REQUEST to Omura article Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS
I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello D. I am here because Amoruso has requested an unblock. I see you blocked for 3RR (which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes) and incivility (which you don't specify). Would you specify what incivility you spoke of? Thx. - crzcrztalk23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did see eventually find your explanation of the alleged incivility, as I took pains to record here. If you don't like his warring or his blatant POV - then start an RFC or discuss a block for ANI - but I don't think you should be co-opting 3RR, a very specific thing, to suit those purposes. Further discussion on AN3, I think. Thanks. - crzcrztalk13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion, but I am already fully aware of how little you like me. I did nothing wrong, reponding to a bona fide unblock request and properly soliciting your input. I do not edit Israel-related articles, do not have a history with Amoruso, and there's nothing improper in my actions. Yes, he is an edit warrior, but AN3 is not the forum to punish him for it unless he breaks 3RR. Please solicit consensus for such a block in the regular fashion. This is all I stand for. - čřžčřžtalk20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't characterize that as "fair criticism", however. You have essentially accused me of enabling edit warriors. And you do a history of disliking me. That was but one diff. - crzcrztalk21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DRVNote
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion on deletion review
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.119.236.93. This request, which I submitted earlier today, has been declined by Essjay with the suggestion that I might present it to "the Arbitration Committee, which has more leeway in their investigating." Since the situation doesn't involve a dispute that could be arbitrated, I don't know precisely how I would go about doing that, or even whether you would consider the suggestion well-taken. Among the arbitrators I see you most often on the RfCU page, so I'd welcome your attention to or thoughts on the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your T1 deletion of User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion
I know you are not a fan of userboxes, but may I request you reconsider the speedy deletion? What makes this userbox so obnoxious that it warrants speedy deletion rather than taking it to a MfD? CharonX/talk16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you want to take a look at it? The autoblock was caused by {{checkuserblock}} on WearCleanDrawers and I am forwarding this to you following what you have stated in the block message. --WinHunter(talk)05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's common sense. Banned users' membership in the community is officially revoked. We shouldn't count their votes just for the sake of process. Dmcdevit·t09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we go erase a record of their coments before being baned, but this vote hasn't been counted yet, so it should be removed before that happens. Dmcdevit·t09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any input on this user's unblock request? I have no familiarity with the events leading to the block, so was hoping you'd be able to shed some light on matters. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before moving to close, I think it would be good for the project if you reviewed Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. There is considerable dissent that the decision to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan is the right direction to go. I'm not asking you to change your votes on that RfAr, but rather to consider that this matter is under ongoing, rapid fire discussion. There's been nearly a hundred edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours alone, and that is just one fora where this is being debated among many. Respectfully submitted, --Durin20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say I fully support Durin. As a totally impartial outsider in all of this, I also think that the reputation and support ArbCom enjoys within the community is in danger of being damaged by the decision to desysop the MONGO and Seabhcan. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete old user page?
Hi, I was wondering if you could delete my old user page, User:Gbambino. I've opened up a new account for various reasons and would like to have the old one completely shut down. I'm only assuming you have the ability to do such a thing, but if you don't, I'd be appreciative if you could tell me who can. Cheers. --Gmbambino22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to block my 'sock' accounts as they are detected -- but only if you find my edits in some way objectionable. Today, I have made no offensive or spurious edits, and yet you continue to block me. Please, use your best judgement, instead of following dogma relentlessly!
McD: Blocked, as well as the other sock, IP hit with an anon-only/no-creation block.
Cjwright: Using socks to evade a block is a reason to block in itself; the merit of edits is irrelevant. If you disagree with this policy, you are welcome and encouraged to exercise your RightToLeave. Essjay(Talk)05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP address block
Hello. A couple days ago, I noticed that the IP address 67.153.70.18 was blocked for the following reason: "open proxy - XO Communications web hosting service". This is a static IP address pointing to a business, over a dedicated T1 line. The network border is protected by a Juniper NetScreen firewall, and I would be very surprised if such a proxy was open.
Dmcdevit-- seeing that anonymous evidence is allowed, I took the liberty of presenting some and created an account for the purpose. Since the main evidence page is semiprotected, I went ahead and added it to the talk page: [3]. Unless it is inappropriate, could you or one of the other Arbiters move it to the main evidence page for me?
p.s. I was blocked by you a moment ago, but the block seems to have been lifted. I sincerely apologize if I breached protocol in presenting the evidence in this form, that was not my intention. Rest assured, I will make no further edits in this manner. --AvoidingRetaliation18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new workshop proposals are half-measures and worse-measures. I've already commented on the idea of administrative probation more than once, and find the idea of punitive blocks of good contributors for administrative missteps to be more harmful to the community than desysopping. Furthermore, administrative sonduct is about judgment, which is less easily mandated by coercive blocks than specific behaviors like incivility and edit warring. I can come to no other conclusion, and leaving the case open is just causing more needless strife. Dmcdevit·t21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion userbox deletion
Hi. Another admin has told me that I should've talked to you before bringing that RfC thing. Feeling aggrieved, I have refused to apologize for the hasty action, but I've learned a lot in the last few days from something else and I think it's time I apologize for it. Sorry. Xiner02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not happy. I'm satisfied a good, but very tough, decision has been made, but the neither necessity nor the hardship make me happy. I apreciate honest criticism, but neither does your venom make me happy, either. Dmcdevit·t06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Gus Buster, and you blocked me from editing. I wrote the HUD USER and Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse entries, and would like to know why I am blocked. I understand that I was (and am) new to Wikipedia, and I know I made a number of changes in succession with the intention of improving upon my work. After all, the pages and my learning are works in progress. So, could you please provide further insight into the matter and possibly unblock me?
Can I get a response please? Am I truly on parole for all articles, or just the Midnight Syndicate article? And if I'm on parole for all articles, why so? Dionyseus23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are on parole for edit warring. The parole shouldn't affect you, or the others, at all. Your editing is nt restricted in any way. That is, unless you are edit warring, which is already prohibited. So I don't see the problem. Dmcdevit·t01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xuejuns looks unrelated. The rest (and some others) are all Snle, as it appears someone unblocked his IP after an unblock request, so I've reblocked it. Dmcdevit·t22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to post anonymously through a proxy. The IP was blocked with a reference to your user ID and a brief explanation about it being due to an open proxy. But the system in question is one that I administer, and the proxy is not open. Access is restricted very tightly. How can I get this problem resolved?
