User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Page Protection Bot

Dmcdevit, some weeks ago you asked me about the possiblity of designing a bot to A) check whether pages on WP:PP were still protected and B) generate a list of protected pages that weren't listed on WP:PP. I spent some time thinking about this and what could be done, and even tried out a few things. In the long run though, I've decided this is not something which is practical to do on the live server both because of the access requirements for testing whether a page is protected and the consumption of unnecessary bandwidth in the process.

However, I do believe it would be possible to meet your needs with scripts running on the toolserver. This is something which goes beyond the bot work that I have done so far, and I think you would probably have better results asking someone else about it. I suggest talking with Interiot about solving your needs, especially part A). In the long run it would be nice to have a "Special:Protectedpages" or the like on wiki to provide information on page protection (especially as the varieties increase). An open request to do this exists on bugzilla, bugzilla:2171, and you can offer comments there if you like, though I have no idea how long it is likely to be before this sees some results. In the mean time, try having a chat with Interiot, he may be able to address many of your needs.

Dragons flight 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philly related pages & Boothy

Could you give me an opinion How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back.

evrik 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Boothy

I think he just did another 3rr on the philly pages. I stopped. ;-) evrik 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again another gorss misrepresentation on the subject, not only does he continue to remove the category listings, while a "discussion" in which he started by adding a merger tag (which is not to be used on categories) to two fo the categories in question, but he is still violating WP:MM by not allowing "sufficient time to elapsed to generate consensus or silence, you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so.", also considering that their has been no silence, and no consensus for his proposal, let alone that he has alloed sufficent time, last i looked i do not belive that 7 mins equals a sufficent time , [1]. He also has stated that i have broke the 3rr which is not the case, and stated that he stoped which is not the case either, [2], [3], [4], [5]. Oh well, as if i am supprised. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Somewhere, someplace, Boothy claimed that I have been at this with him since June. The truth is that he was in a disagreement over the county article last June with another user. I stepped in and started going back and forth in October over the county category.evrik 19:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking blocks

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to unblock both Boothy443 and Evrik early - I think both editors have violated 3RR, but in this case, the blocks from my perspective do not seem to adequately address the core problems that are present in the editing dispute, and will only serve to defer the edit war into the future. I will not unblock right now becase I need to leave, but it will be my inclination to unblock when I return to the Wiki. Please let me know your thoughts on this, especially if there are other pressing concerns to warrant the present block to continue to full term which I may not be aware of. I hope to hear back from you soon! :-) --HappyCamper 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you were involved with this previously. Well, in this case, I will unprotect all 3 pages right now then, although my inclincation to unblock them early still exists...Let me put some thought into this - for now, let's leave the blocks as is. --HappyCamper 06:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I would love to continue this conversation regarding philosophies of handling such things, but I am on a plane and will be away for some time. I would unblock right now, but I do not like the idea of not being around to be responsible for such things. I will leave it up to you to follow through with what happens once the block expires. Generally, I take the opposite perspective, especially when it is on pages which are edited infrequently. The idea I have is to leave the page protected for a while, write copiously on the talk page, and then unprotect it after a little while longer. Usually only a few hours, but I choose the time only after parsing through the entire edit history and generating some statistics on user editing frequencies and such. The idea is to create an environment so that both parties develop the trust and security knowing that the reversions will stop. Well, I guess everyone has their own methods which they are comfortable with. I did not consider so much your perspective before, so your comments were rather refreshing. See you around! --HappyCamper 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian sockpuppets

Hi, Dmcdevit. Can you please verify whether GBZ is another Gibraltarian sockpuppet? It goes on removing information from History of Gibraltar... Regards --Ecemaml 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, blocked him, and asked for another sockcheck. Thanks for the heads-up. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I have an idea. You know how we have all of the AOL talk pages labeled with "This is an AOL user...". Could we do that with Gibraltarian? We know the ranges he uses. We could say it's "possible" it's him. Otherwise, it looks like he posted for about 40 minutes today as RC Patrollers thought he was just another vandal, so he was warned multiple times. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, {{AOL}} is manually placed by RC patrollers. It would seem impractical to have them do that for Gibraltarian's range, for one person, all those IPs, and it would be out of date after him, and I don't see him using the same IP twice anyway(?). Probably not worth the effort, though there ought to be something we can do... I'll think on it. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I put a bot request up for it per suggestion of someone at the Village Pump so that all of the IPs he used could be tagged with a template. The template I want to put on the pages is Template:Gibraltarian. I think I made it explicit enough. If you think it needs to be more so, feel free to change it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an page

