Jump to content

User talk:Dominic/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So

How the hell are ya? :) I haven't heard from you in awhile. Wassup? :) --Woohookitty(meow) 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been doing less admin stuff and more janitorial stuff. Specifically, I've been doing alot of work on User:Bluemoose's projects, especially the categorizing good articles project. As for NLP, it's goin'. We have a threatening revert war. *sigh* But we're trying to nip that in the bud. If anything else, the references look much better. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluemoose/Uncategorised_good_articles is the categorization project. He just added 600 more. 5th go round. The never ending project. :) But I love it. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See a list of fascists - you are included

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI; see also the changes in Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the discussion. -jkb- 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You took previously part in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See

Thx, -jkb- 11:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Updates on Inanna

Ok, here's some updates today:

She left a message on my talk page. The part that stood out the most is the following:

You cannot even guess how many sockpuppets i've there at the moment.You cannot confirm everyone in case your relations.At least, i press money and hire a couple of people for this job and even make them admins.

She later left this message on an anon's talk page. And then after that this one, which is a bit ironic, because it's the same user she said "I AM NOT A JEW AND I AM %100 ORIGINAL TURKISH" to. Anyways, that's it for today. —Khoikhoi 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I've looked at that web board's terms of use (linked from the bottom of the page) and they prohibit hatred of any kind. That discussion is clearly in violation. I'm going to try to send them a report and get it taken down. I suggest you contact them as well. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so are the "truth about the Armenians" and "no greeks and armenians" posts as well. Thanks a lot for your help. —Khoikhoi 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did notice! Thanks a lot. BTW, the ban for TuzsuzDeliBekir was totally justified, his previous username Hybridlily (talk · contribs) has a history of nothing but personal attacks, edit waring, and just general trolling. —Khoikhoi 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in this, it turns out Inanna is just talking to herself. Kurmanchi is her sockpuppet. —Khoikhoi 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit's RFA

Hello there!

I’m writing regarding a RFA against my person, Messhermit. I have been absent from editing from Wikipedia for some time, due to Finals in College and for personal reasons (I needed to take a break, I don’t like lengthy discussions).

However, I found with the surprise that apparently the committee has reached a conclusion without giving me the opportunity to portray my side of the story. I tried to reach another of the parties involved in the arbitration, receiving a positive answer assuring me that the case and its outcome can wait until I finish my finals [1] .

I now humble ask a chance to expose my case and not being judged with only one side of the conflict portrayed. I believe that Wikipedia is a fair place to work and that all this can be settle without reaching extremes. Please, I’ll be waiting for an answer. Messhermit

P.D. As a side note, I have my evidence on Notepad. I will be posting it in a couple of days.

Implementation notes

I think you made a mistake there, the remedy against me hasn't passed. --ManiF 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The probation has, the proposed topical ban has not. I put a commented out note that you may have missed: "<!--2.5 and 2.7 undecided as of yet-->". I plan to update it with the final result when all the votes are in. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand remedy #2 and #5 should be listed as undecided as well since there are five active ArbCom members who haven't voted yet. --ManiF 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only needed five supports to pass, but the point is moot in any case now, as there have been new voters while I was sleeping. Dmcdevit·t 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman workshop

As you may have seen, I made some proposals on the Aucaman Workshop page. Could you give me some brief feedback if this is going to be considered and whether you think any of it has a chance of affecting the final outcome at this stage? Thanks, Lukas (T.|@) 07:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Of course, I'm a bit disappointed - as for the late timing, let me point out that I submitted something much along the same lines (only less formally) much earlier, on the Proposed decision talk page, immediately after the first proposals had been made. Should I have put it on Workshop from the start? It's of course quite unfortunate that whatever proposals or requests any of us has submitted anywhere on these pages has been immediately submerged by a heap of drivel from various sides :-( One problem (I think for all of the parties) in this case has been that we never got much overt feedback from the committee about which of our arguments were actually reaching their destination, so people felt compelled to go on and on and on arguing and submitting evidence in defense of this or that. Ceterum censeo Aucamam non esse expellendum... Lukas (T.|@) 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth of the matter is that the raw evidence is the most useful, the arguments are less so, but once it becomes screens of screens of bickering, it's mostly useless and not worth the arbitrators' time. Dmcdevit·t 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, and that's exactly why I didn't press my proposals earlier. But now I'm left with the slightly bitter feeling that the smokescreen bickering tactics of the other side has actually succeeded in preventing the committee from taking note of some things that I still find were clear and compelling. For instance, I still find it difficult to understand why Aucaman is censured for incivility when Kash is not, or why Zereshk gets off Scot-free with his involvement in the "Iranian noticeboard" (which, to me, is still the heart of the matter, much more than any particular edit war). Lukas (T.|@) 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your messages

