User talk:Dominic/Archive21

User Category DRVs

Dmcdevit, I appreciate your concerns regarding my close of this DRV. Let me first address your comments regarding my potential conflict of interest in the matter. While I have certainly had user categories on my page that have been deleted, these were not the categories which I closed the DRV to undelete. Frankly, it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic. Yes, if I'd have closed a "users who support the ACLU" discussion, that might have been improper--but I didn't. I must also contradict your assertion that I closed either DRV against consensus. I read and re-read the comments multiple times. In both cases, I felt the weight of the arguments (and the !vote count) was for undeltetion. Yes, there are some times when policy is strong enough to contravene firm consensus, but these cases are usually given criteria for speedy deletion (i.e. recent changes to BLP policy and policy on non-free content). Closes against 2:1 and 3:1 majorities were not warranted here (these are radical usurpations, not just a few votes one way or the other), and the DRV discussions agreed with this point. Although I agree with your general argument about discussing and weighing the quality of the arguments, voting is not always bad. Going against consensus because you don't like the outcome is bad. Best, IronGargoyle 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You say "it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic," and yes I agree with you; that was my point. I didn't participate in either the DRV or the UCFD, but would not have dreamed of closing it. What we should have had was someone who neither recently deleted such categories, nor recently had such categories deleted from his userpage, close it. In any case, you don't seem to understand that votes aren't consensus; you can point to some nonsense essay that says otherwise, but if you are the administrator closing a discussion, that seems rather inappropriate. And I'm a bit taken aback that you cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when you (should) know that that essay is for people who make simple votes based on personal likes and dislikes of the subject, and not the merit of the article within an encyclopedia: the original closer gave a detailed rationale, and I don't understand why you are so dismissive. And your view of CSD is wrong, WT:CSD says "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus." I think it is quite normal for administrators to have discretion in these matters, when it is clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Let me ask you a question though. You say you felt the weight of the arguments was in favor of the undeletion; I'd like to know what specific arguments, other than the vote count, that you are talking about, because I'm not seeing it. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You did participate in the DRV even if you didn't !vote in it, but that's beside the point. I think you misunderstand some of the points that I make. I don't care if some random category on my userpage gets deleted (heck, I didn't even know they were gone). You seriously think this biases me in some way? You think that an admin who has had an unrelated category be deleted (or an admin who has never had a user category) can't be trusted to close a discussion following consensus? Who is left then to close discussions? The tooth fairy? If you want my justification for the close, I pointed to tariqabjotu's arguments in both related DRVs (why I linked back to the earlier DRV in the close of the second). I don't feel like I could say it any better than he did. Was that the only comment I decided upon? Of course not, but it was where I felt the strength and weight of the argument lay. Were there !votes with little substance on the keep/overturn side? Obviously. But there were also plenty of remarks like "Poisonous Trash" on the delete side of the UCFD and DRV as well. Yes, there is policy cited in the discussion (the ubiquitous WP:MYSPACE), but this policy leaves quite a bit of interpretational room. I admit I made a mistake in linking my last comment to the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My point there was simply that the closing admin didn't like the consensus outcome, so the closing admin decided to toss it out the window. My point about CSD was that there is clear, unambiguous policy (i.e. WP:NFCC), and then there is policy that is much more open to interpretation (i.e. WP:MYSPACE). Admins shouldn't go against strong consensus in these grey areas. You seem to think that it's better for admin to do what he/she thinks is best for the encyclopedia--consensus be damned. I guess that's just where we will have to agree to disagree. Best, IronGargoyle 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i think "strong consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration; it was closer to no clear consensus at all. Now, yes, I realize you cited Tariqabjotu remark about the vote count, but is what were the specific arguments about the categories' merit besides the vote count? You stated that the "strength and weight of the argument lay" with that side, haven't given me any of those arguments. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments in the DRV or the UCFD? I am assuming you are asking about the UCFD, correct? Because I just gave you one from the DRV. IronGargoyle 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Either one, if you like. What did you find compelling other than the vote count? Because the vote count, and a comment arguing for it, is all you have actually cited. What was it that they said that was compelling? Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as far as the UCFD is concerned, I thought both arguments had merit. Yes, the categories have the (slight) potential for divisivity. They do let bias be acknowledged. Black Falcon pointed out that this bias can be dealt with via userboxes (another user pointed out that not all editors have or want userboxes, but that these users may still want to declare bias). They also allow for networking and collaboration on an encyclopedic topic (hence why I thought WP:MYSPACE was a weak argument, although there is a valid counter-argument for using "interested in XXXX"). Because I was closing the DRV, I focused on the DRV discussion as well as the UCFD discussion, which served as a background frame of reference. I asked myself several questions: Did strong policy apply (i.e. a rule that should trump consensus)? My answer: No. Was there SPA involvement? I checked and I didn't notice any. What was the closing statement like? The closing admin was well-spoken, but the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion rather than some element of strong policy. Given that XfDs with no consensus generally default to keep without a strong basis in policy, my own personal judgment of 2:1 and 3:1 majorities (which I personally view to be consensus) and the analysis of the arguments in the DRV (closing against consensus without strong policy backing) led me to overturn. I hope this answers your questions and addresses your concerns. I'm not sure what else I can tell you though. Best, IronGargoyle 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is about arguments, not numbers. That's why I want to know why you keep repeating that claim when it is not clear to me that there were strong arguments for reversing two administrators' independent decisions. I read and reread your response, and the only argument I can find for the categories is "They do let bias be acknowledged." Which makes no sense because bias can be acknowledged on userpages; categories do not help that at all, and deleting them does not hinder that at all. Categories are for grouping users based on point of view. Your concept of "strong policy" seems backwards; consensus is based on arguments like WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and if there were no good arguments brought to refute the claim, whether it "trumps consensus" doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm very surprised that WP:NOT, which essentially defines the project as an encyclopedia, is not a "strong" policy to you.

