User talk:AlexandrDmitri/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clerk

I am interested in becoming a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee. On the bottom of the page it says to contact someone so... Mr. R00t ^Talk 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently having problems with my computer and will be offline until it is sorted out. If you can bear with me I should be back in a few days; alternatively you can contact another clerk. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can wait. I'll probably just wait up for your computer to be up again. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in helping out the Arbitration Committee as a clerk. I applaud your enthusiasm and willingness to help out; however, your first edit with this account was on the 4th of May 2010 and as such your application appears somewhat premature. As a guide, I had actively edited Wikipedia for just over a year before my application was accepted, although this is not a fixed metric by any means. I would suggest that you help out in various areas of Wikipedia to gain good all-round experience, including dispute resolution before applying again at a later stage. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a question. Why does everyone claim to not go by edit count or time here but actually do? Also; is that above message a template? I seem to recall seeing it somewhere before. Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, no that was not a template. I looked into your contributions and based on what I saw, made a few suggestions. With regards to your time here on Wikipedia, being an Arbitration Committee clerk requires a fair amount of experience of working with others, particularly in dispute resolution, of which arbitration is the last stage, and there have been many candidates in the past with far more experience than you currently have who have been declined for this reason. You need to demonstrate your ability to handle difficult, heated discussions, which as a clerk you will be constantly required to manage. I myself helped out at WP:MEDCAB by acting as a mediator for a full case, which stood me in good stead. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubted that it was actually a template.

That just looks like one. I thought I saw it in regards to adminship at one point. Sorry for the trouble Mr. R00t ^Talk 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for help at Requests for feedback

Hi, I'm trying an experiment. I'm fairly active at Requests for feedback, where editors ask for feedback on draft or recently created articles. The number of requests is exceeding the ability of volunteers to respond, with many articles getting only a cursory response, while many do not yet have feedback. I see that you asked for feedback some time ago and did get a response. My experiment is to contact editors like you who did get some feedback and are still active editors, to see if you would be willing to provide feedback for one or two others.

Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

I'm also considering creating a list of editors and topics, in case a specific request comes up that could use someone with specific expertise. If that is something you would consider, I'd use your user page comments that you are interested in airplanes and music? for future reference.

(Congrats on becoming a sysop, I hope it has been a good experience)--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience at WP:FEED was indeed a very useful experience. Sadly, as was highlighted in my nonetheless successful RFA, my content contribution is somewhat weak to say the least, and as such, I am not sure that I am the ideal editor at the moment to comment on others' work. I would like to reciprocate; however, I think it would be unfair to agree to something I'm not sure I'd have the expertise, or the time, to follow up on correctly. I do wish you all the best in your experiment, and hope that other editors are more forthcoming than I am, as the feedback process is extremely helpful. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of you, the world will never know the truth about jefferyfrog. How do you sleep at night, you monster!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlybynightRush (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deleting the "Netgazine" page

Dear AlexandrDmitri

I noted that my first contribution to wiki was deleted =( Of course, I understand that the content of my contribution is against the rule now. May I know that if I would be given a second chance to recreate this page?

Thanks Molly Cheung —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo mo Molly (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've taken a look at the article and there is only one line to restore, though I can do so if you wish. I'd suggest you work on your article in your user space at User:Mo mo Molly/Netgazine, getting together reliable third party sources and establishing notability. Once it is ready for publication you can move it to mainspace. If some of these terms sound complicated, or you don't know what I'm talking about, just drop me a line here, and I'll try and help you out. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

j-sKy

i was working on a page for j-sKy and found that it has been deleted, is it because i clicked 'save page' by accident before i completed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkant (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You blanked the page, which judging by your comment, appears to have been an accident. Consequently someone tagged it for deletion under {{db-blanked}} ("One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page"), I came across the article tagged as such, saw that you had blanked it and therefore deleted it. I can restore it to your userspace if you like so that you can complete working on it, and once you are done, you can move it back to mainspace. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

j-sKy

yes sorry. my fault. I hadn't finished the page and accidently blanked it. please restore it and i will publish it as soon as it is done.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkant (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it to User:Sikkant/J-sKy. One last request, when leaving a message on talkpages (of users or articles), please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we know who the message is from. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So you delete "Antony_Snow", but it's OK to have people such as "Brad_Pitt"??

This is the second time my page has been deleted. Can you please explain to me why I cannot create such a page detailing myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.88.161 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone can write an article asserting notability with reliable sources about you then it will not get deleted. You might also like to read WP:AUTOBIO which gives you some guidelines for writing articles about oneself. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am angry

Dear whoever, i am very angry it has been 2 months now and i have still had now reply! I have wasted valuble money on 3 stamps to send the letter! And wat do i get???? I QUESTION YOU! No reply! From an angry random person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I will not receive the petition as I do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I waant to ask that why u removed my entry about Shakoor Ahmed Awan.He is a very famous poet here in my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.62.10 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that he is notable with reliable third-party sources then an article can be written about him. I would suggest that you work on it in your userspace, and once the article is ready to be published, move it to mainspace. If you have any questions about these terms (some of which may seem confusing to a newcomer), please let me know. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark boyle(broker)

Hi there

I'm Mark Boyle (the guy you deleted) i'm mearly poking fun at myself. is there any reason why i cant have a page? it's only a joke for friends to look at

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmanrashid (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia, not a blog or MySpace where you can make create joke or hoax pages. Doing so constitutes vandalism and will get you blocked. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting Yuri of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CôteD'Ivoire2 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for deleting that useless page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CôteD'Ivoire2 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've salted it to prevent further recreation and warned the user. Don't forget to sign ~~~~ your posts on talkpages, it gives SignBot a break! Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark James Sherman

Re: Mark James Sherman. How can I get it it back on my user page? I have since been informed of published work and internet links about Mark that I can add to the page about Mark. I'd like the chance to rebuild it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicaymom (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Xicaymom/Mark_James_Sherman so that you can work on it, providing reliable third party sources to establish notability. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~! Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about that it was not me it was my friend who wrote that sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to our policy on sharing accounts which may result in you being blocked. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit supression

Any chance you could suppress this and this as ceriterion RD2? Thanks, Terrillja _talk 06:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, there were some things there that were rather degrading and unneeded.--Terrillja _talk 07:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I revdeleted another comment from same IP on another talkpage and consequently blocked, albeit only for 24 hours. If after returning from the block this starts again, let me know. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Contempt

You and Wikipedia were told that I and several others were working on building the page for politician, philanthropist and local role model Michael Hartford. We asked for a few days due to unforeseen issues that arose immediately upon our work being begun. You chose instead to be ignorant about the whole. This has immediately cost Wikipedia dozens of supporters including several that will not be funding this site again and even more that will not be proceeding with the funding they had planned. More as of now support is being withdrawn to have Wikipedia setup in local schools in all local school boards. Instead we will be moving our support to the rival plan of setting up all these schools with a real encyclopedia on CD. You personally made the choice to override the request so you personally are most responsible for this loss. Good luck your going to need it and we won't be returning to this farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary michael (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reexamined the page and it was as I remember: you were using Wikipedia as a soapbox and a way to publicise and promote a politician's campaign, in direct contravention of our core policies. Your threats and bullying tactics will not change my position towards violation of policies. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

ummm

I understand why the article may have been deleted but could you have at least waited a little longer? It's something special I'm doing for someone and they haven't even seen it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.34.3 (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As you have posted this message logged out, I'm afraid that I cannot tell which article you mean. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My ACC account

Hi, can you reset the email for my ACC account so I can change my password, I've changed emails since my last visit to the tool and I don't remember my pass word. Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you use the E-mail this user function to let me know what email address you wish to use? Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was able to remember the email address that I used to make my ACC account so I requested to have my password changed, but when I recieved the email and clicked the link I got the following area message..."Invalid request. The HASH supplied in the link did not match the HASH in the database!". What can I do now?