Could you check your e-mail, please? I've asked you a question about something I'd really like to know. Thanks, Bishonen | talk 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk · contribs) RfAr #4

In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metb82

Hi Dmcdevit. I'd like to inform you about another user, Metb82 (talk · contribs). He's the same guy who spammed the talk pages of 100 people to oppose my RfA. Anyways, today he left this message on a user's talk page. What should I do? Should I respond to it? The user has a history of personal attacks, (such as this and this), he vandalized my user page once, and I've caught him using open proxies, such as 59.144.164.185 (talk · contribs) to disguise himself. And check his user page, because it doesn't get any better. —Khoikhoi 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my "conversation" with him here. —Khoikhoi 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes but ive served my time for the ugly things i did in the past khoi. oh btw, i dont think there are personal anti genocide laws in wikipedia unlike france unfortunately :/ take care :) Metb82 09:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I retract the user page part. —Khoikhoi 16:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that he's also used open proxies to insult and harass me, with edit summaries such as hi khoikhoi how is san francisco? and u know one day(like in 200 years,according to theme of civilizations) the western civilization will fall and we will bomb the fawk out of Khoikhoi's grandchildren. This is something that you certainly haven't "done your time" for. —Khoikhoi 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes im all the evil in the world. boooooo Metb82 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this complaint pretty seriously, but I'll deal with it through a warning to Metb82 in the first instance [2]. I ask KhoiKhoi to notify either me or Dmcdevit if the attacks continue, and they will then be dealt with appropriately. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Facism template

Just because something has the word "anti" in it doesn't mean it is divisive. This deletion was roughly equivalent to deleting an "anti-racism" template. Please reconsider your deletion in that context. Zotel - the Stub Maker 13:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understnad being busy, no need to have a lenthy discussion, 90% of my argument is summarized above, and 10% I could add by going back and forth probably wouldn't tip you either way. I just wanted to bring up a perspective you might not have thought of. Thank you for the time you did/will spend in consideration. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another symptom of lets not offend anyone at all coming out here... except for a few loons, facism is most strongly associated with the Nazis (and to a lesser degree Italian facists) circa WWII. And it is generally as reviled as racism has come to be. I still think the comparison is quite fair, if not 100%. And I am not concerned about offending racists or neo-nazis thanks. But I feel reasonably sure I am wasting my "breath" here. But I at least gave it a shot. Zotel - the Stub Maker 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You missed the point. Its not "my pov" its a general POV of people who BELONG to civilization. If you aren't willing to offend even the fringers who would advocate Nazism and that ilk, that is just terribly sad. Tolerance can be taken too far. And has been. Alas. Zotel - the Stub Maker 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcosantezana

Hi, I just noticed your "wary about the "very knowledgeable"" statement on Marcosantezana's RFAr. It's my guess that this user is Marcos A. Antezana (a post-doc, or other non faculty researcher?) at the University of Chicago with a number of publications, including three in Journal of Molecular Evolution and others in Journal of Molecular Biology and Genetical Research. I don't think such information ought to, or will, change anyone's views or votes, but he does seem to have a level of knowledge of the topic consistent with this. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any reason to doubt that, but I'm wary of the appropriateness of making a claim to any editor's knowledge in an arbcom ruling. I don't make conent rulings because I fully recognize that I simply don't have the expertise to make binding deisions in most topics represented on Wikipedia (so we use consensus). Similarly, most, if not all, problem editors, claim to be knowledgeable, but without expertise, I don't feel comfortable making that judgment myself, and would rather stick to the conduct. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please look at this message left on my talkpage by User:Partha rathore. Can you block him? I have already complained on Admin's notice-board. Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T1 Deletions