I need more information. Clearly this IP isn't blocked, so I need you to provide the full message you get when blocked: meaning the reason and your IP as well. Without that, I can't determins what block you are talking about. Dmcdevit·t09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube
I'm going to ask you, again, to back off on your project to remove links to Youtube. You do not have community support on this, you are treading on people's toes, and generating resentment and anger. The consensus on External Links was against you on the way you wanted to handle this, and you really should respect that. --Barberio01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done anything recently. I haven't removed any links for probably a few weeks. I've made (just a little) calm discussion, and noticed a few people in particular responding with edit warring and unremitting incivility. Frankly, I'm a bit astounded you've decided to ask me to back off of anything. Sorry, linking to possible copyright infringements is still prohibited, but, even more perplexing, I'm not even involved in any project doing anything about it recently. Dmcdevit·t09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought to my attention that you had in fact been involved in Youtube link removal in a controversial and disputed case, essentially participating in a edit war. [4] This is not the kind of behaviour I would expect from a ArbCom member, and can you please refrain from this kind of activity. --Barberio23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to believe that you are deliberately telling falsehoods, or that after all your assumptions of bad faith, I should continue to believe this is some (very far-fetched) mistake. I have done no such thing, and the edit you point to isn't even my edit, it is someone else warring to reinsert the disputed link. Dmcdevit·t01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally linked to the following diff, not yours. However, my point stands. By entering that revert, you joined in on an edit war, this was unwise. You made comments on the talk page that were uncivil and did not help resolve the issue calmly. This also contradicts your statement that you have not been actively involved in the YouTube link issue. I am simply asking you to engage with the community in consensus decision making on this issue, not immediately implement your own solutions. --Barberio02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding edit was not a revert or a link removal, as you well know. As far as I know, my only revert in that article was in November, long ago. Now, if that error was the reason for your continual posting here, please leave this talk page. I'm not active in this dispute at all. Dmcdevit·t02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edit summary: The problem is that it *doesn't* have any licensing information at all, so it would be deleted from Wikipedia.) is not unfairly construed as contributing to/taking part in edit warring (over a valid/verified link), and that it contradicts your assertion to Barberio. And your comments to User:NE2 on his talkpage appear questionable to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NE2#WP:3RR.
Cindery01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cindery and Barberio: One revert is not equal to "edit-warring". Edit-warriors get blocked. Dmcdevit, certainly did not edit-war over the page. Your frequent assumptions of bad faith are way out of line. --Nearly Headless Nick15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish I will instead call it 'a conflict between editors resulting in the article being protected'. And it's quite clear from the edit history that both of you participated in 'a conflict between editors resulting in the article being protected'. --Barberio12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for blanking my monobook. I really appreciate it. If there is ever anything that I can do for you in the future, just let me know. Cheers, -- THL09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed that I removed a link to AndriyK's case that was restored by yourself with the summary: "This is normally included, it doesn't have to have involved Piotrus". I can't understand what exactly is "normally included" and how there could be evidence on the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute which does not involve one of the parties. I find my opponent's efforts to hijack the dispute from our personal grievances to the traditional lamentations of what a rude guy Ghirlandajo is quite objectionable and I don't understand why you should encourage them. Do you think that WP:CIV is an appropriate base for resolving content disputes which have been dragging for years? --Ghirla-трёп-17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Piotrus has chosen to present that evidence, but that means that the arbitrators may or may not accept it. In reality, scope is defined by the arbitrators, not the parties, so that section should simply represent the statements of the parties, and the arbitrators can choose whether they agree or not. That's why I readded it. In addition, you probably shouldn't be removing something added by another party, since that's similar to editing their statement; it would have been more seemly to ask an arbitrator or clerk. In any case, this one link isn't going to hijack the case all by itself; it's just meant to be handy. Dmcdevit·t17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that JzG started the case as the natural continuation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Now I see that Piotrus wants to hijack the case towards Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility, something which no other commentators seem to have in mind. As a result, the RfC that gave birth to the request is lost in heaps of other superadded "evidence". The first arbitrator seems to have voted to accept one dispute; the second arbitrator is confronted with a totally different request and has to vote accordingly.
This is too bad that the nominator cannot define the scope of the dispute once and for all. I'm afraid it is a factor that discourages people from submitting their cases to arbitration. For instance, I sumbit a case about one particular article, but then appear my opponents who demand to examine my behaviour with a totally different set of editors two years ago, and ArbCom follows them, turning the case upside down. This is very strange and actually impossible in a real-life court. But then, ArbCom is not a genuine court, as you know. --Ghirla-трёп-17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that ArbCom isn't following any of the parties, but assessing the statements. Imagine a case where the worse troll is the one that initiates the case because he's convinced that he's right, even though outsiders can clearly see that a case is needed for his conduct, not others; it would be folly for ArbCom to decide it is restricted by the scope set out by any one party. This doesn't mean that it doesn't usually end up that way, I'm just saying that it might not. It's better for the prior dispute resolution section to reflect the parties' evidence (which the arbitrators may or may not accept), not one party's contention. Dmcdevit·t17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]File:DSC04820.JPGThe house of Jimbo Wales in which he will discuss with other Arbitrators the names of their new colleagues tonight :) --Ghirla-трёп-19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that, when the conflict involves two parties, both should be able to submit evidence. In my case, the request was posted by a third party, by a de-facto mediator. That's why I fail to see why either opponent should be able to modify the basis of his request, trying to veer the case left or right, as they please. This is particularly disturbing, as my time online is limited. I think I can foresee what it will lead to. --Ghirla-трёп-17:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is your dismissal of others as "Ghirlaphobes" that makes them think you are assuming bad faith and not actually looking at what the person has to say. In any case, no use wasting your breath on me. I recused for my past history witht he parties. :) Dmcdevit·t18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem discussing their problems elsewhere, rather then on the arbitration page, where I can't even answer to their accusations, some of which I hear for the first time. Can't they discuss their problems on my talk page first? Anyway, I wish you merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I can't say the same about myself, for it is the second Christmas in a row when I have wikistress as my only present. :( --Ghirla-трёп-18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; Im curious about your recent 1-year extension of a block on this user. [5] I may be missing some information on the case, but it appears that he was using the sockpuppet account User:nobs02 with permission, as noted by [6], [7] and [8]