Could you keep the semi protect up for a day or so longer please? Waleeed is a persistant vandal who has been at this for weeks. Could you also check Saalama (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of Waleeed that has not been blocked. Thanks Jwissick(t)(c) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears the CheckUser didn't pan out on that one, we'll have to keep an eye on it. As for the protection, I decided since I just blocked a bunch of people we ought to test out unprotection. If he does come back with anons or other socks, we'll block those, too. If we can't it'll be unprotected, but not until then. Ask on WP:RFPP if it needs protection and I'm not around. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Waleeed because, perhaps unknown to you, he had promised to stop just a couple of hours before your block (in User talk:FayssalF, who is also an admin and apparently was in discussion with him) [6]]. I can't find FayssalF's contributions more recent than 11 January, so I'm assuming that his discussion with Waleeed may have been by e-mail rather than on a talk page, but in any case perhaps touching base with FayssalF could be useful to see where things stand. In any case, I don't particularly wish to second-guess you on this, so please use your own judgment. -- Curps 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] templates

I forgot about Template:Ice hockey. I marked it for unprotected because its used only on talk pages, and is for a WikiProject (and they may want to edit it someday). -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(2nd part of question) We don't have a firm definition of high-use (number-wise). WP:HRT was put together and there was a sudden mad dash to protect a lot of templates, which is how a wikiproject template like ice hockey got protected. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... certainly some templates should be protected, but the threshold varies based on how much editing really ever needs to be done and where they are used. I can't imagine any talk page template needing protection, nor any article template used on fewer than, say, 3000 pages. I've already put up several of the deprecated "conditional" templates for deletion. Thanks for your help. -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As advised

I would like to draw your attention to articles like List of places named after Queen Victoria, Lists of country-related topics, List of largest airlines, Category:Cinema of China, Category:Cinema of Taiwan, Category:Cinema of Hong Kong, National dish, etc, where revert wars continue to wage. You may also wish to take note of STC's post in [7], where he showed evidence of Instantnood purposefully reigniting old edits, as I have mentioned before. Yes, administrators are also human, and yes, not all are interested or are compelled to sieve through the tonnes of quibbles we generate everyday. But I do hope a call for help like this can be looked into, in anticipation of worse problems ahead. Thank you!--Huaiwei 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It is so annoying not to be able to monitor my watchlist due to the autoblocker and AOL. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked yet again -- same autoblock as number 2 from the last incident. I requested a release from Android79, but if you happen to see this........ Thank you. WBardwin 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your IP address is 207.200.116.136. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Android79. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DrJoe". The reason given for DrJoe's block is: "sockpuppet of User:Beckjord".

[edit] NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your support in my RfA. I greatly appreciated your comments about my judgment and attitude, and I hope to prove you right. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember talk 12:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations (or condolences?) on your election/appointment

As you were the person who first welcomed me here (even though I'd been here a while) you were one of my favorite support votes. Congrats and here's wishing you the best of luck and success in assuming your new tasks on behalf of all of us. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite a good result at the end of the day! Anything I can ever do to assist you, if I am able, just ask! Congratulations, Dmc! Hamster Sandwich 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations Dmcdevit! You'll be great for the job. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck in your new post : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note

Just in case as an Arizonan you know anything of Spider Ranch, whether it's locally notable or not. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Ranch. Herostratus 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soda vandal

I wonder if you would be so kind as to consider blocking 67.171.70.101 (talk • contribs) and AJ Haskell (talk • contribs), two seemingly obvious Andrew Lin (indefinitely blocked user) sockpuppets. Since you did the blocking of Andrew and his puppets for his persistent soda vandalism previously, I'm sure you remember this Rfc. I became suspicious that he is editing again after he receiving some instant messages from him, strangely enough (I do not know him, don't worry ;)). The latter of the above usernames has made anti-soda edits within the last two weeks, the former even more recently. - Jersyko talk 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring

Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject (summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. Radiant_>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL Block

Working tonight? Please release this block if possible. == AOL and IP blocks ==

Your IP address is 205.188.117.7. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by User:Hall Monitor. The reason given is: blatant vandalism

I've noticed increased activity in the plague articles. If I free up some time, I'll try and get back there and do some good copy edits. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete?

