess 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

Can you tell me why you rejected the request I commented on recently? - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, reasoning given on the request page. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Unverifiable-external-links}}

Just a clarification (made clearer by edits), this template is to warn the reader of sites that may be particularly misleading. It is an explicit reminder that we do not verify external links, not an indication that we might verify other links. It's simply there for when we especialy need to warn the reader that we don't verify external links, and that these sites in particular may be questionable. --Barberio 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

Hello Dmcdevit, I closed the Kehrli case but have a question about the remedies. Before I announce the case to the parties, could you take a look and see if I interpreted them the way that you and Arbcom intended. My question is about whether Kehrli is prohibited from changing notation for one year or two. Both passed and there does not seem to be a clear preference. Also double check the lenghth of the article ban. Both passed but I interpreted it as 1 year based on clear first choice votes. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli#Remedies FloNight 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chacor (NSLE)'s RfA

I want to confirm that you gave a go ahead to NSLE to re-apply for adminship, because some users seems doubtful about whether or not this was indeed given or not. --WinHunter (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat8722

If I may make a humble submission relating to this case: I believe that the reason why a continuance has been raised is that many people believe that it is incorrect in principle to judge someone who is unable to defend themself, as a kind of audi alteram partem doctrine. David Mestel(Talk) 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting. The process of closing a case without a decision only to reopen it later is a needless hassle. We can hold off on closing the case indefinitely, until he gives us his reasoning. All I've done is make the proposals that seem appropriate at this time. Dmcdevit·t 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, good idea; I must have misread your comment. David Mestel(Talk) 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I was not clear on the matter. :-) Dmcdevit·t 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis

FYI, after you deleted Arthur Ellis's RFAR and blocked his sock he reposted the request using the IP 64.26.147.246. Geedubber 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He has every right to, as per wiki policies re: bios of living persons. People like Geedubber do not want this case heard. Don't be a person who chooses process and legalism over Wikipedia's reputation.64.230.114.207 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semarforikuq

Did you mean to block Semarforikuq? The block log shows that something seems to have gone wrong with your block last night - check this out (it's in chronological order):

  • 23:36, 18 September 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Semarforikuq (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (abusive sockpuppet of Vezaso)
  • 23:36, 18 September 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Semarforikuq (contribs) (unblock to change duration)

In other words, you seem to have simultaneously blocked then unblocked him. At any rate, Semarforikuq is still active and editing. -- ChrisO 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Very odd. I unblocked because of the block conflict; it wouldn't let me black without unblocking. But somehow, it did, and the unblock came afterwards. Some kind of server glitch perhaps? (I'm clueless about these technical things.) In any case, reblocked. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for commenting on my successful RFA. Having 4 arbitrators supporting me can't be a bad thing, can it? I'll do my best to live up to your highest expectations. Thatcher131 04:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] drama

I am a bit unhappy about your deletion of Wikipedia:WikiDrama, I do think the page has potential as a WP namespace as useful as any of those "essays". Please consider restoring it and propose your reasons to delete on talk first. regards, dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What was already on the page was just plain wrong. If there such a thing as a useful characterization of events as "WikiDrama," autoblocks are not part of it. Why don't you just write something if you want a page there? In reality, though, I don't see what the use of this page is at all. Wikipedia namespace is for policy, process, project, and description pages. There are some useful essay pages that describe a prominent idea, like "protection is harmful" or "process is good/bad," but this is not that. What is the use on spending time creating a page like this, which is just clutter not intended to further the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 05:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
you may be right. you could still have suggested the thing be moved to user namespace before deleting away. I tend to agree that cluttering of WP namespace with personal essays needs to be slowed down; what are we going to do with things like Wikipedia:Administrators are not here to build the encyclopedia? Here's an "idea" I am 100% opposed to. Should it still be allowed in WP namespace ("Wikidrama" otoh may still be a useful term even if the content you deleted was somewhat beside the point, but this title seems compeltely unsalvageable to me). dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I detest the clutter, in fact, I think most "essays" (which tend to describe personal advocacy, rather than a prominent idea) are unhelpful. But I'm not prepared to fight over it yet. I deleted this page only because I didn't think there was a fight to be had over it. :-)
I don't personally mind one bit if you want to stick it in a user namespace page or whatever, it's not a big deal to me. Practically though, maybe there's some utility in the term, but not more than can be covered in the glossary, surely? Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Uno.jpg

When you deleted Image:Uno.jpg you didn't ensure that the image description was found on the commons image. Please be more careful. Thanks. Cburnett 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Clarification or Action on WP:VAN

Hello! I appreciate your recent protection of WP:VAN. I am requesting that a change to the page be made while it is under protection because I believe the protection process was flawed.