I'm no great friend of nobs and far from being a fan of his political POV, but I'm concerned that there may have been an accidental miscarriage of justice here. KarlBunker01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Dmcdevit, but it looks like the condition Fred set on using the account was that it was limited to pages related to the dispute resolution in progress. Special:Contributions/Nobs02 shows edits to articles and other pages that were not part of the dispute resolution, which I would guess is what triggered the extension of the ban; it wasn't ban evasion as long as he was using Nobs02 as agreed, but when he went outside the agreement, it became ban evasion and reset the ban timer. That is, of course, only my speculation, and Dmcdevit may have another reason. Essjay(Talk)03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true. The account was only for his appeal and the AMA page regarding it. Instead, Nobs used it to edit articles and other unrelated pages. I have already conversed with him by email before this and he knows why he was reblocked. Dmcdevit·t06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is excessive. His infractions were pretty trivial and I don't see any indication of malicious intent. A year-long block without any warning is a heck of a lot of punishment for mere carelessness. KarlBunker13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that technically, "restarting a block" is the standard penalty for evading a block with a sockpuppet, so I'm not arguing that this punishment exceeds the letter of the law. I'm arguing that the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law. KarlBunker00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, as best as I can tell, he abided by the one-year ban for 11 months and 3 weeks, and got active in mainspace one week early, I would think an extension for (say) a month rather than a year might be more proportionate. If he resumes editing in the fashion that originally got him into this situation, he's not going to last again anyhow, and might as well get it over with. Newyorkbrad15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He had no chance, WP:SNOW. Dmcdevit made his decision based on only a few edits but Nobs was on the road to destruction anyway, focusing on a bunch of petty quarrels from the past. Fred Bauder12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to keep nagging over this issue, but I still think it's grossly unfair. Dmcdevit says nobs deserves a 1-year block because of some trivial edits he made that overstepped the range of what he was allowed to make using the nobs02 account, and Fred Bauder says this punishment was okay because he was "on the road to destruction anyway." Do you blame me for considering both of these to be poor justifications for a 1-year block? KarlBunker23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Nobs knew what he was doing. He couldn't have made those edits mistakenly, after nearly a year of being banned and especially after receiving explicit permission for a limited account, and he chose to edit anyway. Not only does it not make sense that he could have made those edits mistakenly, having had email correspondence with him, I know that he did it on purpose. The edits may have been trivial, but the behavior was not, and someone who blatantly violates policy even when given the allowance of a special account to appeal early, is not someone who will reform his unproductive ways from before, and is not someone we should waste our time worrying about when his ban is extended. Dmcdevit·t08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there. Seems this user's been hit by a checkuser block you put in place on 71.252.218.0/24. I've suggested they get in touch with you, via email, but if you'd like to have a look for yourself, feel free. Luna Santin03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Sarvabhaum? What sock? U ppl got mad because I am telling the truth. Mr.Kannambadi is abusive. When did I abuse? All my edits are supported by citations. 59.95.16.14010:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet ruling
Erroneous sockpuppet finding
There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [9]
1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.
You blocked 70.85.0.0/16 as "open proxy - web hosting company ThePlanet.com". You subsequently unblocked 70.85.4.0 which seems to have been an error (shouldn't this have been 70.85.4.0/24?). Anyway, Srainwater (talk·contribs) is requesting that the block on 70.85.4.12 be lifted. I have not yet done so, thought I'd pass it on to you as the blocking admin. --Yamla19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motion in "Giano" case
I was slightly surprised to see the motion in the "Giano" case as I'm not sure whether that would be considered an outgrowth of the prior case, as opposed to a new matter, and because procedurally Giano was given no opportunity to respond to the motion before it has already picked up three votes. (Not that his response would necessarily have been likely to change the result, but some discussion usually takes place before a motion is placed up for voting, although in this case I concede there has been plenty of related discussion elsewhere.) I also recall that you were recused in that case. I don't recall if you provided any reason for the recusal but I trust that you considered the matter and determined that those grounds were not applicable here and that you should participate in the case and offer the motion. Of course, it's probably something of a moot point if he has gone. Newyorkbrad01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was recused for my prior heated disagreements with Tony Sidaway, especially on IRC. I've had no involvement with Giano other than the odd comment. Incivility by Giano and blocks/unblocks related to it were an immediate cause of the arbitration case, and much of the evidence presented, so I wouldn't see this as a non sequitur. As with all arbitration matters, there will be appropriate leeway given for a response, and it'll still be a few days before there are the votes, anyhow. Being made up of a small group of intelligent people, ArbCom doesn't usually get caught in tangles of red tape; if someone makes a useful comment, it will be considered. This is how all motions are done. Dmcdevit·t01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano - Civility parole
Yes, probably warrented. Yes, perhaps futile. Yes, G has a smart mouth that he has shown little urge to curb. But ugh, really bad timing. I'm an eternal optimist, and I have mostly managed to get my mouth in line, and I had some hope that we were working towards an identical-but-in-name solution to civility parole on ANI. Alas one minute too late as it were.
Is there not something that we can learn from this? Some way to get something positive out of all this noise and haste?
It was bad timing, but I think it would have been bad timing at any time. I think your proposal may have been a good one, but I think one of the problems in this case is that all related blocks are destined to be controversial because of the ambiguity. This is designed to cut down that drama as well. It's not something I enjoy doing, either. :-( Dmcdevit·t02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your note that RfC must show two users/same dispute, I hope you have seen my note re both Kuntan and Daakshayni should be unblocked for the purposes of participating in dispute resolution in Nick RfC. I think the case is slightly confusing, because it pertains to two/three different blocks, hence there are different parties for each block (and now AfD has been added as well.) But there is clear evidence (including his own admission) that he has misused the blocking policy, which is the issue. I would also like to start user conduct RfC re Nick and You Tube deletions, but I do not think that is an abuse of admin powers RfC, hence necessity of two separate RfCs--there is no problem with two at once, with one a) just user conduct and the second b) admin powers, right?
All best,
Cindery19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Kuntan is very banned, and I've wasted enough of my life chasing around his disgusting sockpuppets for the purpose harassment, stalking, and personal attacks. He is nothing more than a troll ans, at this point, a vandal. I have absolutely no idea why you would want him unblocked, or why you are interested in the issue at all, other than to continue your campaign of harassment of Sir Nick. Dmcdevit·t20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I know of User:Kuntan and User:Kuntan after Sundownis the edit histories/talkpages of both, in which I do not see 1) any evidence of what you claim 2) any warnings of anything. It looks like he was blocked for username, when he did not have an inappropriate username, and then reblocked without a hearing of any kind. There is precedent for allowing blocked users to participate in dispute resolution, and Kuntan/Kundan after Sundown should have that opportunity (especially as he was never allowed a hearing of any kind/his block was not processed through any channels). I'm sorry that you are upset, and think I am "harassing Nick"--I am concerned with filing the RfC not so much for a single user--Kuntan--as for the people who have been alienated from editing Wikipedia by witnessing the unjust block: the net loss of thing like this is not the single editor who is ganged up on, but also the loss of other editors, who see what happens and just decide Wikipedia is unworthwhile due to "politics." (On my talkpage, I openly invited "Simbirskin" to email me; he did not. What I received was a number of emails from editors telling me the whole thing turned them off from Wikipedia.) Perhaps if you are upset enough to use put-down words like "digusting" with reference to any editor--let alone a blocked editor who cannot speak for himself--you should recuse yourself from making this decision, or any other admin decisions regarding this RfC?