To be honest, it looks to me like "the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion" applies equally to you. Even on the basis of your votecounting, if no consensus is to default to the status quo, and the DRV most certainly did not have a 3:1 or 2:1 margin, but closer to 1:1, it seems to me that this is clearly a lack of consensus that defaults to the original administrator's decision. But instead, you overturned teh decision, despite the seeming lack of consensus. Are you taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement your personal opinion, criticizing the original administrators for both taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement their personal opinions? It doesn't seem reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Replace my use of the word strong strong with unambiguous. I think WP:NOT is one of the most important policies that we have, but it is also easy to abuse because of its potential ambiguities. As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression. I feel that I considered the DRV and UCFD and made my decision in as unbiased a manner as I could (again, I fail to see any COIs that I have with these user categories). Please take a step back and consider your own bias in this manner. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. If you feel that this is an important issue that you must pursue further, or you feel that I am abusing my administrative tools in some manner, you are of course free to pursue some avenue in the dispute resolution chain. Best, IronGargoyle 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What isn't making sense to me is that your logic is not internally consistent. You apply a different standard to the administrators that you overturned than you do to yourself. Please take a minute to consider this: you just told me that " As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression" whereas before you told me that such no consensus results default to the status quo. Apparently that only applies to the administrators you overturned. What appears to have happened to me is that two administrators each (independently) had to close difficult discussions with no clear numerical winner, so they weighed the arguments and decided in favor of deletion. Then at the DRV, you similarly find it within the discretionary range, and close it as overturn, with the reason that they should not have used their discretion. This is what strikes me as illogical. If the only reason in the end, still, is "They do let bias be acknowledged," that seems to have been adequately addressed. Dmcdevit·t 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If the arguments for overturning are strong in the 1:1 "grey area" of the DRV (as I thought they were), then an overturn is warranted. If the arguments were not strong in the DRV, I would not have overturned it (defaulting as you say to keep deleted). If the margin was closer in the UFCD, then I think Jossi would have been justified in closing the UCFD as delete, but the margin was not close. Best, IronGargoyle 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That is why I have (several times now) asked what those strong arguments were that convinced you. So far, other than the vote count, the only one I have gotten from you is "They do let bias be acknowledged," which does not strike me as a strong argument, since I addressed it already. That's all I am asking, what are these for keeping that outweigh deletion and warrant reversing two administrators' decisions? 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

StealBoy socks

Hello. Thanks for looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. Call me clueless but I'm not sure I understand what your concluding sentence means but

1. were you able to identify other socks we did not know about? If so are you saying you can't list them?
2. are any IPs blocked for long periods of time or should we expect to continue monitoring IPs in that range for possible disruption?
3. another sock has been listed just a few minutes ago. Should we relist it as a separate checkuser case? Or can you do the follow-up?