I see you had a template deleting session a few days ago. The T1 deletion policy has always been divisive and inflammatory and has always caused strife (ah the irony!) and there are many who think it a very, very, very bad idea. I don't fully count myself as one of those but what I have made known in the past is my concern over the vague nature of the deletion policy. I see little improvement in this version. What is "divisive and inflammatory"? Dictionary.com defines it as "creating dissension or discord" and "arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire" for the two words respectively. Now I can see that what you have deleted fulfils the second criterion easily, but then so does inclusionism on Wikipedia and I don't see you deleting that user box or other similar ones. I would strongly contest that the userboxes are "creating dissension or discord". The dissension and discord is there already and the userboxes inform about the viewpoint of the person concerned. The Euro is controversial and gun laws are controversial so they will arouse passions, but better those who have those viewpoints, on whatever side, are known and have those views out in the open.

So we have templates that are certainly inflammatory but I would not say are divisive. What means that those templates in particular deserved to be deleted? Does't the Windows XP user template on my user page deserve deletion under your reasoning? Doesn't the Stargate watcher template on my user page deserve deletion under your reasoning? Both are the subject of heated discussions which could qualify for inflammatory and both would seem to be "divisive" using your interpretation of the term. Do you think they are? If not how can you justify the deletions you made? If so I suggest you delete far more templates than you did. David Newton 15:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "civility"

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

Another uncivility case

Thank you very much for your notice; however, civility/uncivility does not contribute in any way to my 'case', for a lot of the admins have made their decision already, and have rejected the consensus.--Constanz - Talk 06:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question from Andres C.

Hello. Being you one of the Arbitrators involved in the ArbCom case Messhermit, I would like to approach you about two inquiries I have.

  • The first one has to do with an event that I already reported to Arbitrator Fred Bauder. Please read it here: [3]. I don't know if I am acting wrongly by reporting this, or if it is out of the context of the Arbitration. If this is the case, please let me know.
  • The second one has to do with the Arbitration process. I would like to know if editors can comment on Proposed Decisions affecting them, or if that would run counter to the Arbitration procedure and the conduct of the editors involved.
Thank you. I hope I wasn't out of line by approaching either Fred Bauder or you about these matters. - Andrés C. 15:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to protest these baseless accusations:

  1. Another IP user previously vandalized the article, curiously [4] deleting important sources and showing the same objectives (that is, accusing the article of being NPOV) that Andres C. more or less had against the article
  2. Then another IP removes all, and now Andres C. "claims" that I was behind it. No reasonable explanation is given beyond his "strong believes" (That I already consider extremely biased against my person).
  3. This is a serious accusation that lacks fundament and clearly goes against the "Assume Good faith" policy here in Wikipedia.

A separate topic is presented.

  1. I have to request that in the RFA against my person, Andres C. must be also banned from editing in the Ecuadorian-Peruvian related articles.
  2. The same penalty that is applied against me must be applied to him in order to have a balance and fair outcome to all this dispute, since in most of the dispute he is as guilty as I am in anything that has being debated.
  3. It is not fair that while I'm being prevented from editing on those articles, Andres C. can have a "blank check" to modify the articles (that he may or may not use to create another controversy here in Wikipedia).

Finally:

  1. I will wait, accept and respect any conclusion that the committee will state regarding the final outcome of the RFA.
  2. I'm disappointed with this unfair actions against my person, and please accept my apologies regarding the actions of the other party involved in this dispute.
  3. This is my last comment in your "Talk Page". Messhermit 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Since you've been involved in attempts to deal with AlexPU lately, you may be interested in this post at WP:AN/I. The highly offensive troll seem to have an issue with those who disagree with him and perpetually harasses his opponents and defies all calls to cool off. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

This one is still active, it appears. Maybe I should screw up Transvestic fetishism. Thanks for your help. e WBardwin 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by FrancisTyers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gpscholar". The reason given for Gpscholar's block is: "move warring and screwing up Transvestic fetishism"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.66.