Came across this - Jughead's Revenge. Looks like a deletion candidate to me, oh, mighty admin. Thanks for your note on my talk page. WBardwin 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, speedied, it was just an external link. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Congrats on your arbcom appointment. Much deserved! Yay dmcdevit! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I might not be doing it for much longer, but thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my rfa

Hi Dmcdevit. Thank you for taking the time to explain your oppose vote; rather than turn the `vote` into a big discussion, I'll reply here. I used the word `vote` deliberately, because it ties in with your point. You have something (an afd, an rfa, the arbcom elections, etc), people vote (support, oppose, keep, delete, etc), votes are counted. AfD is a vote. It's not a majority vote, and when

all the votes are in, it's the responsibility of the closing administrator to determine which of the votes are valid, and then whether the votes have allowed a consensus according to Wikipedia policy. I do think I could judge consensus well enough. I'm sure there used to be a question about this, which might have helped... Anyway. No hard feelings, it's your vote. Good luck with the arb com. Proto t c 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Busy bees

Sorry I only just got around to answering your message on my talk page, but I just added it to my watchlist and will spend a bit of time with it this afternoon. Have fun storming the castle! · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irismeister's user page

You don't understand :-) You are the vandals! You keep deleting user pages... Just let the irismeister's user page show completely, as he meant it to be, not white as you would like it to be. He is, afterall, a user in the so-called "anyone can edit" encyclopedia of yours, and you should live up to your own standards if your honor were an issue. Besides, even your own policies should prevent vandalizing user pages, even if vandalism comes, as it does, from your own registered editors and "administrators". Finally, you complicate your legal problems unnecessarily while you help us. Indeed, you are feeding the ongoing people vs. Wikipedia libel and disinformation class and individual legal actions by providing evidence :-). Keep up to good work! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

[edit] RfA again

Hi again, Dmcdevit (D? Dmc?). I have tried to elaborate on consensus and what my approach to AfD would be in a comment on my RfA. Please take the time to consider this, and I hope you might consider amending your vote to neutral. If there is anything else you would like to know to gain a clearer impression, please don't hesitate to leave a message for me on my talk page. Proto t c 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I'm not making my point clearly. I think the confusion here is one of semantics, and not any underlying misconception. Let me use an example I just got asked by User:James_James. His question was:
think I'm more concerned about the notion of votecounting. Let's take the case you noted: 18 vote to delete and 2 vote to keep. How will you close if the 18 have said "delete nn" and the 2 have given some, perhaps borderline case for notability? Or would you consider the strong majority to be an unbreachable consensus?.
And my response was:
Aha, you've just cleared up where I was going wrong. If the two keep votes were researched, cited, and justified, and the 18 delete votes were not, then I would certainly be reluctant to delete. This might be the case if there's been a swathe of delet votes, and then someone found some good reasons to keep the article. Or if the article had been shitty, but had then been edited to make it more encyclopaedic or to provide evidence of notability or any of the other reasons an article should be kept. The quality and information contained in the votes of contributors must be takien into acount when assessing consensus, and if I was ever in doubt, then I would either ask a more experienced eye to take over, or at least ask for assistance.
I honestly do feel I am capable of judging consensus; if you would like to throw any examples my way, then by all means please do. Thank you for providing your reasons and thoughts, though, as they are very much appreciated. Proto t c 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks -- appreciate the lookout on these blocks. Understand congrats are in order for your new job. A difficult function, hope you have a good time with it. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq

[8]. Looks like he caught himself. If he does it again, I will block him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, Dmcdevit/Archive10. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

Okay, I'll try to keep the answers short if you've got 11 of these. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
    I'm honored to have been chosen, and excited to help out. And of course, a bit apprehensive after all the warings and condolences I got, but we shall see...
  2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
    It wasn't perfect. There are the problems with voting in general, that a blatantly unhelpful or unfounded vote is worth the same as a well-reasoned one, that it encourages trolls to go play at others' expense. But I think it worked overall, and I wasn't that worried about it. There were a number of good candidates running, so most methods would have had a favorable result, even without me :).
  3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
    Well, thanks to both for taking the time to consider me, and I hope I can live up to your expectations.
  4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
    I had no disappointments, all were fine choices. In my week as an aarbitrator, I've been impressed and pleased by all the work I've seen them doing.
  5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
    I think it's a very good idea to have a larger Arbitration Committee, and this was a good way of doing it. The experienced arbitrators are helping to move things along, and these are some of the most active.
  6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
    Hm, the work doesn't seem to go away.
  7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
    The main strength is that it's the final and enforceable step of dispute resolution. It can make up the best and creative remedies, or ban outright, whatever needs to be done can be. The weaknesses include the time it takes to get done, the fact that many of the remedies require active monitoring by admins (which sometimes doesn't happen), and the fact that we're human.
  8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
    Hunger, poverty, war... Oh, about arbcom you mean? I'm still getting used to it really, but I promise to let you know in the future.
  9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
    There have always been people who decided to help arbcom out with certain cases, I know I did before. This won't be much different except, we have people that we aare sure we can trust, and that now maybe I can boss them around to the neglected cases, instead of hoping someone will show up. Also, since they are sanctioned, they can do the mostly mechanical janitorial work, like opening, closing, archiving, and processing cases/motions when the votes are in.
  10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
    I plan on finishing it, yes, because I think that's what I signed up for. As for another term, well, I haven't decided what I'm having for dinner tonight.
  11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
    Hi! Thanks for the encyclopedia and everything.
  12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?
    Yes. (That's what you get for asking a yes-or-no question.)