I'm not so sure I understand the finer points of how checkuser works in practice so sorry if any of the above questions have super-obvious answers. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a dynamic range, so there are going to be a lot of false positives. It is much easier to confirm sockpuppets that are suspected based on behavior than to discover existing sockpuppets based on the IP. It is easier to block the IP range and deal with any accounts that get through with further checks. Which is what I just did with the latest sock; I widened the IP range block a little, and I think that should cover it. The block is fairly long, for a month. Dmcdevit·t 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet

Hello. Yet again we have another (likely) sock puppet (again its probably AdilBaguirov): [1]Hajji Piruz 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjadde assistance

Hello there,

You ended up assisting some members last month with regards to user Panairjadde who is banned from making edits on WP. We have some outstanding socks that need to be blocked (updated list can be found here, User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) and we were wondering if you would be able to enforce a similar block on the user's ip range to limit new sock creation? He seemed to have faded away from day you enforced the block thru July 7ish... Thanks, --Palffy 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look and extended the IP block which had expired. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated =) Do you mind blocking the rest of his unblocked socks as well? (updated list on User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) --Palffy 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stealboy

Another sock came through somehow, User:Trapboy. Did he edit from that range you blocked, or something else? Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See my response above. This one was in a nearby range he hadn't used before, but it just required an additional /24 block. Hopefully that should do it. Dmcdevit·t 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, didn't see that there, thanks. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Hi there. What's the deal with User:Tiger white, is he blocked or not? It's suspected that he's a sockpuppet of User:98E and looking back at my history, I actually remember interacting with 98E. They both edit images relating to hip hop artists, South Park, Crash Bandicoot, and stop signs. You can even compare their contributions (specifically the image namespace): Special:Contributions/98E & Special:Contributions/Tiger_white. And not to mention them both starting similar galleries [2] & [3]. Spellcast 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed him. I've renewed the IP block that had expired already. Dmcdevit·t 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Dmcdevit, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Dmcdevit, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music on WP:UCFD again

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37_(T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 12th DYK

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biblioteca Nacional de Chile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:151.75.190.98 involving a CheckUser block

I noticed that someone was requesting an autoblock be lifted at User talk:151.75.190.98, and that the reason for blocking listed was {{checkuserblock}}. Since this involves a CheckUser you apparently handled, could you please take care of this request? The CheckUser block template states that administrators who wish to unblock this address must consult with the blocking administrator, and I do not want to undo your work as a CheckUser. Thank you very much. Jesse Viviano 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review

71.233.232.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has requested on his talk page that you review his block. You blocked him for six months based on checkuser evidence, but he claims that there is collateral damage. I have no opinion; I'm just trying to help. Cheers. Shalom ^Hello 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Dmc, I just found this posting on a talk page at Talk:Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The diff is here[4]. Since it seems to identify a particular individual, it might be prudent to remove it from the history altogether. I'll go and delete the posting from the talk page now. Thanks in advance, old bean! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, oversighted now. Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure doing business with you! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Info

File:IndiaFA.JPG

Updated for July...one article de-FAed this month...

Oh, and we ran into a Nadirali sock just then...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!   j    talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjedde block expired...

...and he's creating new socks again. Please block existing ones here and may I suggest an extension of the block? Things are nice and quiet when its in effect.. --Palffy 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove block on User:Gerry_Lynch

I have e-mailed you and left a message on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am not a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn nor have I even heard of the user. I use my real name to edit on wikipedia and have done for three years. Please remove my user block ASAP. A quick google search of my name would reveal that I am a real person editing under my real name, as indeed would a review of my edits, at least circumstantially. In my opinion, using bots to block long-standing user accounts with no other evidence of malfeasance is tantamount to lynch law. Sorry for the emotive language. 91.125.114.14 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch

User(s) blocked. - without prejudice for self-confessed block evasion - Alison ☺ 07:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse the intrusion. My internet acquaintance User:Gerry Lynch complains that he's been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn, and protests his innocence. In particular, he questions the evidence against him and the methodology used to acquire this evidence. Can you enlighten me? --Jonathan Drain 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems this block was illegitamite. Please restore asap--Martin Wisse 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It does look like this block is in error, there doesn't seem to be any significant overlap between User:Gerry Lynch and User:Runcorn's edit histories, and I would strongly urge an unblocking. Looking at your edit history, it seems as though you haven't been online for 4 days, so maybe you've not seen the comments here and on WP:AN/I? I thought I'd give you 24 hours to persuade me otherwise, else I'll unblock him myself this time tomorrow. Best regards, - Arwel (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've gone ahead and unblocked the guy. WP:AGF all that, esp. given the evidence individuals are providing in email. I originally did the unblock review and declined - Alison ☺ 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd particularly like to see the usercheck results, as it doesn't seem to exist on RfUC. Gerry Lynch 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Silveriver