You need to talk to one of the developers. I would suggest FunPika and/or Stwalkerster from that list, as they are probably the two most active. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

more than 1000 words

hm yes i will do it nowBlablaaa (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) done. its ok now?Blablaaa (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I made an error when posting on your talkpage; the limit is infact 500 words, not the 1,000 I initially posted. Sorry for the inconvenience. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

hmm 500 is not much ^^ i will try Blablaaa (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

i deleted big parts of the text. is this 500 words limited fix? i guess i have problems to press my case in 500 words. Blablaaa (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's around 660 now, which is a huge improvement—thank you for responding so quickly to my request. If you can cut it down a bit more, that would be great. Of course, if you decide to reply to anyone else, that counts in the 500 word limit I'm afraid, so you'd have to do so at the expense of other text. Remember, this is just the preliminary discussion necessary to determine the merits of whether a case is required or not, and not the actual case itself. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ok 160 , i will try. Blablaaa (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, i hope its ok now Blablaaa (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your speedy cooperation. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no problem.Blablaaa (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Delete

Hi Alex,

Cleaned up the Teddy Wakim article. It now has "some importance." Please let me know if it's satisfactory, or what's exactly needed for it to be posted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twakim (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is finding reliable sources that indicate notability. I was unable to find anything of significance on Google when I first deleted the article and I note that it has been listed for deletion. Incidentally, looking at your username, would this be an autobiography by any chance? Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue Ocean Brokerage LLC

Sir,

  I'm writing to apologize for offending Wikipedia for my article on Blue Ocean Brokerage LLC.  I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't put the in-text references in.  I understand that I am currently blocked from creating the page again, and would like another chance.  If I could contact you directly maybe for some advice on how to go about this is in a much better way, please let me know.  I'm very excited about this article, and I think that it would be a great addition to Wikipedia community- especially the knowledge base surrounding the Energy Commodity Brokerage Industry.  

Best,

Brendan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.186.90 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only deleted a duplicate of your article (it was up twice, once with lowercase) as the content was identical. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

regarding NTI Corporation delete

there is other companies that do the same exact thing that we do, have been around for less amount of time than we have, but they have not been deleted.

examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepBurner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronis_True_Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_%28software_suite%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDBurnerXP_Pro

why ?

(Karlosgaona (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Just because other articles exist, it does not mean that the article about the NTI Corporation should not be scrutinised and held to our notability requirements. As it was, there was an albeit brief deletion discussion which lead to a speedy delete; the version reposted had not addressed the concerns and as such was eligible for deletion as a recreation of an article that was deleted per a deletion discussion. My suggestion would be to work on it in your userspace here, with reliable sources before moving it to article mainspace. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I am contacting you on behalf of my interest in helping out where I can around ArbCom. How would I go about chipping in on tasks around ArbCom, and what might those tasks be? I don't know if I'm qualified for clerkship, but I would like to help out where I can. As a bit of background about me: I've been around for nearly two years, have reviewer/rollbacker (verify link can be found on my userpage), participate in RfA's, XfD's, am very active in vandalism reversion, and active in content creation, and would like to expand my horizons by helping out around ArbCom. Thanks in advance, Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a list of areas where you can help out (which also includes things that should only be done by clerks themselves). Your help in these areas would be particuarly useful. If you have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The clerkship page instructed editors interested in clerkship to contact a clerk. I would like to notify you (as a point of future reference) that I may be interested in clerkship in the future. Although, depending on the jurisdiction of you and others like you (clerks), this will likely not be in the near future. I am just making my interest in it clear, so it is not a point of ambiguity. I would still like to get a feel for how things work at ArbCom before taking any extreme measures. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Polytechnic of Namibia WP project

Hi Alexandr, I remember your name from ACC. It is this time of the year again when we try to teach Wikipedia literacy to first-year students without much background in IT, see project announcement. Towards the end of August account creation requests (approx.200) will trickle in in from IP addresses 196.12.10.* and, 196.31.225.*. Please notify, if possible, other active ACC members (I do not have access anymore), and please be lenient with the granting of user accounts.

We do restrict students to their sandboxes but not everyone might get that right. Please WP:Assume no clue rather than bad faith. The final implementation of results (moves to, and edits in, the main space) will be done by lecturers, but some of them are WP newbies in their own right.

Thanks a lot in advance, Brgds, Pgallert (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've circulated the above message via the internal mailing list, although not all tool users request to be subscribed. We'll certainly do our best to WP:AGF when creating accounts, although once we have dealt with requests, further edits are beyond our remit. If you want to rejoin the team, just let me know, and I'll unsuspend you in the blink of an eye. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexandr. I must admit the ACC tool was not for me: Our Internet is still very slow and fails frequently, and I caught myself spending hours at the chat interface without actually doing anything constructive there because other members were always faster than I. So I'd prefer tasks where I have more time to react, like page patrolling at the back of the log. If you experience a backlog at ACC I will of course be ready to help out. Thanks again, Pgallert (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Cent Carlstedt page

Thanks, I started the page Cent Carlstedt. I have read the notability guidelines for musicians and will re-submit the article. I was waiting for Mr Carlstedt to send me his resume. He is a Studio Guitarist who has worked with Nils Lofgren to Bobby Tench to Kate Bush ... and right now Aurthur Lewis. As well as his commission with the Swedish Air Force flying Viggens and Drakens. He has quite an interesting history to date as a musician and inventor. His background and achievements intermingle with many great R&R artists over the last 35 years. Thanks. LoveyK (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)LoveyK

Опрос по клеркам в Русской Википедии

Здравствуйте, Дмитрий. Я заметил, что вы владеете русским. Не хотели бы вы помочь нам в опросе по созданию системы клерков в Русской Википедии? Спасибо. --David.s.kats (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Опрос начнется 1 сентября. Еще раз спасибо. --David.s.kats (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Деар сир, р у руссиан?

Деар сир, р у руссиан? Sir Im from chettikulam (near by kudankulam) tamilnadu(Тамилнаду), India. how can i create "Thanga.Rajakumaran" page. "rajaram.030384@gmail.com" is my ID —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thangarajakumaran (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

All right. Good to know. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

= Your advice will be appreciated

Dear editor, in February I've blocked for 6 months because of my [[1]] below average English. I fully admit the fact that my English is far from perfection, but unfortunately my edits based almost exclusively on highest grade WP:RS - like publications of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine - deemed as persistent tendentious editing and soapboxing - [2]. Please advice me on the place in WP were I can apply for assistance in the way like this [3] - e.g. copyedit of my texts (unfortunately most of sources used are not given in English - so cross German/Ukrainian/Russian/Polish translation into English difficult for me). Also is it possible to rehabilitate mine user account from past allegations in WP:TE - on demand I can provide references to any my edits which deemed as tendentious editing or soapboxing relied National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine or similar level of Scholar works publication(s) which provide quite similar wording and suggestions. Regards P.S. I've apply for your assistance earlier [4] and made a same request at other admin`s page [5] - but he is busy in real life - so I've apply for your advice also. RegardsJo0doe (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A very brief reply as I don't have much time right now: I have checked and your block has expired (hence you being able to post here). My suggestion would be to find a mentor (which given my lack of content contributions makes me a very poor candidate) - try WP:MENTOR perhaps? Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank youJo0doe (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved back my appeal in the amendment section

You moved my appeal in the enforcement section, but it is not an enforcement, it is an appeal. If you think that this appeal should not be in the amendment section, please move it where you think it must go. I just doubt that it fits in the enforcement section. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I checked and you were right. It should go in the enforcement section. Thanks Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved incorrectly placed appeal

Hello, AlexandrDmitri, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for moving the incorrectly placed appeal that had been filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs).