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! However, your answer to the last question was a bit brief. :-) If you still want to add to that answer, please let me know. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just yes. Couldn't really think of anything, and you asked a yes-or-no question, so I guess I ws just being silly. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski Arbitration Case

I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.

Second, I think your suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.

Personally, I think the integrity of Wikipedia has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.

These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dmcdevit: I also wish that the arbcom would take a closer look to see that the editing agression was from both Johnski on the side of making the article fair and balanced and from Gene_Poole on making it to only reflect mostly one side of the story. It is amusing to see that just as Johnski moved so far towards Gene_Poole's position, that due to Davidpdx's reverts and complaints, Johnski was blocked indefinately. Best, KAJ207.47.122.10 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woohoo!

That's one neat tool. :) I let Splash and katefan0 know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I'm discovering a massive amount of SP articles that lacked the tag. One for 28 days! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring

Thanks for your reasonable answer about wheel warring. I am somewhat disappointed that you were the only one to respond to an issue the community feels strongly about (WP:AAP), although CM did note the concern. Oh well. Radiant_>|< 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hullo -- howzit?

Just saying hello. You must be back at school now, grappling with, um, lemme guess, various medieval authors. Is Hum still all "Western" culture, or do they have you read other classic works now? A little Analects here, a little Bhagavad Gita there, keeps the world turning. Zora 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

China is good. China is the coming thing. China will p0wn us if it doesn't self-destruct first. Study that Chinese, boy. Watch Firefly and learn how to curse in Cantonese. Zora 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian

Just to let you know that, yes, I did close Gibraltarian (please say I did it right!) and I've notified the parties and WP:AN and put a notice on the enforcement page. I guess I'll just let all the commentators know it's over and that'll be it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments about the vendetta

You say: "That "longrunning vendetta" is one you are a part of, and truthfully, it can't have happened one-sidedly". I don't follow this. Can you point to any actions or statements by me, at any time, that suggest that I bear malice towards him? I cannot. This grudge appears to be completely one-sided. He seems to have decided, very early, that I was an abusive administrator, and this seems to have colored all his interactions with me. --Tony Sidaway 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this on IRC with Aaron, but all he could say was that I edited the VFU header. It seems like an odd thing to take as evidence of a personal vendetta, and if he took that personally I suggest that there really is a problem here. I had no idea that the header was his property, and I'm not just saying that to be sarcastic. I'm genuinely puzzled that he apparently believes that if I edit part of Wikipedia I must be doing so in order to get at him somehow. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think I see what you mean. When Aaron raises the temperature, I raise it some more. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood

I would just like it to go on the record, that User:Instantnood appears to be igniting an old debate and continuing to do revert edits in [9], fresh out of a 7-day ban?--Huaiwei 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Dmcdevit/Archive10, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - Block of MilkmanDan

Complaint I ran across

[edit] Dr. Smut Device

I never said "congratulations" before on your new-found glory. Personally, I think that for any reasonable person this would be a kind of slow torture. But have fun and be good. "No chance this user will abuse the ArbCom tools - support" brenneman(t)(c) 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

I've been fixing errors on Arb ever since I started following it last September. This is a major reason why I have applied to be a future ArbCom Clerk. --TML1988 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone listening ?