How?

Could you have a look at the struck out line near the bottom at this page and click on the linked word "here". How could this happen?. How do I destroy it? Cheers. Moriori 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to fuss about. It's just a link to the block interface for your username, just like I could make special:blockip/Dmcdevit. It's the page you are taken to whenever you click the "block user" link at the bottom-left of a user page. If someone is not an admin, they will not see it, but be taken to a page saying they do not have permission. Dmcdevit·t 16:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you agree with this. -jkb- 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hello. I wrote you yesterday regarding the ArbCom case Messhermit. Anyway, I approach you again today about this matter. Please see this request of mine here if you will. Could you tell me what can I do about it, or to whom should I address this request? Thank you again. Andrés C. 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wow -- a lot of work, and on my behalf. A knight in shining armor. This was a particularly bad sequence of blocks. As a bypass attempt, I changed my AOL call up numbers, so I might have been assigned a new set of IP's as well. But, between us, I was able to revert my first vandal in the last 20 hours or so and do a little writing. I've disabled the template. Thanks for your help. WBardwin 08:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of template

The deletion of the template regarding the separation of church and state was not cool. Especially since you arbitarily did it with no notice. It's bullshit. Next time at least have the decency to warn people beforehand - heck why not actually let people vote on it instead of enforcing your own viewpoint on everyone. Dankru 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF gives you the right to just delete templates like {{User Pro Concealed Carry}}?! Just because you're on ArbCom doesn't mean you get to go all Deletionist on us. People put effort into userboxen because we like them. They're here to stay. Hooray for Unilateralism, I guess. E. Sn0 =31337= 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider before finishing Terryeo's RfA

Please read the discussions here [5] and here [6] before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic comments

Hello again. Recently a friend of mine informed me about a user's comments on the Turkish Wikipedia about how he is "proud to be an anti-Semite". His name is Ruzgar (talk · contribs). Today he left a note on my talk page:

[7] Yes I have write that. I am proud to being this "anti-seminist".

In his short history here on the English Wikipedia, he has pretty much done nothing but repeatedly delete sourced material ([8] [9] [10], and POV-pushing, including Holocaust denial ([11] [12]). Any idea what I should do about this? As a Jew, I'm quite frankly afraid to warn this guy about personal attacks. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 03:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile :)

—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

—G.He 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nomination and comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Dmcdevit, and thank you for your nomination, and kind comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies articles?... Are you an accountable admin?...

Nostradamus, today's featured article

Shouldn't it be protected or semiprotected, since it's on the main page? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I must've missed a lot; when I first came to Wikipedia the articles from the mainpage were always protected. But then again, I also remember {{msg:stub}}. Oh well. Thanks again! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

If Arbcom grants checkUser and Oversight, is there therefore anyway to ask for Oversight? How did they choose the current usergroup member? Was it off-site? Thanks.Voice-of-AllTalk 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would find it useful, if you look through my deletion log you will see a lot of privacy removals, including some just marked "User request". Prodego talk 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [13] This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[14] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On June 8, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heraldo Muñoz, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Barnstar

For your ArbCom work and ability to hold through tough situations, I award you this Barnstar of ArbCom General Ass-Kicking. Thank you for perfoming this task with the great skill you do. Yours, Snoutwood (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My great, great, pleasure. Good luck, and if I can ever help please let me know. Snoutwood (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Tony to mediation

Hi, for your information I am setting up a request for mediation with Tony on his user abuse. See User:Georgewilliamherbert/TSMed. If you have any comments or would like to join the mediation, please feel free to do so. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Topalov arbitration