Two issues:

1. Please see [6] and [7]. In both cases, Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts have commented below inside a user's subsection - are they not supposed to keep comments to their own individual subsections? Can these comments be moved/clerked to their own subsections?
2. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_Cirt. Do these two separate appeals need to exist at two different pages, both filed by Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts, within two hours of each other on the same day? Would it not be more prudent to consolidate them to be dealt with at one page?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With regards to point 1, unless I (at 3am) am missing something), it seems that this has been sorted out. Concerning point 2. I'll bring it up on the clerks-l list to see if this should be left as is, or moved to the AE section. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Correct. :) 2) Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Hay

Hey Alexandr, the page you just deleted was a vandalism of a pre-existing article about a sportsman, my fault entirely. I made a mess of the prod. Any way to get it back? The Interior (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning my mess. The Interior (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

article deleted by mistake

hey the article miruta that you deleted , why is it that wikipedia always deletes any japanese persons profile unless they are worldwide known, this is suppoused to be a reference page no? please upload again miruta and Ono karin's wikipedia profile. I find kind of bad that there is almost nothing in japanese and also no japanese profiles in wikipedia, no politician , no model , no body that has a name and reference in japan !, please check into that !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.116.24.57 (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles are regularly deleted when there the significance of the person is unasserted, as was the case here, not to mention no WP:reliable sources from third parties. This is a non-negociable requirement for all biographies of living people. If you can source the article properly then I can move it to userspace for you to work on. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk

Hey---any way I can see what it's like to be a clerk? Mrmewe (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The best way to observe how we Arbitration Committee clerks work is to take a look at some of the open or closed cases, requests for arbitration, clarification, amendmentment or enforcement. There's also a section on how non clerks can help. Given that arbitration is the last stage in dispute resolution I would encourage you to look at that as well; I know that my experience in informal mediation was invaluable. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi AlexandrDmitri, EdoDodo referred me to you since you're an ACC Tool Admin, I was wondering if you could review my request since FunPika is busy and can't do so. Thanks and regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.

You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" in the tool. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Alexandr! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alexandr, the page you just deleted about 'Sam Caplat' was in the process of being improved and cited. If possible, could you please undo the delete? If it is not possible, is the page for Sam Caplat still editable from scratch? --Samcaplat (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a look at our policies on notability and reliable sources, as well as writing autobiographies (if as your username suggests you are Sam Caplat). If you think that your article reaches the standards of notability and you can source it from reliable third-party sources, then I would be willing to restore it to your userspace for you to work on. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alexandr, not to be a bother but could you check this request on the ACC Tool and give me your opinion, I'm unsure as to whether I should AGF or just turn down the request. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:55pm • 08:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comments made on the request. A check of the talkpage reveals this is a shared IP. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm every time I try to log in it says Database error and so I have to press the back button to be logged in properly. Is this meant to happen? Sorry I had to log off before I could complete the request it was getting late. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:23am • 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If the error persists, you need to file a bug on JIRA. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I'm eligible for the Account Creator right, I'm highly active and have a timezone advantage given I'm one of the few users in the GMT+10-11 timezone. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:47pm • 10:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not the only one in Australia. There are 3 others that instantly come to mind. But that aside you closed a request as "created" when it was already completed by someone else [8] and you also closed a request as "taken" when it was self-created.[9] Given that both of those incidents were earlier (my-)today i am thinking maybe now is not the time to be asking. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My advice: re-read the guide thoroughly and slow down. Eagerness is good, but accuracy is far more important. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I made further comments on those cases and corrected myself, one of the requests seemed a bit iffy in regards to the username, but I corrected myself since the username wasn't a violation at all. I said one of the few users in the timezone. I understand this, I've managed to correct myself in the instances mentioned. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:06am • 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[10] Could you break the reservation? The user seems to be offline, since I can't access IRC I wouldn't know if they were asking for help if such is the case. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:15pm • 08:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RFAR

Thanks for the note. I prefer just keeping it as a revised statement, with the edit history clearly noting where the revision is. If not, then copying all of the text to the "evidence" page makes sense, provided theres a link on the main page. I don't see why we can't just revise our statements. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll copy all of the text as a new statement to the evidence page, keeping the old statement as it was prior to opening the case. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Eldredge

Since you deleted this back in August, I thought I'd let you know that someone else created a much better, sourced version of Brett Eldredge. Also, that's a really good song. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Where to place questions to arbitrators

Hello! Do you think you could comment at User talk:NuclearWarfare#Arbitration question please? Thank you, NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevevertigo

Pls make me active on Stevevertigo 2 and notify NW of this also. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done both. Welcome back! Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Rlevse! NW (Talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFAR comments

Not to be too argumentative, but if I don't post them inline with their preceding comment, others will probably not see them or else will fail to link them to the preceding comment. By posting inline, I allow the preceding party to see my response, and allow the associated custodians to move the comment soon afterward. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is up to you to take responsibility for posting correctly and this means commenting in your section, just like everyone else who is involved in an arbitration case; you are no exception to the rule. If you wish to make it obvious that you are referring to someone, use the "@User:" prefix. We have rectified it in the past, but now that you have been made aware on more than one occasion, there is no excuse for obliging us to tidy up after you. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange hoax

Hi. You created a new user account a short while ago - User:BenHudson7000. It was then used to perpetrate a fairly obvious hoax at Anarcho-conservatism. I'm puzzled. andy (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The request for this account came through WP:ACC. I performed the full range of standard checks per procedure. Given that nothing came up, per standard practice I assumed good faith and created the user's account. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered - I don't know how that process works and it struck me as odd that someone would request a username so they could vandalise WP! Cheers. andy (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander468 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change notification

Thank you for the notification, but I am not actually topic banned and/or within the scope of the remedies/motions under consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I realise that you were not formally topic banned by the Arbitration Committee. However, I thought it preferable to inform you whilst I was notifying the others. If this was a mistake, then please accept my apologies. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well. Is there a way I can waive future notifications? Hipocrite (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have posted to the clerks' noticeboard regarding this, but I'll also send a note via the clerks-l mailing list informing all of the clerks of your request. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom longevity case

Noted your recent activity. There are still unanswered questions on this issue, noted here, that IMHO still need either action or rationale for no action. Please advise, or ask if you need additional clarification. JJB 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Kirill's comment on the workshop page "[e]vidence specifically regarding the real-life identities of users should be submitted privately for Committee review, even if those users have self-identified." Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My ACC request

A few weeks ago, I requested ACC access. You declined it, and I fully understand why - I was (and still am, really) a new editor, just getting started. I'm just wondering, what experience are you looking for in requests for access? If I feel I've gained sufficient experience in a couple months, I'll reapply, but it would help if I knew what you were looking for :p (also, my username's changed since I applied. I used to be Julianmh, but it's been changed to Demize now) dmz 08:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checking to see if you've seen this yet. dmz 03:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some specialised areas that you could work in such as WP:UAA and WP:CHU. Given that ACC is all about helping people new to Wikipedia create accounts, helping out newcomers is also a great area in which to work. There are no set criteria for joining ACC, so these are just suggestions, though ones that we often mention to users interested in joining the team. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! dmz 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation with ru-wiki Incubator