Hi, Cause you were so helpfull last time. Can i please have your assistance again on this [5] Thanks ExtraDry 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Sockpuppets of Oldwindybear

Hi Dmcdevit, I'm wondering what you think of this.Proabivouac 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Picsingles.jpg

Hi. Please undelete Image:Picsingles.jpg. It was moved to Commons in error, as Commons does not allow fair use, and I am attempting to get it removed from Commons. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Check out my recent contributions. I've been able to confirm based on behavior that Ursul pacalit de vulpe (talk · contribs) (formerly Tones benefit) is a sockpuppet of Bonny. Indexxs (talk · contribs) has also been blocked. Are there any more? Khoikhoi 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Dmcdevit, I hope this posting finds you well. I have a request for a checkuser and I was wondering if you can help me out. If it's not appropriate to ask you in person, please direct me further. There has been an on going issue at the article SEIU Local 1.on. The editor(s) are posting derogatory information and although they have been reverted/warned, the same information is being replaced, now from a variety of user names. It seems to be the same editor using different accounts. If you could have a look at the history there from the past couple weeks and offer your own opinion, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best regards, as always Hamster Sandwich 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and the results

You unblocked User:Gnanapiti under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. Thanks Taprobanus 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Thiruvalluvar Statue
• Sarathambal

just a few:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

You're needed at RFCU

Dunno if Mackensen informed you, but there's a case that's been defered to you. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:20.138.246.89

Hi, you hard blocked this IP as being an open proxy earlier, I've run a few (newbies) checks (googling the IP, RBL and port scanning) and I find no evidence it is one. Since this user is asking his block to be reviewed, could you double check for me? You probably have much more knowledge of OP than I do ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

I see from the block record that you have been concerned about this user's behaviour in the recent past. May I ask if you think his constant use of the m to tag edits that are patently not minor (such as reverting good faith edits) are problematic for our project?

I have just left the following message on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACorticopia&diff=149629790&oldid=149231444 but I would appreciate guidance on the matter if I am wrong in the stance I expressed there. Respectfully...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

False redirects

Hi, Dmcdevit. User:Kaz redirected the White Huns article to the Xionites and Red Huns to the Kidarites article. These redirects are misleading (see my comment on his/her talk page [6]). Could you please restore the redirects (White Huns = Ephthalites, Red Huns = Chionites)? You can consult the references i've already provided in his/her talk page. Please trust me on this. Kind regards. E104421 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

StealBoy socks are back

Hello. I'm not sure if you remember Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. In any case, it seems StealBoy & friends are back.

• 220.233.106.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Allyboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lizardboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Snakeboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rattyboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

... and these are just the ones I know about. The IP is again from Exetel and I'm wondering when it starts to make sense to report this to them (or is that completely useless?). In any case, if you could again look at a possible range block, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be back from vacation (I suppose). I hate to insist but I'd really appreciate your advice on the best course of action here. I have yet again blocked three new socks

• Diedboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Badboy1111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deathboy333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diveboy555 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And of course, these are only the ones I managed to catch. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I've been away. Having looked at the IP, it looks like a semi-static one, and not shared. The vandal has been on it for a few weeks now, and that's the only IP all the accounts listed above used, and there is no collateral, so I gave it a hardblock for 3 months. If he comes back, let me know, and I'll take a look at his new IP. Dmcdevit·t 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great, thanks a lot. I'll let you know if he ever crawls out from under that rock! Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ZerOFaults/NuclearUmph/SevenOfDiamonds

Dmcdevit, it appears you've gone on a wikibreak. Should you return, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf, User:MONGO/Ban evasion.Proabivouac 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI

There's a thread about your block of the runcorn sock farm: [7]. You'd think I'd cease to be surprised at that the way people make these threads and never bother talking to the person who made the original decision or even telling them about the thread... --W.marsh 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he claims he did try to talk to you. But I still thought you might like to see the thread at some point. --W.marsh 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Having looked, I do have one email from him more than a month ago, when, as you can see, I was not active. In any case, this is an Arbitration Committee ban, I just happened to have helped with it. Thanks for letting me know. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit,