I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [10] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

You can pretty much delete My entry on requests for arbitration. I realize it was premature, and I made a RFQ. This is my first time trying to resolve a dispute. Cuñado - Talk 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User DSchor

  • This user has sent an e-mail to the Help Desk claiming that he has been blocked and it is a mistake. My understanding from your note on his page is that he has been banned. He isn't listed on the banned users list. Could you please advise where I can find information about his ban and when it expires. Capitalistroadster 09:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I answered Capitalistroadster's talk page by linking to [11] in the interest of a prompt response. Hope you don't mind, D. Peace, Hamster Sandwich 13:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have now sent him an e-mail advising of his ban. Capitalistroadster 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of NLP

Question for you. Kate, Ral, jdavid and I made the decision to protect the talk page on NLP. That was Friday. We did it to cool tempers down. Well now, they moved the edit war over to Principles of NLP. Is that article in the mentor's jurisdiction? There is a merge tag on it to merge it into the main article and it's the same basic issues as the main article. The others and I also want to know if user pages are covered in our jurisdiction. I'm asking because we've already had one user be very uncivil on Kate's page...a user involved in NLP. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I let my colleagues know. That will definitely make our jobs easier. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
We're still figuring out our gameplan. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you Delete my Request for Arbitration?

At 06:23 on February 11, 2006 you deleted my request for arbitration, which was entitled User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch.

Why did you do that? Are you simply allowed to delete a Request for Arbitration? Sam Sloan 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It takes two to tango

It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.

Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.

Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:

I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.

Zeq 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irismeister?

Anon User:80.90.38.19 editing at Pelasgians appears to be banned user User:Irismeister based on content and tone. You might want to look into it. I see that the Faucounau stuff has made it into various non-English Wikipedias (e.g. Romanian) which I'm not competant to edit.... --Macrakis 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's also a link to Irismeister's website at Phaistos Disk.Septentrionalis 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DA

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .


This maybe of value:

  • [17] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:
  • "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".


Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you voted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the 6-month ban of T-Man. I feel I am much to blame for his behaviour, and I truly believe that given a chance he will not again act inappropriately. Probation gives the admins sufficient control over him (and me) in case we step out of line again. I really feel badly for T-man and the current situation, and I fear a 6-month ban will mean a possible permanent loss of this obviously talented and comic-knowledgable individual. Dyslexic agnostic 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear something's in the works... I will leave it in the hands of you and the other capable admins. Dyslexic agnostic 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

Took Ben a whole week to violate his probation. *sigh* I just don't know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote

Your vore was after Fred made this finding:

""Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) "


It was now shown that this was one more mistake he made in the case.v (see the case)

Please cancel the vote and do it again based on findings of real facts.

Thank You. Zeq 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII v. Firebug

Please consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus before closing RJII v. Firebug. Firebug may not actually have left. -- Netoholic @ 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway evidence

In response to your request for evidence entries on the two cases in question, I've placed a digest of evidence at the above location on the evidence page and in the section following. For various interpretations see proposed findings of fact 16, 17, 18, 20 and 20.1.. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your deletes

I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response.Travb 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Was I mistaken? Vandalism in progress makes no mention of Fair use. The only mention of images is:
Image vandalism
Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.
Redirect vandalism
Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the Autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves.
I told the person deleting these Time photos that:
"I will hold off on the RFC. I will also hold off on escalating this beyond what I have already stupidly done."
Otherwise, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, I would have reverted your edit.
Your logic seems to be rest on the assumption, that the user's edits are correct interpretation of fair use. This is erroneous (mistaken).
Further, it appears that the wikiuser is deleting these photos without any clear consensus, which is the bedrock of wikipedia.Travb 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The actual first sentence of the vandalism policy:
"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."
"Vandalism is a bad faith attemt to diminsh the integrity of the encyclopedia." Is your defintion, not the defintion in the "first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism" as you claim.
Would deleting several hundred photos, without any consensus, be considered "a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." (quote from the actual first sentence). I would argue that it is. Do photos increase "the quality of the encyclopedia"? I would argue they do. So therefore, deleting the photos "reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."
To suggest that's what this is is a blatant misrepresentation, and uncivil as well. I readily admit that I was uncivil on the user's user page. This is not the issue. The issue is whether the user's edits are vandalism. You state: "Enforcing fair use, even if it it erroneously (and I am personally not convinced that is so) is not vandalism and never will be."
Okay, were does it state, as you assert that deleting images for alleged fair use, without a clear consensus is not vandalism? And please, cite the sentence as it actually is written, not as you wish it to be.Travb 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You wrote on my user page: "Mistaken edits are not vandalism." Ah, a good argument. Good point.
But, by the way, copyrights are not bound by consensus. We are bound by the law and that's what governs fair use. You may need to acquaint yourself with that policy.
Please don't lecture me on the law unless you are a lawyer. My point is that the deleting user does not know the law. Please see: Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers for actual legal cases on point, which bolster my argument, and how other, less agressive users solved the problem.
Each fair use image needs a rationale, and our current policy on TIME covers is that it must "illustrate an article or part of an article relating to the issue or cover in question" and not just the topic illustrated by it.
Again, you are incorrect, see Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The users deletions are "illustrate an article or part of an article relating to the issue or cover in question".
After this second incident, I am beginning to seriously question how you are arguing this issue. You write: "illustrate an article or part of an article relating to the issue or cover in question" and not just the topic illustrated by it. Where is this quote? And why do you add your own opinion after the quote: "and not just the topic illustrated by it."?Travb 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has teh approval of both us and Jimbo, so can I suggest that this is probably not worth fighting about.
Okay, where? I may be wrong, and I will admit I am wrong, but I want to be shown that I am wrong. I initially trusted your views about Vandalism in progress and realized when I investigated further, that this was a mistake, so excuse me if I want you to show concrete proof of this. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Travb 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is "trust me". I can't show you were this is official Wikipedia policy, but it is.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Reread over this conversation, you make up full sentences about wikipedia policy. I call you on it, you change the subject, then act like you are confused. I call you on your assetion that Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has the approval of both us and Jimbo and you say, "trust me", with no evidence. Since you made up full sentences, not once but twice, I simply don't "trust you".