Hello. I'm a participant of ru-wiki's Article Incubator, and it is important to notice, that we use it not like your WP:Article Incubator, but like WP:Articles for creation. So after creation by new user we check new article and move in mainspace if it is good. And sometimes we have articles in English in our Incubator. So, I want to ask you can we move (for example by copy-pasting or another way) this articles from ru-Incubator to English Wikipedia by WP:Articles for creation or maybe some other project? For example now we have such an article: Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region. Dmitry89 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Привет, я участвую в русскоязычном Инкубаторе, кстати важно отметить, что мы используем его не как английский для удаленных статей, а как проект WP:Articles for creation. То есть после создания новичком статьи, мы ее проверяем и переносим в основное пространство, если оно соответствует правилам. Иногда нам встречаются статьи написанные на английском языке. Поэтому я бы хотел узнать можем ли мы переносить эти статьи (напр. копипастом или каким-то другим способом) эти статьи из русскоязычного Инкубатора в англоязычный раздел, например через WP:Articles for creation или другой подобный проект? Одним из примеров на данный момент может служить вот такая статья: Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region. Dmitry89 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not participated in WP:Articles for creation in a long time; I have just removed myself from the list of participants. I suggest you get in contact with one of the people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. Regards, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dmitry89 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ACC access re-activation

G'day AlexandrDmitri, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to re-activate my access for the Account Creation Interface, it was suspended for nil activity of 45+ days. I would like to get back into the process and assist with account creation requests again. Kind Regards ZooPro 12:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've unsuspended your account. The interface and the guide have changed somewhat in the past couple of months; I suggest you reread it thoroughly before handling any requests. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers and will do. ZooPro 12:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Request 23 Dec 2010

I observe that I filed an ArbCom complaint against John J. Bulten who was THE filing party of the Longevity case... the intent of the ArbCom I filed is not focused on longevity-related matters but on John J. Bulten's inappropriate behaviour and methods demonstrated in my previous request for ArbCom, where as I indicated, previous attempts at resolution with Bulten have completely broken down time and again. As John J. Bulten was the filing party of the Longevity ArbCom, I am NOT entitled to present evidence against him. → Brendan (talk, contribs) 06:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the four Arbitrators who have commented have also declined on the grounds of the ongoing case; one arbitrator has said "Decline as a separate case, but the issues can be addressed in the pending Longevity case, as suggested by Kirill and Risker". I do not know who told you (or if this is a misunderstanding), but there are no restrictions whatsoever on you presenting evidence in the Longevity case, even if it is against the filing party. When ArbCom opens a case, it examines the behaviour of all parties involved, irrespective of whether they are the filing party or a named party. Therefore you are entitled to present evidence against him. The case is still in the evidence stage, so I see no barriers whatsoever to you bringing up your concerns there. If you need any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact lead clerk User:NuclearWarfare, myself, or any other ArbCom clerk. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kento Holding

Hello, I would like to know why this above page has been deleted and also why the discussion page also has been deleted. You can answer on my talk page.--Cruks2010^(talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted twice by admin Lectonar, initially under Wikipedia:CSD#A7 then under Wikipedia:CSD#A3. I merely removed the discussion page under Wikipedia:CSD#G8 as a talkpage dependent upon a deleted article. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a response to my question. For which reason do you delete a discussion when it was initially suggested to start one? This I would say is some kind of vandalism...--Cruks2010^(talk) 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is regular housekeeping/maintenance per policy (Wikipedia:CSD#G8). The article had been deleted, therefore the talkpage was eligible for deletion. If you have an issue with the deletion of the article, take it up with the deleting admin or go to deletion review as indicated in the deletion log. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I stay by it. This is vandalism. And to get to the deletion administrator is not possible, he has disappeared from the crime scene.--Cruks2010^(talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

christopher bass Bassy

this page was deleted immediately, to which i have no obligation if guidelines were not met however if i was to provide a reputable secondary reference would this page then be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charming DTB (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can establish notability and source it with reliable sources I have no objection to restoring it to your userspace to work on. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you have recreated it. I'm afraid that Facebook does not count as a reliable source. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another IAC request

Greetings again - I got bumped on the IAC because of 45 days inactivity (which was, sadly, universal due to a dead computer :( Could you grant me re-access? Thanks! Skier Dude (talk 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have unsuspended your account. The tool and the guide have changed somewhat in the past couple of months, so please take the time to review the documentation thoroughly. Welcome back! Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA Discussion Comments

Please forgive a random message, but after reading this[11] I wanted to leave a response, but realized I had a more direct someone to say that wouldn't be appropriate there.

I agree entirely with you point of view. In fact, most my entirely Wikipedia existence has revolved around that. I never have no will be someone to create large amounts of content. Ever. However, I take massive pride in neutrality and felt entirely at home following in discussion at ANI, COIN, the Pump, XfDs, researching puppets, etc., which is largely unloved work. It's also the toughest work. I stumbled along for some months and found myself feeling completely stuck in place and slowly lost complete interest after seeing the state of RfAs based completely on content one way or the other and completely ignoring any work done in the project namespace. I suppose I'm starting to have back at it again after a year, having basically given up hope that anyone will actually get fair treatment at RfA.

Since I can never imagine any degree of system reform, would you have any particular advice short, or long-term for someone who doesn't mind deliberately shoving his or her foot into really messy spots just to try to talk some sense into people? Someone that finds reading closed ArbCom cases as a "fun" way to kill some time. Someone that actually reads the gigantic closed tabs of discussions at ANI to see how something ended. Someone that backtracks the edits of a proven puppet or vandal to make sure all articles are left pristine? That thinks a trouting is often the best remedy? An odd request, but any insight would be very welcomed.

My thanks. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, I would suggest that informal mediation is an area which could interest you. There has also been a call for new ArbCom clerks if you are interested in getting involved in arbitration. Caveat: I'm not officially endorsing your candidature and as one of the clerks I will be involved in the selection process.. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My thanks for the advice. I did actually send an email to the posted address, so out of transparency I'll publicly say to any looking on that I've had no other communication with this editor :) ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Following-up; I'd left a message for NuclearWarfare but had forgotten about you! I appreciate your initial direction, and 100% understand the group's decision. It wasn't unexpected, frankly, but I still felt rather inspired. My thanks for your time and that of the other clerks in my consideration. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?