I'm not talking about an editor, I'm talking about a banned troll who is here, and keeps coming back, solely to harass and disrupt. Perhaps you should go and look through the contributions of his sockpuppets as well? He doesn't deserve the time of day, and it's not about me being "upset". Dmcdevit·t22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that he was blocked through a process/transparent channel. In general, I agree with WP:NPA that "troll" is a PA. And...Kuntan was not banned--he was blocked. Do you have diffs to support that he was "disruptive" or "harassed" anybody?--I have not seen any. And in any case, even users who were banned, have been allowed to participate in dispute resolution. Kuntan was not banned; he was indef blocked. Again, I would ask that you recuse yourself (and also look at the RfC--SA Jordan has now certified it).
Thanks,
Cindery22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: you didn't answer my question re filing two separate RfCs (since one is admin powers, the other just user conduct). The RfC issues are complicated re the RfC two users/same dispute rules, but the sum total can presumably can comprise one Arbcom case. But, I don't want to file two RfCs at once if that is prohibited, and cannot find answer about that anywhere--should I ask someone else?
Thanks,
Cindery22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit, an unregistered user has contacted Unblock-en-l because this block your block on 71.194.0.0/16 affecting him/her. Is there any chance of this block being lifted? The user's e-mail name is alpay.ulku and it is a gmail account (gmail.com) Obviously I wrote the email like that to prevent spam ;-) Thanks, Prodegotalk17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that User:Morning star has posted an unblock request on his talk page for an IP that you checkuser blocked, 208.54.95.1. Looks like collateral damage, since he's a longstanding good user, but I thought I'd check before unblocking. --Delirium09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morning star's unblock request is based on a block which you put directly on his IP address - see here. Looking at the block log for this IP address, I discovered that it was blocked due to Cplot's use of this IP address. Due to the record of Cplot, it would seem to me that IP blocking does very little good, and that each time he uses a completely new username - so that there seems to be no point in blocking his IP's to already existing users. Eli Falk13:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collateral damage of checkuser range block
Hi, re. this range block of yours:
08:56, 23 December 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.30.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month ({checkuserblock})
This is currently creating collateral damage on Sadler@d50.org (talk·contribs) (who is getting rather impatient because admins were unable to diagnose his problem for a couple of days). From the context of your blocking log, I take it this was in the context of the "Cplot" case. Is there anything that can be done about it? Thanks, Fut.Perf.☼19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Seeing you are on vacations, I took it to Mackensen, who told me I could lift the block. I've turned it into a soft block again for the time being. Fut.Perf.☼23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmc -- was hit by an IP block of yours (see above.) The IP was for a very popular café in Wicker Park full of potential wikipedia contributors, and I could not see anything in the user contributions for the IP that called for a six month block? Do please get back to me -- unless I'm missing something I think it might have been a mistake to impose such a harsh block. Sdedeo (tips) 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit - in accordance with your findings (which are not yet 100%, I realize) and the pattern of his behavior, I've blocked Siddiqui for disruption for a duration of 1 week. Do you approve of this decision? Rama's arrow19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine, though if you're unsure you might want to ask on ANI. I did the technical investigation, but I'm sure I don't know as much about the circumstances behind the sockpuppetry as you. Dmcdevit·t01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this user got up to speed very quickly with the moves on 2002 Gujarat violence and is editing from the non-Hindu side of the POV spectrum, I think that it might be the banned BhaiSaab or TerryJ-Ho, who used to be very active there. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My head is full, can you help? Were Tiger, Ragnarok and Ocelot are all the same user, and given that Revolver is nominally the original account, would Tiger count as a sock of Ragnarok (and thus be worthy of a check-user request) or would Tiger only be counted as a sock of Revolver, and thus not worthy of a check-user, given that Revolver hasn't been active for a while. Regards, Ben Aveling08:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Im sorry. The recent one was against an anon who was... you know. Now that I've seen your warning, I won't revert ever again there. In fact, taking a break. Btw, Terry Pratchett is a favourite writer of mine too ;) I have his autograph on one of the books too. Amoruso17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the round of warnings. I see now that they were clearly the appropriate admin response.
I have another question. In the course of the last day user:Amoruso has accused me of bad faith here [10] and bad faith on my talk page [11] and accused me of slander [12] here. Should I just forget this stuff and work on the page, or ask him to watch the accusations, or go to someone/somewhere else and ask for assistance?
I didn't accuse you of slander (are you suggesting that you're a sockpuppet of Mackan79 because I was replying to him...), I explained that if someone is calling Regev the names he would it can be construed as possible slander against him. I didn't accuse you of bad faith, but clearly from what I wrote no good faith was used by you in the report - obviously the fact you've also been warned proves that. So there was nothing wrong with that, you should quit this attitude IMO. Cheers, Amoruso17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I think I posted something conciliatory, but asked him to be careful about strong words [13]. I'm thinking that that should be ok. Jd271817:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, please remember that "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions." though. No matter how much you disagree with a person't POV, even if they are are being disruptive, there is no reason to assume it is in bad faith. Or not in good faith, which seems to me to be the same thing. "You seem not to have acted in good faith" does seem like an inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Please be more careful in the future. Dmcdevit·t17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit,
when you posted this [16] on the 3RR page I understood it full well, and waited for the warning, and understood the consequences attached to the warning.
It appears that user:Mackan79 had not been to the 3RR page when he reverted Bernadotte, and could not have known that the rather generic warning came with a block for the next person who reverted, whether or not it was a 3RR violation. The user has been engaging productively on the talk page, really needs to be part of the solution. In any event, 72hrs seems harsh, given that he didn't know what he had walked into. Jd271820:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jd2718. Mackan79 was not given fair warning about the block and any reverts he made afterwards should really not be taken in consideration as he was not aware. Also, he was not the only person involved, yet, he received the stiffest penalty. Is there anyway that the block time can be reduced considering that everyone else was only warned. MetsFan7620:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackan was given fair warning by Dmcdevit on the 3RR page, as was everyone else, and Mackan did see the warning, because he responded to it. [17] He had already reverted the article again, but he could have reverted himself and avoided a block. He chose not to. SlimVirgin(talk)21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin...he did not see the 3RR page until he got back on WP some time afterwards. This is incredibly unreasonable and the fact that you were just as wrong makes this even worse. MetsFan7622:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and was blocked three minutes after. Look, I am not going to argue the block was unfair, but he seems willing to come back to the discussion on the talk page, and talk without reverting. I think it's possible to make progress by talking. But it's a problem that a primary editor is missing. Would you be willing to appeal to Dmcdevit for a reduction of Mackan's block to 24 or 36hr, so that we could resume discussion with him included?