My edit on that page was reverted and THEN the page was blocked. My edit was not vandalism. I was not edit warring (I can prove that I work hard to actually avoid those). Despite the fact that it was a good faith effort, it was reverted and then the page was protected by an admin (User:Radiant) who had been engaged in the "edit war" that was going on, unbeknownst to me. This admin reverted to a version of the page he or she favored and NOT to the version prior to the "edit war". Then this admin protected their revert of my edit. This is directly contrary to policy which I now quote:

Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
A temporary protection is used for: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request. (There was no request).
Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.
Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection.
admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version.
Radiant was involved in the editing, expressed a preference, reverted to a version in harmony with that preference and then protected the page. Radiant did this to my edit and to me, even though I was not edit warring, to my knowledge. Then, you re-protected the page again (for some reason that I am unclear about). Radient is using your protection as a reason to no longer be involved, saying that it is no longer his or her protection that is effective, but yours.
I am not asking for a removal of the protection. I believe it should be protected. What I have asked for is a return to the version that was in effect BEFORE the "edit war". My request, which I believe is reasonable, has been ignored and Radiant says that he or she is unable to correct the error because of your protect. So, could you please discuss this with Radiant and then make the correction I am requesting? You can see a copy of my original request to Radiant here]. I believe that you were entirely unaware of the violation of policy that Radiant was involved with when you protected the page after him or her.
To be very clear I am requesting that the page be reverted to [this last version before the edit war] rather than the one the new version that was actually the instigation of the edit war.
One of the reasons given for not reverting to the version prior to the edit war is m:the wrong version. This humorous essay is not a guideline or a policy, but if it were, it's force and power would lie in the proper conduct of administrators which includes not taking sides when protecting a page. Furthermore, this is not a regular article page, but rather a policy page for wikipedia. Thus, it requires greater attention and care than an article page. So I do not believe the philosophy behind m:the wrong version really applies here.

In addition, I would like to add that I believe that Radiant's actions have led to some injuries:

1) An injury to me in reverting my edit and then using admin powers to enforce that revert as discussed above.

2) An injury to wikipedia in preserving as policy, a brand new edit that is contrary to prior policy, contrary to concensus and contrary to a compromise position.

3) An injury to the process for obtaining concensus on this matter. This latter point deserves some additional comment.

This element of the policy was a matter of contention with some editors preferring for warnings to be entirely removable at a whim and others wanting the removal of warnings to be considered vandalism. Several discussions and polls on the matter had made it clear that at least a supermajority preferred some solution that did not allow for warnings to be removed by the user. Nevertheless the minority were very concerned about this ("What about when warnings are used as a form of harrassment?") and instigated a 4th discussion on the matter. In the meantime a version was incorporated that somewhat "split" the baby. Removal of warnings were not considered vandalism and removal of legitimate warnings was "generally" prohibited. This was not a version that made anyone happy but it seemed to be a compromise that provided some resting spot for most positions. The vague "generally prohibited" allowed for some reasons to remove them and the term "legitimate", was open to interpretation. Yet it indicated a general direction toward not removing the warnings as most people seemed to want. However, as I said, this version made no one happy and a discussion was underway about how to improve it and how to arrive at a concensus. This discussion was not really bearing fruit but at least it was an attempt to seek concensus

Carnildo was aware of this discussion but instigated the edit war with his edit that favored one side of the debate prior to an arrival at concensus. I consider this to be a serious error on his part. The group involved had generally (there was one exception) been careful to avoid edits until this point in the interest of achieving a concensus view.