I've removed the CSD G2 PROD you placed on Alex Bunbury as it is not a foreign language article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was testing something and thought that I had stopped Twinkle in time. It didn't look like the tag had been applied by my fault entirely for not checking. I'll go and apologise to the person notified. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I assumed as much, hence the note. I didn't really believe that you had suddenly gone rogue and decided to add G2 tags to Canadian hockey player articles :). Some of us may have accents, but it's definitely still english! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If I went rogue, I'd at least do something that would earn me a place in the WP:Village stocks :) Still, that was a bit of a *facepalm* moment. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Alexandr

I think Richard Malim on the Arbitration Mediation page posted twice in two distinct sections. You have formatted the second to avoid it being confused with Peter Cohen's evidence. However, shouldn't his second comment be relocated, and indented, under his first comment higher up on the page? ThanksNishidani (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've merged the two posts accordingly. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

my page got erased

why did my page about the band Decou: Run Got erased?? how can i make a new one so it is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekon3 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a number of messages on your talk page explaining why the article was deleted. Please take the time to read them, especially those regarding notability. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

More about my ACC request

After a while of helping out at CHU and UAA, I feel I have a better understanding of the username policy. But, I'm not here to resubmit my request, I'm just asking a couple questions. First, if there's no need for new volunteers, is there no chance of me getting access? I've been looking at the talkpage for the guide and saw one post from March that said that a user needs experience and there needs to be a need for new volunteers for access to be granted. Second, if I do reapply some time in the future, would you mind if I asked your opinion beforehand? I don't want to reapply and then look like a fool by getting turned down again (although your talkpage is far more public than an email) :p Also, if there ever is a need for new volunteers, feel free to ask me to join in if I haven't already joined. demize (t · c) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have built up more experience on Wikipedia then there shouldn't be a problem granting you access, especially if you have been working at CHU and UAA. You can ask me in advance if you wish. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It probably won't be a while until I request, but this clears things up. demize (t · c) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Think you could take a quick look and tell me if you think I could reapply soon or if I should wait a month or two? At this point, I feel I'm ready to handle the responsibility of ACC access, but I'm not sure if I should apply again. Also, what does ACC stand for? I can't seem to find that anywhere, and I've been wondering for a while now :p Sorry to bother you by the way, I know you've probably got better things to do than look through my history. Thanks for taking the time to do this. demize (t · c) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I have really bad timing :p Every time I leave a message here, somebody else comes along after me. Anyway, just trying to get myself noticed, I realize you didn't see my message and that it isn't likely you would, that's what this is for. demize (t · c) 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should wait another month or two. What I've seen is good and you are on the right track. A couple of points: 1. ACC is not a glamourous job and involves a great deal of patience - we are not inundated with requests and we have a large number of users (currently over 90) already to handle the low number of requests we receive per day. Therefore tool admins are somewhat wary of users who appear over keen to apply, as we have had a number of requests for access to the tool which were people "hat collecting". 2. You have only become active on WP over the last three months and have an edit count <1,000. Whilst we look at the quality, rather than quantity, you do still seem a little inexperienced. Once again, we don't lack users with experience. Hope this helps. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to seem over keen or like I'm collecting tools, and I can see where you're coming from on your second point (although I think you're missing a zero somewhere, X!'s edit counter shows close to 2000 live edits). Thanks again. demize (t · c) 18:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi for some reason my page was deleted i didnt even have a chance to edit can you please tell me whyFrankpublicity (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article in question did not assert notability. You should also note that all articles on living people must be sourced with reliable third party sources. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments removed

I hope you don't mind, but I moved an inappropriate angry message from your user page. Given it was in all caps, and rather attack-y, I didn't want to just move it to your talk, but did want to make sure you were aware of it in case you want to respond. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In situations such as this, where the user cannot communicate civilly, I remove and ignore. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Alexandr, as an ArbCom clerk, please could you give me some advice? I am trying to find a way to have the complexities of a specific issue properly considered by the wikipedia authorities. I summarised it here, although I since learned that WP:ANI was not the right place for it. It would be great if you could point me to the right place in wikipedia for this to be discussed. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks distinctly like a content issue. As suggested in the ANI thread, you should try dispute resolution with either a RFC or a informal mediation case. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alexandr, I am happy to try it but the specific content issue has become a side issue in my mind - i believe we have identified a flaw in the rules. Is there anywhere I can go to have it considered from that angle? I think it would be a shame not to have a potential rule improvement considered by just focusing on a single content problem. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than proposing dispute resolution, I am at a loss with regards to other venues. Arbitration is for conduct issues and does not rule on content issues, nor does it change policy, only applies existing policy. In any case, all issues should go through dispute resolution before reaching arbitration, unless it has been demonstrated that the community is unable to handle the issue, which does not appear to be the case here. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help anyway. Others I have asked have been at a similar loss unfortunately - but I have to believe wikipedia must have a way of considering rule changes somewhere! I'll keep searching Oncenawhile (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ACC Account

I recently had me ACC account suspended due to inactivity. Would you mind turning it back on? Thanks Ronk01 talk 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Ronk01 talk 19:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

denisrunescape

why was Denny Yang deleted? Im currently studying birds in California and in the Audubon society of Ohlone, and im planning to pursue a career to work for National Audubon ASAP. I am planning on working on a field of science to protect birds. Why is it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisrunescape (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it failed to demonstrate the significance of the importance of the subject. I'd advise you to take a look at notability, reliable sources and in particular writing about yourself. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, i am trying to create a page about Mandy Dhiab, she is a very famous singer, song writer in Iraq, i dont know how to use wiki so im all over the place, i already created an article but it was removed, help is appreciated. Thank you :) Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed9090 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I can give you general advice on what is required for an article (notability and reliable sources) but if you want specialist help, I suggest you place {{helpme}} on your user talk page and someone who specialises in helping people, especially newcomers, will come along to assist you better than I could. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

May I know what should be the article look like.. because we are a semi non-profit organisation and really we are helping students to shape up their career with proper guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careges (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose rationale at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2

Hi, can you please explain why you think the candidate's answer to Q5 is "plain wrong"? Guoguo12--Talk--  23:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my oppose "Firstly, the answer to Q5 is plain wrong. The question was not "What would you do if this user was reported to UAA?", it was "You see this new user being created, what action would you take?". Either the candidate has not read the question properly and replied hastily, or has not understood the question, neither of which inspire me with confidence." --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the correct answer not waiting until the user edits, so as to see whether or not the account is being used for promotion? I think you misunderstood his response ("to use a UAA template" used not as an instruction, but as "to answer this question using a UAA template"). This problem isn't exceptionally important, but I want to clear it up anyway. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The anwser that I was looking for is upon seeing the new user being created is to discuss or at the very least warn them that there is a potential problem with their name. Furthermore the candidate says "However, when it becomes apparent that the account exists only to promote Pepsi" (my emphasis added) which is assuming bad faith. I am willing to accept your interpretation of the candidate's reference to UAA in the answer, but the underlying problem is that the candidate says "wait then take administrative action" rather than discuss with and help a new user, and that the candidate assumes (when, not if) that the user is here to promote. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:RFAR Racepacket

I'm technically a party as well. My statement should be on the main page. I said I wasn't involved in the articles. I should have clarified that I was still involved in interacting with Racepacket. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri - since the decision was made to open the arbitration, should I add an introductory opening statement on the main Cases page as well? Thanks Racepacket (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To Zero1328:- fair enough: I see you have moved your statement from the talkpage to the casepage; I will add you as a party to the case accordingly.