(I apologize for the cross-discussion here, I was having trouble following the back and there and forth on xle user talk pages) Jd271822:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My block was based on the fact that surely a prior block for warring on the same page and page protection ought to have been warning enough, but even after the most recent warning he could not stop himself. Why am I to believe that if I reduce the block he won't immediately revert again? Dmcdevit·t22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would not expect you to. I asked one of the editors he was reverting to appeal for a reduction. If she does appeal, that would be different, and I would hope you would recognize an eagerness amongst all who you warned to get back to discussion. I don't know if she will, though. Jd271822:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, JD, I wouldn't be prepared to appeal. Mackan79 has been reverting almost continuously on a number of articles since he arrived at Wikipedia, and it has been very disruptive. Today, several of us at that article reverted too often and we were warned to stop, and rightly so. Mackan saw the warning in time to revert himself, but chose instead to spend that time objecting on the 3RR page to Dmcdevit's warning. When a member of the ArbCom issues a warning about reverting, it's best to take it very seriously. SlimVirgin(talk)23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's already been cut slack regarding edit warring, back around Christmas. For some reason I was feeling charitable and unblocked him on the condition he stop edit warring. We had a long discussion. He was amply informed of the ramifications of edit warring. So, "not aware"? I don't think so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the misimpression that having seen something happen elsewhere, that proves your point, when in reality you have provided no evidence for the argument being correct, just that others (rightly or wrongly) have done the opposite of me before. How does my pointing out your logical fallacy prove your point? Dmcdevit·t02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dcv -- I just have to ask in retrospect: can you explain the hostility during this whole incident? I can only blame you so much after Jp got involved, telling you I had some sort of long history of warring on the page (Jp and I have emailed about it, and I think reached an understanding). Simply for the record, the one time I was ever blocked on that page -- the only other time I've been blocked on WP -- was an incident where SlimVirgin showed up to escalate a dispute, never having edited on the page before, and reverting my complex edits 3 times over less than 30 minutes against me and other users [18], [19], [20], [21]. About 16 hours later when I made an uncontroversial change (which has remained in effect ever since), she was then able to report me and get me blocked for 3RR. Congratulations to her, so there you have my history of edit warring on the Folke Bernadotte page.
In any case, I simply have a very hard time understanding your decision, when I clearly didn't understand your warning. For one thing, when you tell me to stop "aggressively" edit warring on the page, does this really clue me in to your purpose? I misspoke earlier, but when I received that "warning," I'd reverted the page a total of twice over about the last 11 days. Can you not see why I'd disregard that kind of random message under these circumstances? You must be aware that people leave these kinds of messages all the time simply as a means of undermining that user.
In the end, I have to think you simply didn't look very closely at the situation, considering your warning that you were simply going to block the next person who reverted on the page no matter who they were. I'd only ask in the future that you consider whether this is really a great idea. For one thing, this just wasted a heck of a lot of my time dealing with this problem. For another, this has now branded me as a revert warrior on the page, which others will use against me ("Who are you to tell me not to edit war, when you were just blocked for 72 hours!" [22]). For a third, the fact is that the report was filed agaisnt Amoruso because he's unilaterally been trying to insert material onto that page for months[23], against a series of a great number of editors. Along the way, I'd been going through an extraordinary effort to respond to every single one of his comments and explain why I and others kept reverting his insertions. But then, in you come, and suddenly under authority I've never even heard of being exercized on WP, I'm blocked for 72 hours for editing the page after a 34 hour break, with explanations in talk.
I know there's a standard line around here that what other people are doing doesn't matter, but I think you should understand that to many people, fairness does matter, and quite a lot. Blocking a person unfairly is going to give that person an extreme distaste for editing on WP. It's not going to cool that individual down. It might make them more careful in the future, but I don't know any other way of saying it than that it's a really shitty way of doing it, completely entrenching the us vs. them environment. I think many here really fail to understand how difficult it truly is to edit on these contentious articles, constantly facing people who quarrel and revert with no explanation. I'm pretty sure this environment doesn't come naturally to most people.
Just to be clear, I don't say any of this as an attack on you, but simply to say I disagreed with your decision, and I hope it's something you at least consider in the future. Essentially, if you're going to block somebody for 72 hours, I think you should pay a little closer attention to the situation, and be willing to listen, not simply judge, if there are extenuating circumstances, even if you ultimately have to say "sorry, but this is policy." If you're willing, I'd actually appreciate your non-condemnatory thoughts. Best, Mackan7923:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider my block an act of hostility, just an attempt at stopping the edit war. I'm not very concerned at all about your prior block, or others' behavior that you think was worse, as it's a red herring. What I am concerned about is coments like "You must be aware that people leave these kinds of messages all the time simply as a means of undermining that user." (Aside from the fact that that is an appeal for free reign to ignore any and all notices from people, admins included, you haven't heard of. You don't get to just ignore reasonable people out of hand like that; at the very least, it's insulting to me.) You are avoiding the simple fact that there was an edit war of which you were aware; and not only you aware of it, but an outsider (whether it's an admin warning or not had already notified you of the dit war and asked you not to revert. And so you did then revert, continuing the edit war. You weren't blocked for defying an admin or a warning, but for basic poor behavior, which would have been poor behavior absent the warning as well. That's it. If you'd like to discuss whether your behavior was actually poor or not, please do so, instead of arguments like claiming I didn't look closely enough, or warn properly. Dmcdevit·t09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the response. I don't think your block was an act of hostility either, but more simply that you treated me harsher than was necessary. I accept you had reasons for doing this, but what I can I say, I also do think it was unfair :P
Mostly, I think we've misunderstood each other. Regarding your warning, I know I should have taken it seriously, and I'll make sure to do so. Still, I think you should know why I didn't, which is basically twofold: 1. The warning accused me of aggressively edit warring, which I hadn't been (and which my next edit wasn't either). 2. I know people often leave messages on people's pages to make them look bad. Now of course I know that's not what you were doing. But when I get this message, is it completely nuts that's what I thought? This sort of gets to my basic point: I've been editing contentious articles for 2 months. I still understand very little about WP. Now I know better, but I can't tell you it was belligerence. I mistook the warning as an attack, so I disregarded it. I apologize, but that's kind of how communication on the internet sometimes goes.