Now, with the protection in place the compromise version is no longer in place and the tension that it created, to seek concensus is gone. Instead, the views of one group (the minority group as far as I can tell) is in place and when the page goes to unprotect, anyone either going back to the compromise view or to the original view that removing warnings is vandalism will be seen as "edit warring" on an existing and established policy. This will be the view despite the fact that no concensus was achieved for the change to the policy and the recent edit was contrary to the policy history or what the majority seem to feel is right. It will become policy by the force of admin reverts and protections and the long effort to seek a concensus among the different views will be permanently disgarded.

So, again, I ask you to discuss this with User:Radiant] and revert the page back to the version that existed prior to the edit war. I am not asking that you agree with any particular version. I also do not ask you to remove the protection. In particular, even if you do not revert to the version prior to the edit war, I think it is best to protect the article - but I think it will be necessary to protect it permanently. (Should that be done without concensus?).

I would appreciate your thoughtful response. --Blue Tie 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Boiled down: Radiant! protected inappropriately to his own version, and so the version should be reverted? That's not how protection works, for the very reason you want it reverted. Not favoring any version (i.e., good practice is to protect it however you find it) means that reverting before protecting is bad, but it also means that when I reprotect beause of a questionable protection, I protect it where I find it, too. If Radiant had only reverted, and not protected, and I decided to make the protection then because of the edit war, I still would have ended up protecting that version. There's no use arguing to have a protected version switch, because it is explicitly not an endorsement. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that is not quite what I said, boiled down. Perhaps it was too much for you to read. In essence what you have agreed to is this:

1. An admin may abuse his or her powers contrary to policy without repercussion. 2. When this happens, the ordinary user has no recourse to other admins for redress.

I accept that this is your decision. I think it was not well considered but it is what it is. I do not know any other venue to proceed to at this point other than to bring it up to ArbCom. Do you know of anything else I should do if I believe I have been wronged by this process short of going to Arbcom? --Blue Tie 09:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 3RR

I saw your views on 3RR on user:BhaiSaab page, I would like to see your action on Votebank, if you really mean what you say.I am myself fighting edit and move war on this article and many articles (one is Kancha Ilaiah which I don't edit to mark my protest against admin and misuse of their power).There are a bunch of users who target users instead of article and group up to harass you on every article you edit.Better see it yourself there. Ikon |no-blast 09:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your experience of transwikification

Please contribute to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyToWiktionaryBot. Uncle G 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop - Forking

Hello.

I'm back ten minutes and I'm already up to my neck in "push me pull you" editing with Sidaway. This is not by design, or based upon any personal animosity, but it's happened almost in an instant.

Perhaps I'm operating under some fundamental misaprehension. It appears to me that splitting out multiple and competing version of the same section is unhelpful. The three-tiered response section already makes meaningful conversation difficult, and to further fracture any point of contention only increases the difficulty. All I'm interested in is getting the facts on the table, as dryly and impersonally as possible.

I'd love some help in making it so that the conspicously circumlocutory pair of Sidaway/Brenneman can make productive edits to the page. I felt that by creating a version of the finding of fact that had everyone's stated view in it we could practice harmonious editing. Am I smoking crack again?

brenneman {L} 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have engaged in no "push me pull you" editing that I'm aware of. Aaron edited a proposal of mine that Fred had commented on as "Accepted", and Fred the removed his endorsement from the edited proposal and made a copy of it. Which I then endorsed. Fred is not under my control; I exercise no mind control over him. Honest. :) --Tony Sidaway 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically, a workshop works like this: proposals are made by anyone, and those are commented upon. Disagreements are resolved by critical commentary, and/or alternate proposals. All good faith proposals are not to be modified in meaning except with the agreement of those involved. This is to reduce conflict.
Now, I'm not interested in having this be another of the perennial Tony-Aaron battlegrounds. You can politic and bicker and turn the workshop into a useless heap, or you can just make your proposals and criticisms, give your rationale, and leave it. Arbitrators aren't going adopt any result of the workshop on their own without already having processed and synthesized the relevant statements and evidence. The workshop is helpful, but only if it's useable. Dmcdevit·t 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've retreated from my position that editors should be expected to work together. I apologise for my heresy. If the message didn't come across strongly enough that I too wish to avoid "another of the perennial Tony-Aaron battlegrounds" please do rest assured that that is the case.
brenneman {L} 03:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kehrli