"Talk softly and carry a big stick?"

Since rational argument has clearly failed, you use threats.

In is irrelevent whether you are an arbitrator, you are obviously not following wikipedia policy.

Please refrain from threatening me: "VIP is expressly not for this kind of dispute, and if you put it there again after being reverted and explained to, it will be merely disruption." I have asked you for clarification of your reasoning, and you have twiced manipulated wikipedia policy. Further, you refuse to verify this statment: Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has the approval of both us and Jimbo. Prove your assertions, don't threaten me with your au-thor-i-tt-y.

You said: "so can I suggest that this is probably not worth fighting about." This is telling. You want me to drop this. Why? Where is the approval of both Jimbo and Arbcom? Where on wikipedia did Arbcom reach a consensus and Jimbo approve? If it is not on wikipedia, where are these alleged converstations which you defend Ta bu shi da yu with?

Further, you have not shown where my complaint on Vandalism in progress is not vandalism. You created a sentence which fit your own view, but you have yet to state a sentence which supports your view.Travb 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I noticed you removed some of the userboxes from the Userbox/Beliefs page. Were you also the person that deleted the actual templates? --Shanedidona 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Doom box

Please restore {{User Doom box}}. It is meant to be funny and lighthearted. It has been around for weeks and even TonySideaway and MarkSweep have left it alone (or perhaps they just didn't know of its existence). Thank you. --Fang Aili 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see it as anything but humorous and expressing a certain exasperation among people who happen to like userboxes. --Fang Aili 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just got an okay from time magazine

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com


Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.


Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.


Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Palestinian Exodus / 1948 Arab-Israeli War Arbitration case

Hi, I saw you took interest in an arbitration where I am involved. I was one of the editors who repeatedly added a quotation of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, which shown him in bad light, while some other editors kept removing it. See [18] for the removed text (note the move of the "<!--" comment tag). Now there is a Proposed decision to ban me from the article. Could you please take a look at the case once again?

Available sources for the two quoations are collected here, and here. I believe I made all my edits in good faith; if ever in doubt, do not hesitate to ask me about any edits I made (I am trying to be short here).


With best regards, Heptor talk 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-birthday non-greetings

Please consider this a non-greeting not in any way related to this edit, since that would probably constitute improper communications in light of this. But I hope your day is all you could hope for it to be. Guettarda 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto.evrik 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday Dmcdevit! NSLE (T+C) at 01:15 UTC (2006-02-25)
Happy birthday Dmcdevit! NSLE (T+C) at 01:15 UTC (2006-02-25)

Well, since the AC is known to be one big happy cabal anyhow, I don't figure it's any worse for me to wish you a happy birthday in the open. Have a good one! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG CABAl. and happy birthday ;) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central has continued to make personal attacks

Dmcdevit, I noticed on the Tommstein arbitration page(s) that Central was placed on personal attack patrol. He has recently attacked myself, but more importantly attacked other users directly involved with the JW pages stating one or more of them are me. I am not, and have not been involved with those pages for over two months. Here is his quotation:

"There appears a clear grossly biased pro-JW agenda going on here in the same way the JW Fundamentalist sock puppet Retcon|Missionary was doing. I imagine he is quite possibly involved posting under a new log on name[s]. The JW aim unmistakably emerging to be is: (1) Mess up all non-pro Watchtower material mixing it with opposite material, (2) Then remove all such material to new pages, (3) Then remove the new pages at a later date, and bingo! An entirely grossly pro-JW set of propaganda articles are left. If anything remotely balanced is still in existence, it is so hard to find the public coming here will give up. It does not take a brain surgeon to see this corrupt biased and manipulative goal unfolding here, and it's certainly not hidden with all the less than covert smaller steps towards that Pro-Watchtower propaganda end. Central 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"