So no, I didn't think I could simply ignore any warning. OTOH, maybe if I saw it as an attack, I thought I could. Or, maybe I did think I could ignore warnings altogether. In that regard, I have to ask: Is there a policy that you have to take all warnings seriously? If not, many won't understand this. They'll say "Who the hell are you? I'm already following the rules." I don't mean to insult you, but I think you should understand people tend to respond better to friendly advice than stern warnings from people they don't know, even if it's clear to you they've been doing something wrong. I hope you won't mind my suggesting this. More importantly, my understanding would have been that a warning is important before blocking for rule violations, but not that warnings provide grounds to block somebody even when it's not at all clear that they actually violated any rule. (I didn't think I could ignore all warnings, but I can't say I understood the consequence of warnings either).
As far as edit warring, it kind of goes back to the same thing. I now recognize, I guess, that my edits qualified as edit warring. At the same time, this wasn't my understanding. In total, I reverted 3 times over 11 days, with others, against an extremely persistent revert warrior. I posted 7 comments over that period. Others reverted several times more. Certain people jumped in for the sole purpose of quarreling with me,[24] though I still waited to let others revert rather than myself. Despite this circus, I reverted 3 times over some 11 days. I guess now this is "edit warring," simply because the whole thing ended up as an edit war, and I reverted in it. It was not my understanding, however, that this was prohibited -- partially because it goes on all over the place by very long-established users. And that is relevant, because for relatively new users, of course, the actions of others is how one tries to determine what the rules are.
The thing is, the WP ethos isn't clear. When I first arrived, I thought I understood it, because I wasn't editing contentious articles. Then when I did, I found a very different environment. This throws a person for a loop. I understand admins have a delicate job, and I don't envy it; I'm simply saying you might remember people often screw up simply because they didn't know better, even if it really seems they should have. Such a person can't then admit that they did something wrong, when they didn't know. Then blocking that person (for an extended period) is really going to T them off, especially if other long-time users are doing worse. It makes WP seem like an unfair and arbitrary environment.
In the end, this is probably a bad time to suggest this to you, since it looks like I'm making excuses. I suppose I simply think we both could have handled this more effectively, so it's hard for me to totally separate one from the other. Take that for whatever it's worth, I just wanted to throw it out there. Hopefully you've at least seen I wasn't being that unruly, whether I give good advice or not... Best, Mackan7920:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you blocked user:Szhaider for another two weeks and I'm confused about the reason. His talk page says something about the Talk:Taxila page. Since I am the person he traded comments with on that page, I'd like to say that I certainly didn't think what he said there was either particularly anti-Hindu or particularly uncivil to me. So, I don't understand the block. Two weeks seems a little over the top to me, but maybe I don't understand the real reason. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please also see my two posts on an earlier blocking admin's Talk page, especially the second post, which lays out some of the dynamics I have observed. Please also see Nichalp's reply on my talk page. I think admin Rama's Arrow seems to be a little trigger happy, but I could be wrong. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that CIA conspiracy sockpuppet guy
Hey, I'm not sure if you have any more sockpuppets from that Cplot guy coming from the IP you helpfully unblocked for me, but I am absolutely convinced I saw him at the café last night. He was working on wikipedia and looked the type to a t. He is very large and wears multiple sweaters. I didn't linger by his table because I figured if there was a wikipedia "wanted" poster for him it would say "do not approach the suspect, call an admin immediately." Thought it might inject some humor into your day. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit - could you please verify if this anon IP matches with Szhaider? I think he is evading his block by using this ip - this anon's contributions bear an uncanny resemblance to Szhaider's. Rama's arrow03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reconsider Essjay's findings regarding Rumpelstiltskin223(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar? Essjay reported unlikely, but the contribs and POV seem to be the same, Rumpelstiltskin223 is a physics PhD student, and has already accumulated a number of hindu-related blocks. I was thinking that possibly Rumpelstiltskin223's recent contribs (when Essjay checked) were from wherever he might have edited over winter break, and maybe now he is back at UTexas. Even if it is technically "unlikely", you might be able to recognize him since you were involved originally. (I recall claims of proxying, shared computer use, and apparent meat puppetry making it look like Hk and one of his socks were posting from two different locations, so maybe he can evade checkuser.) Thanks. Thatcher13116:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your full block on this IP is getting some collateral damage, including at the least Morning star. It's widely shared, so he's probably not the one getting issues. I'll reduce it to a soft block unless you have an objection, since it's probably used by many more users than the one targeted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's likely to be one of cplot's edit portals (Wi-Fi hotspots in Chicago Starbucks', or some such was the claim). An IP that can be addressed anonymously by any schmuck with a laptop at any one of over 9000 wireless hotspots is the functional equivalent of an anonymous open proxy. Just my opinion, of course. Thatcher13117:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And in the last 2 weeks three {{checkuserblock}} blocks on this one IP by Checkusers have been overturned by other admins without asking the checkusers first. And the abuse has started up again immediately. I'm beginning to wonder why I should bother. A soft-block is meaningless since it's a hotspot, so at the very least the offender has their home IP to create accounts with. Dmcdevit·t22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you used {checkuserblock} in the block log but didn't apply the template to the talk page. That might account for some of it. I also asked Mackensen since I saw he was online, and he was willing to live with a soft block (account creation disabled). If cplot is creating accounts at an unblocked address and then spamming from WiFi hot spots, can't you block his home range? Can registered users on the hotspots use the secure server? I suppose we could put up a very specific block message on the talk page saying yes, we know we're blocking all of Tmobile's hotspots, but that's too bad because they act as open proxies and are being used by a specific vandal. I'll do it if you want, or I can watch it if you want to reblock it. Thatcher13123:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87.117.229.20
This user was blocked as being an open proxy. There is now an unblock request on his talk-page claiming the address is just a businesses IP. Figured I'd let you know. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an open proxy per se; it's a hosting company, which can be used for cheap and anonymous IP switching, so it was range-blocked when it was used for abuse. As it isn't anyone's residential IP, I'm not really inclined to unblock it, unless the user has a good reason. Dmcdevit·t23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot block
I just did something you specifically said not to do. I softened a Cplot block. Your block of 208.54.95.129 was causing problems for AaronSw (talk·contribs). I did this because the user is one of the top 1500 Wikipedia editors, has a link to his homepage, has been around since 2003, etc. etc. Please understand that I acted in good faith here and I encourage you to reblock if you think it appropriate. I truly believe the unblock was the right approach with a user who has so much history on the Wikipedia. --Yamla23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate the assistance of someone in Oversight to check who deleted a talkpage and cleared its history.