To Racepacket (and anyone else wishing to comment on the case):- no more additions should be made to the main case page: any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page; the deadline for submissions is one week from yesterday. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why the deadline is May 7? I have never done this before, and in reading through the rules I found a two-week period for evidence. Is the evidence phase open until May 14? Perhaps I have missed something. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Two weeks from the opening of this particular case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should correct Template:ArbComOpenTasks ? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Racepacket, I've modified the template. Hopefully, you'll find time in the next week to present evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wyndale Jastillano

what does this article lacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawavaler (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article did not demonstrate the significance of the subject. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of Kempersystemltd

Hi Alexandr, on May 9 you spamublocked Kempersystemltd; they're now requesting an unblock and I'd be inclined to grant it, as it seems to me that the block is no longer preventative, since they seem to have understood what they did wrong. Before unblocking, however, I'd like to give you the time to comment on the request, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No objections Salvio; I trust your judgement. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've just unblocked them. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

per request

• I'll bite, who asked? Brad said "meh" ;) Barong 13:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  The request came from an arbitrator on the clerks-l mailing list. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  I rather assumed an arb. I was fishing for a username… but, thanks anyway. Barong 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, I am an aspiring hip hop artist from Atlanta GA. My article was deleted by you and I was wondering what I can do to get my article back up and running. I would appreciate it if you can get back to me soon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenchyld404 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have made a userspace draft, which is a good place to start. However, one of the requirements about all articles on biographies on living people is that they be reliably sourced by third party publications; a link to your own website is not considered adequate. You should also read about writing about yourself and conflict of interest. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback

As we have started the 24 hour clock on the Racepacket case, I would appreciate a response regarding my inquiry at the talk page. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hoped to get back to you earlier but clarification is still being sought. Right now the closure of the case is on hold, pending resolution. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee/Chester Markel Arb

Is there a proceedural consequence to the arbitration of Chester Markel being banned? (I'm obviously not asking about whether it effects the credibility/strength of the case etc). Does it have to have a party fulfilling Chester Markel's role to progress? If it does I'd be willing to offer myself as a party. Obviously, I'd rather not. (Posted same question to other clerk in case you're not around) DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We have been instructed that the blocking does not affect the acceptance of the case and that the case shall procede as intended. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandr: FYI, I posted a statement on the evidence talk page to announce the instruction of the arbitrators, to pre-emptively answer further queries about this incident. Regards, AGK [•] 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Block on User:A1trophies

Hi AlexandrDmitri. I just wanted to write and inform you further to my tagging of their userpage, and your block, that I am raising the issue of accounts created through the Outreach ACIP project with #wikimedia-outreach on freenode. I don't know quite what role they play in account creation assistance, but I'm sure they shouldn't be helping an account to be created with such an obviously promotional username. If you feel like commenting, you're quite welcome to. Regards, Fish^Barking? 11:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee evidence

A few parties have been violating the evidence length limit at the MMN case, so I changed the reminder notice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence to something more obvious. Care to add your signature to that at your first convenience? We're both the case clerks, so it should have your name on it too :). Regards, AGK [•] 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've appended my signature to the request from the case clerks. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee arb/Nuclear Warfare

Can you clarify NuclearWarfare's action here. I raised it with NW here, but the answer doesn't seem to make sense and the arbs AFAIK haven't excluded the evidence. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, was away for a long weekend. I've replied in the conversation you started with NW, so as to keep the conversation all together. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

world war II clarification request archived

Good day, I see you've archived my World War II clarification request. Does this mean the matter is closed? Where in the archives do I find the archived request? I've searched but cannot find. Please provide link if possible. Thanks. --Communikat (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The archived request for clarification is on the case talk page. The Arbitration Committee did not feel that any further clarification was necessary, although you might like to peruse the arbitrators' comments and suggestions in the final section. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. Communikat (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

World War II case, clarification request, revision history

Hello, Sorry to bother you. For purposes of evidence in a new arbitration matter, I need urgently to refer to the full revision history of the above clarification request, which you archived on case talk page a few weeks back. The revision history is mostly missing from the archived version which also seems to have had a substantial amount of material removed, possibly for purposes of reducing size of page. How or where might I find the material now missing from the archived version? I need to refer to it. Can you advise pse? Communikat (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the state of the request for clarification when I archived it. You will find all of the revision history on that page. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, the information I was seeking seems to have been deleted at a stage before you handled archiving, nor can I find relevant revision history of the missing item. Communikat (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspension

It's been ages since the suspension of the account creator, please un suspend. I think I had a plausible reason anyway, but I was younger at the time and had no idea of the essays I was able to write to enable me to prove the innocence. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you fail both to recognise the reason why you were suspended and to indicate how you intend to address the underlying issue, insofaras your post could be considered an appeal, it is declined. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Is it really fair after such a long and agonizing time that once a user has accidentally clicked a button and tried their best to correct the issue before being brutally ejected from the project is not forgiven? I fully understand the reason why I was suspended and I have admitted to correct the issues. After all, the issue was clearly an accident and every signle human on the Earth makes mistakes. When my user page was reverted and the person who did it made a mistake, they didn't have their rollback rights revoked and so why must I have my account creation interface access revoked from making a mistake? I was aware at the time and even as I had told you, I was trying to fix the problem before being brutally rejected from the project. I am asking you to re-consider your verdict because I feel it was unfairly and hastily rejected for a variety of bias reasons. I also do not like your clearly implied attempt to call me a failure. I thought that Wikipedia had a policy against personal attacks. I would not define this as an underlying issue either, it was a simple mistake that may have been made and forgiveness is in the true heart of all humans. Thank you again.Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Mediation Removal

I know it wasn’t done perfectly (I even said I’m not sure what I’m doing), but I am trying to do this the right way (unlike Beren hunter, et el). Can you at least tell me what TO do so I can do it right?) A REDDSON

Have you checked out the links I left for you on your talkpage (specifically dispute resolution and informal mediation)? Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There is now a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/ that mentions you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, I've commented Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for MY confusion. I hope I've got it fixed now. A REDDSON

Thanks for the notices on my behalf

The reason why I hadn't sent out notices was because my list of involved parties was not complete. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

Please notice that my edit here corrected a malformed link to the Chinese Wikipedia article about Moral hazard -- zh:道德风险 --Tenmei (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Obviously statements should not be rewritten but correcting a link is more than reasonable. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence length, draft version

Would you mind taking a look at the draft of my evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration, to see how you feel about the length? Currently, it's about 720 words, with about 30 diffs/links to archives. It's a bit longer than those posted so far, mainly (I feel) because they're each commenting on one person (me) while I'm commenting about four different people. My draft is at User:Qwyrxian/Arb. I'm not absolutely finished with it, but in my last 2 passes I haven't been able to make a significant change in word length. If that still seems long to you, I will find something to cut out, as I don't want to be unfair to other editors in any way, nor do I want to overburden the Committee with excessive info. Also, one other minor question: another editor who reviewed this found my use of the invented gender-neutral pronouns "xe", "xem", and "xyr" to be confusing. I'm used to writing that way on WP talk pages, and it seems more ethical than guessing gender (although I would be quite shocked if the editors I'm commenting on aren't male); however, if that style is likely to make it worse for the Arbitrators, I can change them all. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst ideally it should be 500 words, it is what I describe as "within reasonable limits". It could be trimmed a bit from your more prosaic style, but that, as far as I am concerned, is simply rearranging the deck chairs. Personally I hate the use of xe/xyr/xem but it is no obstacle to comprehension. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'll still look it over for another day or so, and see if anything could be simplified. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the format of my request correct?

Hi Alexandr, I made a request [12] at the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. Could you please check if the format and the location of my such request is correct or not. If not, please let me know or you can correct it including move it to the right place. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the most appropriate place for you to make your request. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Lvhis (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot configuration

(looks at above section with a raised eyebrow - looks like you're having fun)

I noticed you'd added an override to the bot - I was wondering if you'd done it manually or used the configuration tool. If the later, I was wondering if it seemed clear of if there was anything I need to fix. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the override manually and the instructions, along with the two previous examples were more than enough for me to figure out the configuration. That's more a testament to your explanatory skills than my ability to delve into code, though I'm getting quite nifty with ArbComOpenTasks these days. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Language codes

Thanks for undoing my ill-informed "correction".