I provided diffs to edit war. I have also provided links to support prior edit war and listed editors who support my side of the argument (many guys) and his side (one guy).Danny Pi 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that you had voted to reject my arbcom request pending those diffs that I have now provided. I'd appreciate if you reviewed the updated proposal. I realize you guys are really busy. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is a content issue (DanielPi wants to include the allegation, I don't), not an issue of edit warring or civility or conduct. I am fully capable of compromising, and I've never been blocked or banned. This case should be in mediation, not arbitration. Dionyseus 06:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Is there a reason the ArbCom is not touching any pages other than the proposed decision? --SPUI (T - C) 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has something to do with the fact that your case is one among many, and not near the oldest yet, and we're currently running on half staff (if that). I'm planning on getting to your case soon, however it's not a quick one, largely because I wasn't satisfied with the proposals last I looked at it (because it only mentioned one editor, incidentally). Dmcdevit·t 02:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's other stuff not on the proposals - it would be on the proposals if that page wasn't only for arbs... --SPUI (T - C) 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over the workshop and talk pages as well as evidence, and made my input to the case: votes and several new proposals. I do think my proposals are more in line with what the community is expecting. We still have to wait for several more arbitrators to look the case over. 21:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker/Leyasu arbitration

A few weeks back I suggested a lot more findings of fact for the Deathrocker/Leyasu arbitration case. It seemed that only Fred looked at those, and he didn't put any of them on the proposed decision page. Could you look those over? Leyasu was trying to use the "The ArbCom didn't find this as fact" argument with me once when I went over some things from the last case with him, and I want to make sure that the ArbCom has a formal record that certain things have happened in the Leyasu/Deathrocker dispute. I really don't think that the points on the proposed decision page right now are enough. (I may be posting some more proposed findings of fact later today.)

Also, Leyasu has been blatantly evading blocks this month through anons and sockpuppets that he has been using for edit warring. Deathrocker posted some additional evidence about that on the Evidence page, and Tony Sidaway banned Leyasu from heavy metal articles (most of Leyasu's edits have been to those articles). I've proposed some additional remedies for both Leyasu and Deathrocker as a result of that, so I'd like you to look at those too and add whichever ones you think are good to the proposed decision page.

I noticed you were voting on the proposed decisions in this case pretty fast, so I thought I'd ask you. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted three more findings of fact, in addition to the remedies I posted earlier today which I mentioned in the comment above. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that you explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced your decision to include me. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed,[15] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism,[16] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy.[17] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.