Here is the link to the violation as he is on personal attack patrol. For the integrity of the JW project, moreso than for vindication for myself and past actions in 2005, I wish to file a formal complaint regarding Central. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Retcon 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for protecting my user page and talk page

I have really really pissed off some anonymous Shi'a. He (it's probably a he) believes that any use of the word Rafidi on Wikipedia is an insult to Shi'a everywhere. I point out that it just means Refuser, that it is not necessarily a slur, and that it was used at the time of Ali. Makes no difference ... this guy is convinced that any use of the word Rafidi makes the utterer a Salafi Muslim and he hates Salafis. I've been restoring the word Rafidi when he deletes it, and I've also blocked his attempts to link a page of Shi'a invective to the articles for Wahhabis and Salafis.

I think this is the Samarra shrine bombing effect.

So, how are you? Zora 08:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm busy reverting his edits. A pox on zealots of all stripes. I feel like sending the Sunni and Shi'a to their rooms until they learn to play nice. Zora 09:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal: Central's second patrol violation

Dmcdevit, my apologies but it seems Central has taken it upon himself to now personally attack administrator Sean Black and editor Duffer1 here. I'm unsure if he will be able to markedly change from his present ways as even some on his side of certain arguments on the JW pages are having difficulty with him including Joshbuddy. It does not appear that he views his probation in a serious manner. Retcon 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My ArbCom case

I presented evidence showing that it was Zero who removed scholarly work (from a book by Morris) and replaced it with propeganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#This_is_the_section_-_can_you_read_it_.3F

if you have extar time please see this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Talking_about_.22removing_sourced_content_and_replacing_it_with_Propeganda_sources.22

Can you help me getting ArbCom to look at the evidence ? rule on it and explain under what circumsatces removing such material is allowed ?

Zeq 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Beene "The Human Bomb"

I've pulled your prod request, he was notable enough to appear on What's My Line in 1960 [19] MNewnham 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiHowTo

WikiHowTo does exist wit more than 600 articles! If you want to contribute, then you can go to its home page, and help it become a mediawiki project! Moa3333 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed administrative 1RR remedy

There has been some discussion about how to interpret the wording of your proposed administrative 1RR remedy, and I have put my thoughts, with concrete examples, here. Your thoughts would be useful in clearing up any confusion. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[20]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting off lightly

While I totaly disaprove of the content and tone comment that you reverted I feel that indeed something very wrong had occured here.

Many times I wrote: I don't have any problem with ArbCom banning me altogether. All I care is for Nakba to become NPOV. that is all

There were indeed edit wars, from both sides. ArbCom ignored one side.

There were no attempts of dispute resultion in the nakba conflict. as a new editor I only now learned about these options - ArbCom ignored that.

I made requestes about the problem in Nakba to Jayjg, Fred and Jimbo - no one made any effort to direct the feuding parties into any dispute resolution process. Yet you ignored that in the verdict.

The edit war by Zero continue. In 1948 war (until it was protected now protected over 3 weeks), in Nakba the edit wars continue until now (without me) and Zero continue to just revert people left and right on many articles. ArbCom has ignored all that

Prior to close you can still fix it. I suggest you start by interducing into the verdict two items: 1. Clarification about sources, when can what be removed (see Jay comment) 2. mandate a quick dispute resolution process for Nakba

You can also take more steps so that Zero's abuse will stop. I did not wrote abuse lightly - read how he treats other editors (as "trash" "vomit" etc..)

Zeq 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I have listed a request for arbitration in which you are an involved party here. uriah923(talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

Tony Sideaway unprotected it with absolutely no discussion with the mentors. I reprotected it but now he is arguing the point. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of admin tools

I agree that most admin tools shouldn't be used lightly, but I'm surprised to hear you lumping them together that way. One-click rollback is just a shortcut for an edit anyone can make. Blocking is a significantly bigger deal. Friday (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Our edits went through at the same time on different pages. Anyway, I'm sorry you see that undoing a block I felt wasn't justified is "disgraceful", but I have to disagree with you on that one. I'm not a wheel warrior- I'm actively opposed to that. I acted to undo the rash application of the admin tools; I don't see how this can rightfully be considered inappropriate. Friday (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess we must agree to disagree. You apparently think the block was unjustified, from your condemnation of Evilphoenix. And, if you think undoing an unjustified block is automatically wrong, I'm afraid we'll never see eye to eye. Blocking is a big deal; it should not be done lightly. This is more important than the easily-bruised egos of administrators. Friday (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dario Chioli