The article Anal stretching was deleted and SALTed some time ago, and I was told by a handful of admins and users that I was free to recreate the article on a talk page, and then show it to an admin who would consider unSALTing the article.
So I recently spent several hours rewriting the article from scratch at the Anal stretchingtalk page, only to find that about 2 days ago, all my work was deleted and the history of the talk page is missing.
I am currently in a long-running feud with the user Guy about the article, and can only suspect it was him. So I asked him on his Talk page and he has not been very forthcoming.
As you are a member of Oversight, I request your assistance with the following:
Retrieve the logs/history/revisions of the Anal stretchingtalk page -- at first for your own purposes and later for mine.
Tell me who deleted all my hard work
Tell me who 'hid' the history
If possible, please 'unhide' the history, or if that is not possible, paste my work as a user subpage.
You may disregard the above message, I managed to be resourceful enough to find the deletion logs and I have put in a request to restore the deleted text. Thank-you Rfwoolf16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser block unblock request
Coinopkid (talk·contribs) has requested an unblock, but his page contains a checkuser block notice placed by you. Per recent discussion of procedure, I am referring the unblock request to you; please unblock or decline. Newyorkbrad01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Away" - ArbCom
I noticed on the ArbCom page your statement that you are going to be away. If you haven't already, please let the Clerks know whether your inactivity is going to last long enough that you should be taken off the active list in the open cases (in which you haven't voted) and the majority recalculated. Thanks, Newyorkbrad04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I replied to your oppose vote on my RfB. Failing to mention consensus is an oversight on my part, but I do realise how important it is. Thanks for taking the time to vote, anyway. --Deskana(request backup)12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67.155.187.98-102 / 67.155.187.106-110 -- XO Communications
Hi. We've gotten mail asserting that these IP ranges were blocked by you as open proxies, but actually aren't. I cannot find this in the block log. Would you mind taking a look? Jkelly21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't open proxies, precisely, but it is a hosting company, which is functionally the same. We commonly block hosting companies that are used as abuse, since customers anywhere can use them to cheaply switch their IPs anonymously for abuse. This one had been used by a recurring vandal/banned user. Dmcdevit·t01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep it in place at the moment as it's a hotspot used for anonymous IP switching. CarolinianJeff ought to have a regular internet connection he can return to. Dmcdevit·t01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... Are you active again for purposes of calculating the majority on ArbCom cases? Also, you'll want to update the message atop this page. Newyorkbrad14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an attempt by two political editors to remove entire sections from this article without comment.[26][27][28]
The edit war is accompanied by various offensive accusations against me and another editor: Nazi, anti-Iranian, insane, promoters of genocide, separatist, racist, Baathist, Saddam supporter, propagandist: [29][30][31] If there is to be any solutions to the editorial disputes on this article and other articles related to Al-Ahwaz (Khuzestan), there need to be great admin attention. I have filed a request for comment, but I can see from previous requests that little is done.[32] I have also agreed to mediation [33], but this offer was turned down by another editor in dispute.[34]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
165.228.131.12
I noticed you unblocked this IP with the comment "full block" and then reblocked it. Just to further my own learning, could you tell me what I did wrong/missed when I indef blocked the IP?--Isotope23 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks!--Isotope2301:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think (off the top of my head; I could go back and check specifically if this isn't right) it was an open proxy that you had indef-blocked anon-only, however I likely came across it through checkuser being used for abuse by accounts not affected by the anon-only block, so I made a it a general block, not just anon-only. Dmcdevit·t03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha... thanks. Yeah, I just blocked it for the IP. Is it general practice to fully block an open proxy so that even accounts accessed through it get blocked? When I've found Open Proxies I've just been anon blocking them.--Isotope2313:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the couple of recent incidents regarding checkuser blocks and the now-expanded {{checkuserblock}} instructions, this one seems to be one that you'll need to deal with. I suspect it's a rangeblock, per my reasoning on Aepryus's talk. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't have the same data as Jay back in March; I would have had to give an "inconclusive" for the use of anonymous proxies in a check on Chai Walla, but the block still looks good. I'm a step ahead of you on 999. I already noted he is from Austin yesterday, [35], and it looks like Blnguyen already blocked him. (Also, A Ramachandran hasn't ever used 24.27.12.229 as far back as checkuser goes; he was on the exact same IP as the others.) Dmcdevit·t18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chai Walla e-mailed me and gave me an IP address he said was his; 216.39.162.241 (talk+·tag·contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·proxy check·block user·block log·cross-wiki contribs·CheckUser (log)), the same one he was using here. Does that track with his current info? It has no RDNS entry but the next hop back is in Seattle. Curiously, Frater Xyzzy just emailed Salix and claimed to have recently moved to Seattle. Something extremely peculiar is going on here. Maybe you can make sense of it (see BI's evidence page and my workshop comments in the Starwood case). You might also want to give a ring to Salix alba (talk), who is busily assuming good faith all over the evidence and workshop page. Thatcher13119:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try A Ramachandran/24.27.14.192. He's emailed me to say thats the IP he uses 99% of the time and strongly denies that it could also be Hanuman Das's IP.