My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. —phh (t/c) 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of page move reversions related to this dispute in your move log [18]. That is no small number. This is how the move war happened; it was not just one person. Dmcdevit·t 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny that I have moved pages. I have only moved pages as a last resort after seeking resolution through the proper channels and being met with indifference, time after time after time. [19] [20] [21] If the administrators are informed of SPUI's mass page moves and decline to take action, isn't that a pretty clear indication that they don't think it's a violation of anything? And if it's not a violation for him, how could it be a violation for me?
I have spent part of nearly every day for the last four months trying to find a way to resolve this dispute harmoniously through the established procedures. I am honestly stunned at the thought that any conscientious arbitrator would even consider imposing probation on a user against whom not one single piece of evidence has been provided. —phh (t/c) 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not acceptable. You do not get a free pass to war and act disruptively. Ever. Dispute resoltion and its various processes are your first and last resorts when in conflict. I'm not interested in your flawed reasoning about why move warring is not disruptive. Warring is simply indefensible. In fact, someone who tries to convince me that their move warring was okay is much more likely in my mind to need probation since they demonstrate no liklihood of stopping otherwise, than someone who recognizes it was disruptive and regrets it. By the way, of course it was a violation for SPUI, and of course he is one of the parties proposed for probation. Dmcdevit·t 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, if your advice is to just let bullies get their way, violating policies right and left because the administrators can't be bothered to intervene, you can keep it. Either way you won't get any more move warring from me, because I will not edit Wikipedia while I am subject to an unjust probation. I've been here since 2003, I've contributed a lot to this project, and I've always been (and remain) proud of the actions I've taken to diminish conflict here rather than increase it. I see now that I needn't have bothered, because apparently I could have spent the last several months going out of my way to be disruptive and received the same punishment. You taught me that. Congratulations!
Vote however you want; I no longer care how you try to rationalize it. I'll probably leave even if I don't get unjustly punished. I'm too old to get this disillusioned. —phh (t/c) 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is my conclusion that, intentionally or not, your actions have not diminished conflict. Rather, when SPU move warred, you responded in kind instead of going to mediation or other dispute resolution. Administrators have block buttons, but that doesn't make the administrators' noticeboard dispute resolution. It's quite obvious to any outside observers that both SPUI and those edit warring with him are the ones I have proposed probation for. No one gets a free pass, certainly not your "bully," and that's not injustice. I don't deny you have made valuable contributions, that's the point of probation. It's no restriction unless you are ever disruptive, in which case administrators have the power to do something about it, but otherwise, you can edit perfectly like normal. We want to keep your valuable contributions, and this way you can continue editing unhindered; if I thought someone wasn't making valuable contributions, I would propose to ban them, not give them probation. If you really will never be disruptive again, then edit like normal for a few months and then file an appeal demonstrating good behavior and the probation will be rescinded. Dmcdevit·t 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did go to mediation and other dispute resolution. That's the point. I, and others, tried everything we could think of to resolve this dispute amicably through the proper procedures, and were met at every turn by SPUI's outright refusal to participate in discussions about the matter on the one hand, and utter indifference from the administrators ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]) on the other. All of this is demonstrated in detail here, and no one has presented any evidence to suggest that this is not the case.
So okay, we go out of our way to persuade a clearly disruptive editor to stop what he is doing and enter into a conflict resolution process with us, as we are all encouraged and even required to do. And he repeatedly refuses and continues his disruptive behavior. We make repeated appeals to AN/I to do something—anything!!—about the situation, and they repeatedly ignore us, despite the fact that this editor is already on probation. So at this point, what do we do? I ask you. What do we do? I see only two options. One is to simply walk away from the matter entirely, effectively exempting the disruptive editor from the consensus requirement that the rest of us have to abide by, and sending the message that the way you get what you want on Wikipedia is to be obnoxious, disruptive, and abusive, rather than to engage in constructive dialogue. The only other option is to revert the editor's disruptive moves after he makes them, while continuing to actively seek constructive dialogue and appeal to other parties for assistance. At this point, remember, the administrators have tacitly indicated over and over again that they consider the whole matter beneath their notice. I submit that it is wrong to sanction someone for taking an action when the people charged with interpreting and enforcing policy have demonstrated, over and over and over again, that they do not consider the action a violation of said policy.
In fact, "tacitly" understates the case significantly. On one occasion I announced well in advance that I intended to revert SPUI's moves—"if SPUI isn't blocked," I said, but in fact if even one administrator had asked me not to move the pages, I would have complied. (In fact, that's exactly what happened on a later occasion, and you will note that, against my own interests, I have kept the pledge I made that day.) But not one administrator did one damn thing. I ask you, would any rational person in this situation come to any conclusion other than that moving pages is not an actionable violation of policy? How is it just to punish someone who goes to these lengths to avoid committing a violation?
If your intention is to prevent people from being disruptive, I've presented reams of evidence demonstrating that I haven't been, so obviously you don't have to worry about it from me. But I will not edit while a scarlet letter of unjust probation is in force against me, ever. The very thought of doing so sickens me. —phh (t/c) 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Administrators are normal people with buttons. You don't encounter apathy and call it endorsement. Asking them for enforcement of policy is not dispute resolution. Two points: Given the choice between walking away from a naming dispute where no consensus exists and engaging in edit warring, I'll walk away, even if you think that the other is in the wrong, it is not a justification for likewise disruption. Unsuccessful mediation or refused mediation is also not a license to respond to disruption in kind. But, that's a false dichotomy, you did not only have those options. Before, I didn't just say you should have gone to mediation instead of warring, I said you should have gone through dispute resolution. I also clearly used the word instead; engaging in edit warring shows that even if you did try mediation, it didn't stop you from miconduct, which was the point. Please read WP:DR again if you think you exhausted all the options. There's one fairly obvious one (at least from my perspective): arbitration. When mediation has failed, rather than responding disruptively, you should have taken it to the next level and gone to arbcom. Before warring. Instead you were brought before arbcom not of your own voition for participating in an edit war. For which I have proposed probation, not as a punishment, but as a preventative measure for the community's own sake. Your failure to avail yourself of this dispute resolution mechanism before warring is exactly why I see your actions as disruptive and contributing to the conflict. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got one thing right at least: for me, the best decision is to walk away. —phh (t/c) 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Andrés Zaldívar, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On June 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrés Zaldívar, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision about Cesar Tort et al