Per your request, The Poetlister block has been brought to RFAr. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lights

I guess not…I just found it very strange that he smiled at me, then marked User:X-Force as a sock after I'd reported it at WP:AIV, when last I heard from Connell66 as User:LOZ: OOT, he smiled at me and congratulated me for tracking down the likely (though not certain) puppeteer. Sorry to have bothered you with this.Proabivouac 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Dominic! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CU request

202.4.79.163 (talk · contribs) - I think it is obviously Spartathreehundred (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is, and so is the blocked vandal Indiansmellcurry (talk · contribs). Also, I can confirm (per the IRC request) that AjitPD is on the same Toronto IP range as Szhaider, and is a close match. Dmcdevit·t 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CU request

This is clearly an anon IP sock of User:Tajik, please, check [8]. Thanks. Atabek 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser block review request: 210.86.28.87

Hi Dmcdevit,

Michael White has emailed unblock-en-l from his @waitaki-dc.govt.nz email address, and from his position at the Waitaki District Council, he might be able to help you track down the original source of the abuse from this IP address that led to the checkuserblock.

• Mwhitenz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 210.86.28.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect this is the same sockpuppeteer the block was intended to stop. Please contact me in private if you need more information. Dmcdevit·t 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... hmm. I wish someone had said something in the user talk page. I just shifted the IP to anon-only from hardblock before coming here to notify you and noticing this. I'm going to send you an email to clarify what the deal was here. Georgewilliamherbert 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Dmcdevit·t 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser for User:Fadix

Please, take a look here [9]. User:Fadix appears under the User:Drosophilawhodoestnotfly and openly admits he is User:Fadix. This is a second time after the case of User:Anatolmethanol. Among other listed accounts both new User:Andranikpasha and User:Hu1lee are currently involved in revert warring at Khojaly Massacre. Atabek 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just fed up of being accused of using those socks without having the power to answer back. I have emailed Thatcher requesting a checkusers, which was never in my knowledge run. Anatolmethanol was primarly created to counter Flavius disruptions a previously undefinitly banned user. Since I don't feel having done that much wrong, I find no reason to hide behind multiple socks cowardly. I have to be a sado-mazo to be the author of those edits on Khojali article when I was one of the main users with Francis and Grandmaster involved in the past making the concessions to then have to change by undoing my own concessions. Just say yourself that at least you are set with me, you don't have to run any checkusers to confirm anything, I will endorse any socks I have used. But I refuse this admission to be used to attribute to me edits which I have not done. While a banned user is not protected by any of the policies, I think the minimum required decency to edit should be enough for Atabek and Grandmaster to refrain themselves in seing me everywhere each time a sock appear. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof that Flavius is indef banned users sock [10] . Note the two administrators who knew it was him and did nothing and since then he was disruptive if nothing else. Same goes for Adil, his creation of the armies of socks was very disruptive and his ban is yet to be reset. VartanM 18:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard talk

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Dmcdevit_and_moving_images_to_the_commons. Talk about you. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad

I'm confused by your comment "unrelated" on RFCU/Artaxiad 8, since you blocked a bunch of other socks. Does "unrelated" only refer to Gazifikator? If its not a sock of one of those banned users his edits re odd. Thatcher131 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

All the ones I blocked myself are Artaxiad, but the unlikely referred to the new suspect. Regarding his odd edits, I also am not sure enough to declare that they are unrelated, but "unlikely" means that the IP evidence itself doesn't support a connection, at least. Dmcdevit·t 09:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:64.131.205.111

Hi, you previously blocked this user for under a checkuser block, and it appears that whoever it is is back and has knowledge of Wikipedia. He's been canvassing talk pages, etc. Is this the same person? The Evil Spartan 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP is owned by User:YoSoyGuapo, by his own admission. Previously, is was used for sockpuppetry by him when he was banned, but now he is unbanned. However, if he is using it for disruption again, WP:ANI might be the best place to go. Dmcdevit·t 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