Thanks for your time on teh recent arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kehrli, however I must request more of your time for enforcement. Kehrli has continued to edit the pages M/z and Mass-to-charge ratio after your decision. I have been slow to edit these pages for various reasons including being concerned about implementation of this decision. While I do not find Kehrli's recent edits particularly disruptive I fear the slippery slope and hope that quick enforcement may make the point that there are rules and decisions have been made.--Nick Y. 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators aren't really charged with enforcement. I've posted a request for admin help on WP:ANI. Dmcdevit·t 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sorry for the disturbance. Kehrli has been banned for 24 hrs.--Nick Y. 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Hi, I noticed you removed "For the OTRS in the context of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:OTRS" from OTRS which lead me to remind myself of WP:ASR. The last line in the 'In general' section of that article gives an example of a system that uses OTRS. How about adding "...and Wikipedia uses OTRS to handle emails to its administrators." Would that be a self-reference? --Geniac 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Has this type of comment been an ongoing problem? [8] FloNight 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it outside of that talk page. I have at least blocked the IP, as it's static, and that appears to be all we can do right now. I think that may be the only IP he's using, or at least the sprotection has deterred him. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
User switched to an AOL IP address and posted 2 messages on my talk page. [9] I semiprotected for 2 hours. Nothing since then. FloNight 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm taking you up on your offer of free advice

Taking up the challenge that enforcement should be the province of all admins (at least those willing to wade through impenetrable problems), I'm uncertain about how to proceed on a complaint at Arb enforcement. Briefly, LucVerhelst posted a complaint about Intangible that had a core of truth, that there was disruption at Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw, but it was embelished with barely creditable npa warnings and complaints of trolling, and both of them were stubbornly edit warring until the article was protected. Since they both had what I thought were valid points, I advised working it out on the talk page. (If you read the report, you might want to skip to my response first.)

Luc posted a followup complaint about Intangible's editing of Paul Belien, in which he removed a paragraph with 3 properly reliable sources because the subject of the article has written on his own blog that the reporter involved is biased against him. That to me is utterly ridiculous and a continuation of some of the problems described in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible, especially in at least one instance Intangible has removed referenced material based on his personal analysis and Intangible has removed referenced information and references. It's also the same thing Intangible was doing at Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw. I was getting ready to drop an article ban for both articles, and then I saw that Luc seems to be taking my advice and trying to work with Intangible on the talk pages.

So there's no disruption at present as far as I can tell, but is this because I talked Luc into being so restrained that he is knuckling under to Intangible's POV and personal interpretations of verifiability and reliability? Because the sources are in Dutch and French very few admins could make independent judgements, certainly not me, and the two of them seem to be the only editors on those articles at the moment. If the sources were in English and it was an article I was personally interested, I sure wouldn't tolerate Intangible's perspective on sources. But its not actually disruptive at this point (as in an edit war). As an arbitrator I'd appreciate your take. Thatcher131 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I guess since the finding of fact that Intangible engages in "tendentious editing" did not pass, Sam Korn wants to change the wording of the remedy to a ban from articles for editi warring, not tendentious editing. But he will only edit war if he doesn't get his way; if his opposition is small in number and polite, there's no disruption but he gets to make his oddly-justified edits. I guess the process answer is an article RFC, or for me to reinstate the stuff personally so its two against one, but then I'm involved and I have no particular interest in Dutch conservative politicians with disputed ties to neo-Nazis. Good grief. Thatcher131 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
More at WP:RFAR#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore) since Intangible brought it there. Thatcher131 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I fixed the wording regarding that clarification request. The remedy should read "for disruptive edits," not tendentious ones. This can be for any disruptive editing including but not limited to edit warring, meaning also incivility, insertion of original research, and, while certainly not as clear cut, removal of sourced material can certainly sometimes be disruptive. A user on Probation should almost always be page-banned at the very first sign of disruptive edits. According to your summary, I would not personally object to the page bans, though perhaps it would be wise to get some more admin input if possible. However, if indeed LucVerhelst has also been warring or disruptive, then it's a problem to give the one party carte blanche and ban the other. I have no idea about Luc's history. If you think it's necessary, you can ask arbcom to reopen the case to look at him as well. This may not have been a helpful answer, but there doesn't appear to be any complete solution, without the involvement of more editors at the pages in question. Dmcdevit·t 02:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should reopen the case [10]. I seem to be the only admin watching the enforcement page. I could ask at the noticeboard, but I think they're busy looking at naked ladies :) . Thanks either way. Thatcher131 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overdue work