I now know of ISO 639 - Wikipedia expands one's knowledge in all sorts of areas.

Tim Forcer (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku evidence

As I understand it, the period for submitting evidence is now closed.

In my evidence submission, I want to add an inline citation to verify, explain and underscore my use of the term-of-art "domino effect" →

____________

Please note that this citation and excerpt was initially added here, but later removed in the process of sharpening the issues for mediation.

Tangentially, this is relevant in supporting the first of the proposed remedies suggested by Qwyrxian here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I want to add one illustrative diff to my evidence section. In February, Qwyrixian acknowledges the tension between "fact" and "factoid" when he explains "... what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him." In our specific context, this was the wrong judgment; but Qwyrxian deserves encouragement or praise -- not reprimand -- as a consequence of this mistake. This diff was pivotal; and it exemplifies an aspect of this case which is otherwise overlooked. --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding briefly to this request (whilst bearing in mind your other request above to which I will get when I have more time), given the allowance to extend the evidence deadline to Magog the Ogre there is no problem in adding something to yours. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku workshop

Hi Alex. I'm already recused from this case (for telling the whole lot of them that they are a right shower), but could you take a look at the analysis section of the workshop. It strikes me that they are all posting evidence there and attacking each other. Maybe needs a bit of clerking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted a general query regarding the same issue in the Motions section. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have replied there. I'm prepared to allow the parties 48 hours to remove voluntarily their own additional evidence, which seems a reasonable timeframe to me. Past this limit, it will be refactored or removed. If anyone needs guidance on what is or isn't additional evidence, I am willing to give advice, though wikilawyering and the suchlike will not go down well. I'll repeat here, what I said at the start of this case, "I'd also request that old battles not be rehashed out (nor new ones started), nor long ideological or philosophical debates started". Bickering and rehashing complaints on the workshop page will also be summarily removed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I definitely need some help in grasping what should be in each section and what shouldn't. Since there was an absence of comments by arbitrators up to now, I simply did what I would've done in an RfC. If you are interested to assist, you can continue this conversation over to my talk page and offer me some advice on what to keep and what to remove. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Alexander's not available to help. Does any other arbitrator want to offer a hand before the 48 hours are up? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unexpected real life issues prevented me from replying yesterday, so apologies, and consider the deadline extended by 24 hours. As a general guideline, you should be linking to what has been already submitted in evidence (with diffs); anything pointing anywhere else is considered additional evidence. I can give specific examples, though any such examples should not be considered as criticising one party whilst endorsing another. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am busy IRL as well and may not have the time to do everything in 24 hours. So can we extend the deadline by 4 days (I will probably finish way before that). Also, I'd like to point out that one of the parties may be gaming the system [13] by using a diff to point to another page of evidence [14]. I suppose I would want to follow his model if that's allowed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note for Bobthefish and others - the use of a subpage in userspace for tortuous reams of evidence is not a violation, not gaming the system, and not something that needs to be reported on. In fact it is a standard concession for people who are unable to express themselves in less than 25kb It is up to the arbs assessing the case whether they read it or not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Note, the above comment is ironic (I get into trouble with my sense of humour sometimes). Seriously, evidence on user subpage is permissible, but you do run the risk that it's not read. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not known to the rest of us (possibly including Qwyrxian). I suppose I can move some of the stuff Mr. Dimitri considered excessive into user-space. Since this can be potentially important, would you or Alexander mind making a general notice to every involved party telling them they can follow this model of engagement and perhaps allow people modify their own evidence for another week?

And just to clarify, these things technically become "optional evidence" then? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, please just concentrate on what you need to do with your additional evidence. I will talk to anyone else as required. Thanks in advance. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on that over the weekend. Do you think I am allowed to modify my evidence section? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though you are pretty much at the (extended limits), and you run the risk that arbitrators don't notice your changes. That said, the arbitrators generally prefer evidence concentrated in one place (even if it does mean going over a bit) than sprawling discussions over multiple pages. Common sense should be applied in bucketloads. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a tendency of spamming unnecessary diffs (i.e. diffs to each individual posts that are in a thread) when I could've just cited the very last post. So, my plan is to move those into a sub-page (along with the more detailed rehashing) and then move the extra evidence diffs into the sub-page. And then I can keep the Analysis of Evidence largely as it is and perhaps shorten some of it to make it easier to follow. This way, the issue of "extra evidence" being presented should be solved. Let me know if that's okay with you. If so, I will follow this scheme to make the changes and then check with you again for approval. Thanks --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a firm believer, whether it be in real life or on Wikipedia, that less is more. If you really, absolutely, have to use a sub page, then do so. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. It will probably not be to on the scale of Magog's. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed one section as an exercise [15] but did not insert links. Do you think that's in acceptable form. If not, can you give me some specific opinions on what to change? Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have extremely limited access to the Internet today, so I shall be brief. That is a great start. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Completed overhaul [16][17]. I suppose exceeding word limit by 46 is fine. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ettiquette Question

Now that the arbitration issue is (for the time being) closed, ¿can I remove your entry on my page? I was told you’re not supposed to remove anyone’s comments (even ad homimen attacks), but I think it serves no useful purpose at this point. (BTW- If the answer is yes, just delete this now and I’ll ‘get it.’) A J REDDSON

You may delete any posts from your own userpage at your discretion. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Content of a cited guideline was changed by an involved party

Hi Alexandr，I just realized that user:Oda Mari, an involved party in the Arb/Senkaku case initiated changes in the content of the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names that I mentioned and cited in my Statement, Evidence, and my proposal in Workshop there. And the example "Liancourt Rocks" there was also raised by Penwhale and Zscout370 in their statement. Oda Mari challenged this guideline in her Evidence (her historic version). Now Oda Mari changed this guideline whose pre-exist content did not favor her stance into a version that is less unfavorable for her stance (the difference of the two versions), and changed a key word in her evidence accordingly (the updated version of her Evidence). The verifiability of the content after such change is questionable. So there are 3 problems here:

1. An involved party initiated a change of a guideline that is tightly related a ongoing Arbitration case.
2. The verifiability of the content after such change (becoming "in part because ..., in part because ...") is questionable.
3. It may cause edit-dispute or edit-war if other parties try to dispute and revert such change for that guideline.

Is Oda Mari's such guideline-editing during Arbitration process allowable? On my understanding, her such change may not be appropriate because Arbitration is as said "The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines" stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent. Regard --Lvhis (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle that changes in guidelines upon which one relies in dispute resolution are generally to be avoided, unless I am missing something, the changes are simple alterations of grammatical tense, and as such, do not alter the meaning substantially in either instance. I could be wrong, so it might be worth bringing this up on the evidence talkpage, where all of the Arbitration Committee will see it. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will. Thank you! --Lvhis (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Graphics

==ArbCom workshop question ==

Generalization process using trees

What rule or convention limits the use of graphics? Why was it removed? What can I do to justify the restoration of this image? --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This represents a significant, non-trivial barrier to moving forward constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

As you may recall, three graphics are explicitly mentioned in Qwyrxian's evidence.

As you may know, one of the graphics below -- the pyramid -- is posted at WP:DR. Qwyrxian argues that there is something wrong with referring these graphics, relying on them, being informed by them.

Should I have understood that there is an ArbCom convention which endorses this unduly restrictive viewpoint? Why?