Hello. I have removed the {{prod}} tag from the article, Dario Chioli. This article had already gone through the AfD in November. The result of the discussion was no consensus. The "rules of engagement" for the prod tag dictate that this article is not a candidate to be deleted using the Propsoed deletion process as this is a controversial deletion. This article will have to be re-nominated for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. I have taken no further action on the article. James084 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This will make you laugh

Here is the weirdest SuggestBot list...ever. lol The one towards the bottom will really make you laugh. This is what happens when someone has 21,000 edits and his high on any one article is only 125. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII

Do you realize that you took out my note that one of the bans was overturned, because the administrator who put it on was in error? That really needs to be there. Where on that page can I note that? RJII 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64

I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Gibraltarian is back

It seems our old friend Gibraltarian is back. This time avoiding setting up any sockpuppet, under the IP address 212.120.226.60. He just reverted this article and tried to erase any mention of his permanent block from his former user page. Any friendly administrator willing to take care of him before this escalates once again? Thanks, Asterion 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pattern of contention

Hi -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back, dude!

Flame wars ragin' out of control -- the situation is dire -- it's time for McDevitMan!

What kind of costume do you wear? Zora 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision enforcement

Hey, you responded positively to the idea of a separate page for users to ask for enforcement [21]. I've setup a prototype and I'm seeking comment User:SchmuckyTheCat/UREA proto. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashamed of you.

Snowspinner asks slimvirgin to take care of EveryKing, She then emails snowspinner off wiki: [22]. He then thanks he for her help, [23]. Within 15 minutes EveryKing is blocked by an notably anti-larouch editor [24] whos had no measurable recent involvement in any page involving Everyking.

In our IRC discussion you agreed that because the requirements in this case were open to interpretation we must trust admin judgment. I pointed out that we can't depend on admin judgment when the action was initiated by those with widely known an publicly announced vendetta I assume good faith, but I can't ignore disturbing evidence, that events above are clear cause to warrant at least a basic consideration. And your response to me? <Dmcdevit> This is why we make admins: they have discretion to act. Give me a break. And leave your bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories for the playground not the encyclopedia.

The respect I had for you is lost. I see you too are more interested in protecting the interests of a favored crowd then fulfilling your role as an arbitrator by demanding a situation where all parties can believe they are are treated fairly. This project will soon have a thousand administrators, and yet the arbcom is still unable to find the courage to demand that a handful of editors with a clear vendetta have no further involvement, direct or indirect, with enforcing control on Everyking. Such a simple, obvious, and uncontroversial thing.... The handling of this subject has been so negligent and against the goal of achieving resolution that the users who are attempting to drive Everyking off the project need make only the slightest efforts to conceal their activities before you dismiss all objections as bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories. --Gmaxwell 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are using unnecessarily provocative language here, which was produced that reaction in the first place. You chose not to include the accusations that led to my statement, but no matter. The way I see it, none of what you are saying holds up unless you are assuming bad faith. Several points. First, and most obvious, the block was for comments about Bishonen's non-editorial actions here, not for his discussion on the RFAr talk page that Phil refers to. Based on the diffs you provide, somehow Phil's request of a block from SlimVirgin (and I do wish he would just leave it alone) for comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration translate to a block by Will Beback for a wholly unrelated edit, because he has an anti-Larouche bias? It's a stretch, especially when I consider both that the block was reasonable and suggested by an arbitrator, and that Everyking did violate his parole. Frankly, while I would prefer that an uninvolved party would make the violation report, the fact is that involved parties to edit wars and perconal attacks and disruption do make requests on ANI every day, some baseless and some with merit, and we trust out administrators to sort them out. Will Beback has the discretion to do that. He is an administrator, and was uninvolved, and made a judgment call, and even one that I deem to be correct. He doesn't have a vendetta and doesn't want to drive Everyking off Wikipedia, and I'll believe that until there is reason to do otherwise. Please don't attribute his actions to this kind of bad faith.
Now, in our discussion I didn't really dismiss any objections to the block, only to the blocking admin's motivations. In fact, as I said, and as I reiterate, if you disagree with it, take the issue to WP:ANI and seek consensus for a reversal or shortening. There are valid arguments for it. Questioning Will Beback's good faith is not one of them. Dmcdevit·t 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B., as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/m/c/User_talk%7EDmcdevit_Archive10_630e.html"