Enlarge

I erased all the country lines and tried to make it higher-res, with legible fonts. My source is now a Corel Draw file (vector graphics), so changes are pretty easy if you see any errors here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

Hi,

Obviously you think that Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote should be guideline. However, its quite unclear to me that there is consensus to make it guideline. Guideline isn't just invented by observers of how people do things on wikipedia. The admins you hang around might not be the admins others hang around. Wikipedia is a big place, and it works on *consensus*. I do not find that the page has consensus to be considered a guideline. If you can help me find somewhere where people support making it consensus (somewhere with more than like.. 4 people) then I'll let this slide - but otherwise, I don't see why you think this is proper. Please discuss this on the talk page - whether the page is "disputed" in general or not really doesn't matter, theres a problem and it needs to be resolved, please be part of the solution by discussing it. Fresheneesz 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Kosovo arbitration

Hi Dmcdevit,

I think Laughing Man had a valid point in his earlier comment on the Kosovo arbitration proposed decision page ([11]). What's the point of having a workshop if decisions are being proposed directly, with no opportunity for discussion? As a matter of basic fairness, would it be possible for you to post all of the proposed decisions to the workshop so that they can be discussed, or should I do it?

I have some other concerns about the way the arbitration is proceeding, but I'm a bit pushed for time now so I'll come back to this later. -- ChrisO 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, I don't understand the problem. You can do (and could have done) that at any time, no need to ask. If Laughing Man, or you, want to discuss a proposal that didn't come from the workshop, then, absolutely, do so. I'll see it. Dmcdevit·t 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've copied the proposal to the workshop page so that Laughing Man can discuss it. I don't have any brief for or against him, but I did think it would have been fairer to have listed all of the principles on the workshop rather than just adding them undiscussed to the proposed decisions. I have to say I'm a bit surprised - shouldn't it be SOP to add proposed decisions to the workshop to facilitate comment, particularly if the proposal in question is a user ban? -- ChrisO 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CASB

Hi. I see that you deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias; you were wrong: the deletion process (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject countering anti-Serb bias) was made in regard to the Wikiproject (in words of user who nominated it A single-purpose, single-POV WikiProject which divides Wikipedians rather than uniting them in a shared goal of NPOV) and not of the page per se. Even the user who originally suggested the deletion of the page also suggested merge with WikiProject Serbia. Also, the page you deleted is also significantly different than the original one. Nikola 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:STRAW

You say WP:STRAW is not a guideline. It has been a guideline for an entire year. By what rationalle do you demote its status? Fresheneesz 08:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't demoted anything; I've restored the correct designation. Polls are, and always have been, discouraged, nd even the page says so. Dmcdevit·t 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you tell me that its the "correct designation" when apparently its been marked "incorrectly" and refered to by many many people as guideline for a year? Fresheneesz 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppet

Hi there, I was wondering if you could help me with something.

I didn't want to file an official report on this matter, because it has only just recently started. However the coincidence of these two users coming together at the same time seems too "convenient" for each other. The users are "Flow m" and "Pingbal1". They started editing on exactly the same day and have only worked on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page. They have also been rving to the same edit made by Pingbal1.

Another possible candidate is Give source pls, who was recently created to respond to a retord towards Pingbal1. Given the name of the user, again this seems rather suspicious, as he actually did ask for a source.