In specific, Qwyrxian argues here that graphics posted in October 2010 explain why this ArbCom case is necessary in August 2011.

• Graphic A:

Parsing argument content — acknowledging categories of

constructive comments:

• Refuting the Central Point
  
• Refutation
  
• Counterargument

____________

Identifying remarks which are

unhelpful:

• Contradiction
  
• Responding to Tone
  
• Ad Hominem
  

Graphic A

• Graphic B:

Representing

Neutrality=Consensus

in three intersecting spheres?

• Blue shows
  

  POV of ROC?

• Green shows
  

  POV of PRC?

• Red shows
    POV of Japan?
  

Graphic B

• Graphic C:

Non-neutral representation of

Senkaku Islands dispute

in graphic terms?

• Red shows
  

  POV of Japan?

• Blue shows
  

  POV of ROC?

• Green shows
  

  POV of PRC?

Graphic C

Where should I have read that the use of graphics is prohibited in the ArbCom venue?

Shall I now remove the pyramid graphic from WP:DR explaining what? why?

These are not rhetorical questions. I need an explicit response. --Tenmei (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you could not have known this in advance, as it was not posted on-wiki. A request was made to all clerks, via the private clerks-l mailing list (used for internal discussion between arbitrators and clerks), that images be removed from pages pertaining to arbitration. This request was made in early 2010, but does not extent to other areas of dispute resolution. Your point is made more than adequately without the use of this image.Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all questions presented to an ArbCom clerk are easy.

My persisting interest in graphics is not evidence of misconduct; rather it has everything to do with the content of Senkaku Islands articles. The explicit content-focus of the October 2010 graphics which Qwyrxian complains about are illustrative. This only serve to prove my point.

As you know, Ellen explained that one of the objectives of an ArbCom case is to figure out what is causing people to behave badly; and getting this right forms the basis of good decision-making.

I see to choice other than to comply with your guidelines; however, in doing so, I must inevitably use many words.

Graphic A

File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:

1. Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
2. Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
3. Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4. Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5. Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6. Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
7. Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."

At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."

A review of months of talk pages reveals that the underlying purpose of the edits of Bobthefish and others has been to re-write the article in ways which introduce a straw man in lieu of sentences supported by WP:V + WP:RS. For example, Qwyrxian's misjudgment in October 2010 is mirrored in a unsupported "POV" contradiction/revert in August 2011.

DIFFS + support

FACT = verifiable

A diff (1 Aug 2011)

B diff (4 Aug 2011)

DIFFS (unsupported)

FACTOID = opinion only

A+? diff (4 Aug 2011)

B+? diff (13 Aug 2011)

Mere Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence

Mere Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument

Now, having established the foundation for using words instead of these graphics, do I now need to use more words to explain how the graphics are simpler and more direct than my words?

If there is a less cumbersome way to respond to contradiction and ad hominem, I would be glad to write less.

Unfortunately, I have observed that the comments, questions, research and arguments of John Smith's, Oda Mari, Phoenix7777 and others are rejected wholesale in much the same way as mine, despite the fact that each of their diffs use a limited number of words. --Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwryxian proposes ban

I understand the no-graphics convention which ArbCom has encouraged you to enforce, but this case presents an exception to that rule. The marriage of "content" and "conduct" is made personal in Qwyrxian's initial analysis, his evidence, and his proposed remedy.

In am moved to deal with a problem which doesn't need to be a problem. If Qwyrxian has his way, my temerity is to be punished and the content of my contributions are to be marginalized:

• Tenmei ... indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands ....
• Tenmei is additionally instructed to learn ways of communicating more simply and effectively on article talk pages ....

This is perverse. It is hurtful to me and to our project.

Qwyrxian elevates mere contradiction and ad hominem as if they were valid arguments, when -- in practice -- they are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophesies like Qwyrxian's perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" and Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!". Each of these tactics becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy which overwhelms all else.

In contrast, as expressly articulated in the one graphic which is posted at WP:DR, refutation and counterargument are not deprecated -- nor is the use of a graphic deprecated, as Qwyrxian does.

Please do whatever you need to do so that graphics can be posted on the evidence and workshop pages. STSC is correct in recognizing that misjudgment by Qwyrxian has complicated and prolonged the dispute, although not for the reasons STSC ascribes. Graphics represent a useful tool which is needed to help us get to the heart of the matter. --Tenmei (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take note of these words in Qwyrxian's evidence here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tenmei's behavior in Arbitration so far exemplifies the problems xe has in the SI articles. Tenmei's writing style is obscure and filled with links to quotations and cliches, "dispute resolution tables", and graphics that don't help the process."

You raise many points in these sections, and I am unclear as to what you expect of me, apart from the issue of posting images. On that subject, I have to reiterate that the arbitrators requested some time ago that we remove all images from all pages pertaining to arbitration, and you make no compelling arguments for their inclusion. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Argument

How could I have known that I would be obliged to present an argument. This diff is here makes a compelling argument which crosses a line. How much more specific do I need to be?

As you know, Ellen explained here that part of my job as a participant in the ArbCom process is to help Arbcom with the part of the finding of fact usually termed "Scope of the dispute" or "focus of the dispute", which is basically

• what it is that the argument is all about
• what is causing people to behave badly

I am persuaded that getting this right forms the basis of the rest of the decisions. Getting this wrong is one of the reasons the Senkaku-related problems have persisted for so many months.

The three graphics above are ones Qwyrxian has chosen to highlight for reasons of his own in the case page, evidence page and workshop page. An unintended consequence of this emphasis and selection is the key to unraveling knotty problems which have developed because of Qwyrxian's leadership and the reactions of STSC, San9663, Lvhis, Bobthefhish2, et al. In other words, these graphics are a key to identifying the underlying problem and mitigating the cohort of related problem which are likely to continue.

If this is not the venue to present this argument, where should it be copied? --Tenmei (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Text of graphic added on workshop page

Please review my edit here.

As you can see, it substantially replicates the text of the graphic without its visual elements.

Is this a problem? If so, why? If not, why not?

Qwyrxian rejects my prose -- too long, too complex, too obscure ....

And Qwyrxian rejects my vocabulary ....

And Qwyrxian rejects my use of hyperlinks? ....

And Qwyrxian rejects my use of graphics and tables ....

And Qwyrxian rejects words written by someone else, and posted by me ....

And also Magog rejects the use of sentences copied from Wikiquotes ....

My diffs are rejected for an endless host of reasons, but I also note that the short diffs of Oda Mari, Phoenix777 and John Smith's are similarly marginalized with an adjective or some kind of label ....

The problem here seems to be with the CONTENT of what someone writes -- not CONDUCT, ergo outside the scope of ArbCom review ... which brings us back to the graphics.

If the pyramid graphic is now transformed into an ArbCom-acceptable format, then we have established a foundation from which to build.

Aha -- I see - And what I write on this talk page is ipso facto converted to an example of deprecated "behaviour" here. Nevertheless, my questions remain, regardless of whether anyone decides to acknowledge them as "questions" or to re-package them as bad "behaviour". For redundant clarity, I repeat my questions and I number them,

1. Is this here a problem?
2. If so, why?
3. If not, why not?

Please construe a tone of frustration in this diff.

Bottom line: No matter what I write or post seems to be rejected without addressing any part of the substance of it; and I notice that Oda Mari, Phoenix7777, and John Smith's are accorded similar treatment (albeit with different reasons presented).--Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What really matters is what the Arbitrators who will be drafting and voting on the decision think, not what the other parties to the case say. The draft decision is due soon. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)