Only one question. If the 6 April article I rewrote with Midgley [36] was a NPOV correction of the previous pov incarnation (in which Midgley, not I, removed the tag), how can this be considered "Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort [...]" in Proposed decision? [37]. —Cesar Tort 15:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A belated hello

From one Portlander to another. Do you have plans to attend OSCON next month? (Or will you even be in Oregon over the summer break?) I am in the process of organizing a BOF on Wikipedia for that, & would like to invite you to it. (And I've learned that you don't need to pay money to attend BOFs, so that shouldn't be a problem.) -- llywrch 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you're in town the first week of November: Jimbo will be here around then, & I have been planning a Portland gathering so all of us in Oregon & Washington can finally put a face & voice to the name. I'll supply details as I get them. -- llywrch 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know any reason why I won't be. :) Dmcdevit·t 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Dmcdevit, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: MeBee Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantine_Conspiracy etc.

Could you explain, I've been helping this user out with policy and such... I login and find that the article was speedy deleted and the user indef blocked? Crazynas 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This user is without a doubt a reincarnation of the banned user Melissadolbeer, a long-term disruptive editor who stalked and harassed -Ril- and Doc Glasgow, and pushed Authentic Matthew (Constantine Conspiracy) against consensus. Melissadolbeer has been creating abusive sockpuppets for this purpose, recreating the content and harassing others, for a while now. (Interesting how in that message MeBee spammed to you and elsewhere he/she continues to harass -Ril- and Doc Glasgow, even though neither of them are editing here any longer.) MeBee is blocked and if you look at my block log you'll see that I uncovered a lot of other Melissadolbeer sockpuppets along with that one using CheckUser. Dmcdevit·t 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't like to nag, but I also feel I owe it to MeBee (just in case this user really isn't who you think they are). I admit that the similar name plus blocklog plus edit history seems to make everything line up, but I like to follow things through so could you refer me to the user that crosschecked your checkuser? Thanks. Crazynas 08:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have checkuser, and ran the check myself, and, as far as I know, was the only person with checkuser who looked at it. (I'm not sure if that was what you were asking; if not please clarify.) In my mind, there was no uncertainty about this identity. The only reason I ran the checkuser was because the behavior was so exactly like Melissadolbeer that I was sure without CheckUser. When I ran the CheckUser I found many other identical sockpuppets (look through their contribs for similarities). Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that it was policy to have two users run the checkuser, but rereading the policy on meta, I see that the requirement is to have at least two user have it so they can not that they must. In any case, thanks for helping. Crazynas 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comments on sbharris case

Thanks for your comments. RFC doesn't work too well when one has been summarily blocked. I am asking for some kind of censure against Essjay (I don't really care what kind), due to his flagrant violation of WP:AGF and his bad treatment of myself and others. As for Sam's advice, I was able to find another editor Essjay had mistreated, and posted the case above. Must I now find a third and fourth? What more can I do here? Is it simply the case that admins are allowed to abuse people in any way they like, against WP:AGF, without any responsibility for their actions, whatsoever? I guess I'm learning something here. The comments I've gotten so far have been along the line of: "Well, the nightstick wounds and policedog bite have healed nicely, and obviously you're out of jail or you wouldn't be here in court complaining, so what's your problem? Go home." Steve 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my point at all. I just think you'e misunderstood Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Arbitration is a last resort What that means is that if you have a problem like this, you should still avail yourself of one of the earlier steps first, and in order for arbitration cases to be accepted, you will generally need to demonstrate that prior dispute resolution has failed. in this case, open an RFC now and see if there is consensus that the block was misconduct, and if so, if the blocking admin responds favorable to the community's comments, and then if not arbitration is a good possibility. Dmcdevit·t 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1980 plebiscite ballot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1980 plebiscite ballot.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1 is disruptive