24.27.14.192 is also the address he emailed to me. The point of that is that if you run a traceroute on either 24.27.14.192 (Ramachandran) or 66.68.124.168 (Hanuman), the route is the same:
traceroute to 66.68.124.168 (66.68.124.168), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 clem.telcom.Arizona.EDU (128.196.128.1) 0.594 ms 0.539 ms 0.464 ms
2 woody.telcom.arizona.edu (172.17.2.17) 0.239 ms 0.352 ms 0.323 ms
3 tuco.Telcom.Arizona.EDU (128.196.24.167) 0.731 ms 0.566 ms 0.613 ms
4 westgate.telcom.Arizona.EDU (192.80.43.58) 0.720 ms 0.603 ms 0.601 ms
5 64.200.40.197 (64.200.40.197) 17.082 ms 17.298 ms 16.935 ms
6 64.200.232.45 (64.200.232.45) 17.100 ms 17.215 ms 17.230 ms
7 64.200.249.130 (64.200.249.130) 17.480 ms 17.348 ms 17.356 ms
8 te-4-2.car2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.110.13) 17.488 ms 17.466 ms 17.482 ms
9 ae-21-52.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.45) 17.607 ms ae-11-55.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.141) 17.720 ms ae-21-56.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.173) 17.724 ms
10 ROADRUNNER.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.79.180.82) 22.717 ms 4.71.12.18 (4.71.12.18) 28.464 ms 4.79.180.66 (4.79.180.66) 22.585 ms
11 72.179.205.22 (72.179.205.22) 26.094 ms 25.844 ms 25.848 ms
12 gig2-0-0.austtxrdcsc-rtr1.austin.rr.com (24.93.33.133) 26.228 ms 26.093 ms 25.843 ms
13 24.27.12.229 (24.27.12.229) 28.101 ms 27.788 ms 27.977 ms
traceroute to 24.27.14.192 (24.27.14.192), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 clem.telcom.Arizona.EDU (128.196.128.1) 0.649 ms 0.623 ms 0.696 ms
2 woody.telcom.arizona.edu (172.17.2.17) 0.330 ms 0.310 ms 0.314 ms
3 AngelEyes.Telcom.Arizona.EDU (128.196.24.168) 0.754 ms 0.654 ms 0.671 ms
4 morgan.telcom.Arizona.EDU (192.80.43.69) 0.950 ms 1.032 ms 0.776 ms
5 tuco.telcom.Arizona.EDU (192.80.43.66) 1.134 ms 0.823 ms 0.794 ms
6 westgate.telcom.Arizona.EDU (192.80.43.58) 0.763 ms 0.816 ms 0.764 ms
7 64.200.40.197 (64.200.40.197) 17.341 ms 17.164 ms 17.178 ms
8 64.200.232.45 (64.200.232.45) 17.428 ms 17.213 ms 17.324 ms
9 64.200.249.130 (64.200.249.130) 17.481 ms 17.477 ms 17.561 ms
10 te-4-2.car2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.110.13) 17.704 ms 17.842 ms 17.562 ms
11 ae-21-52.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.45) 17.687 ms ae-21-56.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.173) 17.835 ms ae-11-55.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.122.141) 17.851 ms
12 4.79.180.66 (4.79.180.66) 22.462 ms ROADRUNNER.car1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.79.180.82) 40.472 ms 4.71.12.18 (4.71.12.18) 22.728 ms
13 72.179.205.22 (72.179.205.22) 26.367 ms 26.084 ms 26.054 ms
14 gig2-0-0.austtxrdcsc-rtr1.austin.rr.com (24.93.33.133) 26.054 ms 25.946 ms 26.102 ms
15 24.27.12.229 (24.27.12.229) 27.721 ms 27.960 ms 27.724 ms
Now, unless I am a total idiot, this shows that Hanuman's old IP and Ramachandran's claimed IP are on the same branch of the Roadrunner network in Austin, Texas (the location of 24.27.12.229). I don't see any reasonable objection to the conclusion that Hanuman and Ramachandran are the same person, and therefore so is Ekajati. 999 is apparently also in Austin, Texas. As far as Ekajati and Ramachandran being married, or being friends with 999, was that ever disclosed before the checkuser results were made public? Like when they were first accused of being sock puppets? Or did they just shout "how dare you" a lot? And it's a complete coincidence that Ekajati's account was created 4 hours after Hanuman was blocked in April? I assume good faith until the evidence and my common sense tells me otherwise.
I am completely convinced that Frater and Jefferson Anderson are sockpuppets, but I was not sure about their relationship to the Hanuman sock drawer. It is very odd, however, that both Frater and Chai Walla (a Hanuman sock or meat puppet from March, who has just become active again coincidentally with Ekajati's block) will now claim to be living in Seattle. Thatcher13120:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re - ip attacker
Hi - this is a message dropped on my talkpage regarding an indef-blocked user potentially misuing several ips. Please have a look - I don't know what exactly to do in this case:
Hi. regarding your block of this ip [36], he appears to have resurrected from another ip from the same domain and is attacking my user page [37].
Uhggggh. I lost sight of those two a bit. Yes, I guess the "parole" is supposed to be still in place - and E is actually still quoting it in his edit summaries. It did seem to be working, for a while. Fut.Perf.☼05:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I've downgraded it to anon-only. I'm not clear which IPs on the ISP are hosted, and which are local internet access. If these users are using anonymous proxies, they really shouldn't be, since we have a persistent banned user using the web hosting to evade blocks. Dmcdevit·t22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked the range 66.219.32.0/19 on January 25 with the note "Core NAP hosting company - open proxy". We got a phone call from Core NAP that they got complaints from some of their customers that they're suddenly blocked... I've unblocked the range for now since it seems a bit overzealous; if there is an open proxy in there they'd like to have some more exact information so they can get it taken care of. Please let me know and I'll pass it on to them. --brion19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearUmpf. Banned user bites back
Have you seen this reply by NuclearUmpf to your 3 month ban of NuclearUmpf from the Iraq War page:
Also, NuclearUmpf edited twice on the Iraq War page since the ban. He was warned in the article talk page and in my edit summary after the first time he edited. His edit summary from the second edit shows he knows and doesn't care:
Blocked for 24 hours. An unfortunate situation. I believe Nuclear has made some attempts at improving his editing behavior, and I feel that he has been subject to baiting by other editors, and a tendency of editors with whom he is in dispute to run to AN/I or WP:AE rather than engage in good faith discussion. That does not excuse edit warring, and certainly not deliberately flaunting a ban imposed under his arbitration. Thatcher13119:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dmcdevit
Thanks for your warning, but I had only reverted that article 3 times in 3 days, only to put back a POV tag that had been removed, inappropriately I must add. --Mardavich06:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked him because it seemed apparent that you were not returning anytime soon, and because it was clear he did not revert after your warning. -- tariqabjotu16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit, just to be fair in the case of E104421, he is right when he says that those articles you listed were not part of the "parole" package, and it was stated quite explicitly back at the time that the parole should only be valid for a narrowly circumscribed set of articles. Seeing this as just a general "don't-editwar-and-3RR-isn't-an-entitlement" type of block, I find a week a bit excessive. I don't see he came anywhere near 3RR actually, and Khoikhoi, who made the complaint, was in fact "editwarring" every bit as much as him.
Hrm? Golden Horde is quite clearly the second item listed at User_talk:E104421#Revert_parole, as I told him in reply to his email. The other articles were closely related and made the offense even worse. I don't find the block excessive at all after such a long history of edit warring and ignoring warnings and good advice. He's on his last legs, if you ask me. Dmcdevit·t16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. Also, very long talk page, slow loading = Dmcdevit should sign up for EssjayBot III. ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Likely, same geographic location and same ISP as BhaiSaab. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