Can you run an IP check or any such thing to see if there are any similarities? Thanks, John Smith's 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding RFCU

May I ask on what basis do you make the assertion of likelihood of bose being my sockpuppet?I'd really like to hear your line of reasoning. The only evidence given is that we know each other and attend the same school. This means that any PIO at UT is my "sockpuppet". Please consider ikonoblast's tendentious (and often deliberately mis-sourced/unsourced/POV) editing, his frequent use of intimidation tactics on users such as me, bose, User:Gamesmasterg9, User:Bakasuprman and others, as well as his ulterior motives for filing this RFCU (to get rid of users who expose his unethical editing) before handing out drumhead judgements.Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Blnguyen (the mediating admin for Indian disputes) stated here that

Well, firstly he was on at about 6 UTC, which is about 10-11pm Texas time, so he would have required security cards to get into uni. It would be a big move to take this risk of being caught breaching security regulations by taking an unauthorised person into a physics lab with expensive equipment at a higly regarded physics school for a wikipedia stunt. Also I looked at the student list and there are about 220 students [12] in the Physics Dept and 8 are Indian. PhD students need to help supervise lab classes (I do so myself) and share the same lunch room, and are required to attend the weekly afternoon tea and reaserch seminar, so you end up talking to everyone all the time, even though when you are in undergraduate you only talk to a few specific friends, as you now live in the same office 50 hours a week. It's quite likely that 2 out of the 8, at least 25% will be BJP supporters. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

He effectively debunked this rabid conspiracy theory.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the "cross-linking" shows edits made by us from separate home ips and univ ips. I had already stated in the previous RFCU that we (bose and I) knew each other and frequently used our PC's at home and on campus. In order to avoid meatpuppetry, we have generally stayed away from each other's edits since the last RFCU (I was new to wikipedia and got a login on bose's insistence & did not know about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry back then), plus I believe bose is busy on account of his impending core courses (mine ended earlier).
If we are banned on the basis of this evidence, then it means that any PIO user who belongs to UT who has a login on wikipedia should be banned.Again, I urge admins to consider the motives of ikonoblast, the complainant, given his tendentious editing and frequent use of intimidation tactics against several users (listed in this RFCU as well as others).
Furthermore, even if we assume "sockpuppetry", since neither bose nor I have been blocked/banned in over a week, it follows that we have been neither abusive nor block/ban evading. Point of fact I do not believe that bose has made ANY edits in a long time. I urge you to respond (either here or in my talk page) as it seems to me that silence on your part means that you believe that abusive sockpuppetry is afoot and I would very much like to understand in detail why you belive this and explain any evidence that I feel you may have misinterpreted. If wikipedia policy allows for it, I'd also appreciate your emailing me the checkuser logs (I have email configged in my wikipedia login) so that I may understand the process better.
Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 22:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

Hi, I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. This concerns some of your edits I found questionable. Please add your statment to it. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply at Simple

Please see simple:User talk:Dmcdevit. -- Netoholic @ 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that account yours, or is it an impostor? 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is me. Dmcdevit·t 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

[edit] RfA and "voting"

There is absolutely no dispute regarding the nature of RfA. The issue is that the actual meaning of the word "vote" is much broader than its colloquial connotation. It needn't have anything to do with counting votes (instead of weighing the comments' strength) and arriving at a purely numerical outcome. In this context, "vote" can simply refer to "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals." (Source: Dictionary.com, definition #1) —David Levy 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First, if you are saying that you are trying to use the word "vote" to mean not counting, that is absurd. Why do you insist on using that word with multiple meanings, then? If you don't think we should be counting votes, then it shouldn't matter to you. In any case, that definition is still inadequate. RfA is not a list of positives or negatives; it is important that it is a discussion that attempts consensus. That makes it not a "vote" in any sense of the word. Dmcdevit·t 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've commented elsewhere, I strongly agree that it's a very bad idea to describe RfA as a "vote," as this would give many people the wrong idea. Indeed, it's very important that users be made aware that it's the content of the comments (not the number of votes) that matters.
I merely object to the claim that RfA isn't a vote, as it fits several common definitions of the word. Certainly, it isn't the type of process that many people (including you) think of when they encounter the word "vote," and that's what we need to tell people. A majority vote is precisely what some people erroneously believe RfA to be, so that's the misconception that needs to be addressed.
As an analogy, stating that RfA isn't a vote is like stating that a tomato isn't a fruit; it fits a popular perception, but it isn't correct. —David Levy 20:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/m/c/User_talk%7EDmcdevit_Archive_14_2394.html"