I've just read your comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Proposed_decision#Raphael1_is_disruptive and would like to comment on that:

Another use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed.
Can you tell me about the encyclopedic value in User:Dmcdevit/Things_to_look_at? (Btw. I consider your "nuke template" not funny at all considering that Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 200.000 people.)
  • Where could I've learned, that posting ideas of a indef-banned editor is a case of disruption? Is it a case of disruption too, when I post ideas of someone who never had a Wikipedia account? Raphael1 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That ANI thread is background for why you were blocked, with three administraotrs consenting and no dissent at all. Without even looking at your deleted subage which accused edotors of persecution, I can see those diffs where you accuse others of censorship and discrimination, and are generally hostile and uncivil.
    • That user page guideline is a good one, and I notice that it uses the word "constructive" even in your quote here. Frankly, Deletion Review endorsed the deletion, so I don't have to defend it, but in the case that an unencyclopedic subpagegenerates controversy and is deemed an attack, than it is unproductive. However, in the case that it doesn't, and is merely humorous or informational (really, this is almost all user pages) it is no problem. (If you want to propose my subpage for deletion because it has a mushroom cloud, go ahead, but I don't think you'll get far. If you really are offended we can talk about this separately from the arbitration, but I don't see how the picture of an unidentified mushroom cloud because of the bombings of Japan, anymore than a picture of a bullet is offensive for 300,000 deaths at Somme and killing Kennedy.)
    • Fortunately, you don't have to be told what disruption is in order for it to be unwanted disruption. For some reason, posting the edits requested by a banned of a banned editor who was banned (as "not allowed to edit") for precisely edit warring and disruption related to that very previously rejected proposal and doing so against conensus and with popular opposition, strikes me as an obvious case of disruptive behavior. As for your second question, that's an interesting ignorantio elenchi. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact I've many times been accused of censorship myself, but no admin ever called it disruptive, hostile or uncivil. Besides I consider it unfair, that you allege I accused others of discrimination, when in fact I asked the questions "I'd like to ask you, what do you consider worse? Possibly wrong accusations or a possible discrimination of Muslims?" (btw. I never claimed, that your mushroom cloud is offensive. I merely said, that I don't consider it funny at all.)
      • First I'd like to say, that the Deletion Review has been "closed" after merely 9 hours of discussion. Secondly I truely wonder why you are opposing controversial user subpages, but agree to publish controversial cartoons in this manner. Besides, why is User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February deemed an attack, when I am only factually listing blocks? If all those blocks have been correctly applied, why is that page so incriminating?
      • Rgulerdem has been banned because he invited friends, who edited on Fethullah Gülen, and isn't it a bit far-fetched, that Rgulerdems editing style on Wikipedia:Wikiethics makes my creation of WP:OURS a case of disruption? Raphael1 10:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like you to note, that by banning me from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy you will support User:MX44 and User:Netscott, who consider it productive to avoid discussions and to display only a lunatic fringe minority "Muslim" POV on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. See [38] Raphael1 14:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The actions of others are not concerned with this case, I am in no way condoning others' incivlity by condemning yours. Indeed, I encourage you to seek dispute resolution for it.
        • I don't personally care about the cartoon or about your subpage, what I care about is that you edited, and edit warred, without consensus in one, and the community deemed the oter to be controversial and disruptive enough to delete. I am finding that this community feeling existed, regardless of my opinions.
        • Nope. I was one of the ones who met Rgulerdem, and he was banned, at least in part, for his persistent edit warring and against-consensus editing related to that proposal. Considering that it was against consensus, it's not far-fetched at all that your recreating it was disruptive.
        • I support no one in this content dispute, certainly not be curtailing what I see as your disruptive activity. Again, if you dispute their edits, use dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear on this, Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to dwell almost solely on this article and I in effect counciled User:MX44 to no longer engage Raphael1's continuing "discussion" relative to it. Netscott 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic/Archive12&oldid=1146825315"