disruptive user pushing OR

Hi a new user (assuming it is not a sock) [11] has broken many Wikipedia laws. They include 3rr, making racist outburts like:"Anti turk kurds or persians, stop editing my ethnic web-page, you can not play with facts; turks in iran are so strong and you are not" and "don't remove without any reasons. i understand you are presian and may belong to pan-Iranist (fascism)". The user is uploading an ethnic map from separatist site that contradicts academic maps. [12] (unfortunately every ultranationalist will maximize the distribution of one ethnic group and minimize the rest). So he is pushing an OR view which simply contradicts plain facts. I think at least he should be blocked for 3rr but the problem goes further since he is making personal comments and does not understand Wikipedia's OR policy. --alidoostzadeh 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Here is another comment: "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Azeris&action=history"((Fascis and anti turk Doostzadeh, i saw ur racist and anti-turkic ideas, wikipedia is not a place for a fascist persian, you can not change facts and clean azeris in area showed in the map)) --alidoostzadeh 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks by another admin. I'll monitor this one and if he steps over the line again, indef. Moreschi ^Talk 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit in concert tonight!

Yes, you officially have a fan. Join the club. Cheers, Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP in question, too. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

Dmcdevit, good to know that you still continue to accuse others of being sockpuppets ... of course without any proofs. Good job, admin ... And, yeah, THIS here is my IP. Go ahead and launch your CheckUser ... your wrong accusations were exposed ... now you have to explain why you banned me for no reason and prevented my from defending myself in the arbcom! -Tajik

Don't misquote me: [13]. --Deskana (talky) 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with rangeblocks

Noticed that you blocked 67.155.0.0/16 this past winter[14]. XO Communications (an ISP) runs that block, and while there may be an open proxy among those 65K addresses, blocking the whole subnet is probably overkill. (As it was, there was a complaint on User talk:67.155.169.170 and on OTRS about this.)

Rangeblocks are a very drastic measure, and should not be done without quite a bit of research first. Please be more cautious about blocking entire ranges in the future. Thanks! - Jredmond 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:National-atlas-indian-reservations-south-dakota.gif

Both you and some bot recently made changes to this image: [15] and now it will not link to the South Dakota article. That is, the larger image will, but any modifications done to size, etc. render the image blank in the article. I've tried to figure out what happened, and can't. (I think the same thing happened to a map on the Nebraska article) Could you please take a look at it? Thanks - AlexiusHoratius 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine now - thanks again. AlexiusHoratius 02:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoken files on Commons

Hello, Dmcdevit. Your participation in the discussion here would be genuinely appreciated. -- Macropode 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwikied spoken articles

All those spoken articles you just approved the transwiki of need to have "en-" prepended to their file names, according to the standard presently observed. Are you aware of a method of automating this process? tgies 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ack. The only way to rename and file (you can't just move, like with articles) is to reupload the file under the new name. All the spoken articles have already been moved to Commons by bot. Maybe Betacommand, the creator of that bot, can create a bot to rename the misnamed files on Commons automatically. I recommend you ask him. :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

No problem. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dmcdevit

Allthough I don't understand fully, I think you have selected image Niharika Acharya.jpg for to be copied on wikipedia commons. I thought that it is already on commons. I don't know why you yourself didn't copy it to commons.

Anyway thanks. abhishka 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Niharika_Acharya.jpg

Category:Journalists from the United States

abhishka 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Commons

Image now require commons categories Please add [[commons:category:NAME OF COMMONS CATEGOERY]] Images without categories will not be moved.

β^_command 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unchanged behaviour

Hi. For a few months ago, User:Koavf was unblocked from his indef block to apparently give him another chance to edit differently, and was placed on revert parole for a year. He was blocked for extensive revert-warring and for other disruptive behaviour. looking at his block log for the period after the unblock, I just wonder if it is not time to take the case again and see if the user has ever changed. Judging by the amount of blocks and the problems he caused either in edit-warring or massive moving of pages without concensus, I doubt there is any hope he changed or will ever change. Please have a look at this case. --A Jalil 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried any dispute resolution? It looks like you are just reverting. Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a virgin case of dispute resolution, Dmcdevit. This is a continuation to a case that the ArbCom had tried to solve by undoing the indef block you set on an extremely disruptive edit-warrior, and setting him on parole to get him change his habit of editing. But, immediately after the unblock, user koavf started by reverting tens of articles to the versions he had set before being blocked ignoring almost all the edits done in over half a year by a number of editors. Something I was not the only one to undo. After a couple of blocks, he started to wait for a few hours over the 24 h period from the last revert before reverting again. We (I and more editors) have tried discussion on talk pages, and even intervention from admins (FayssalF). There is no hope to get him leave his POV militantism away from Wikipedia, and that is disgusting. I won't mention the controversial thousands of page moves and the chaos he created for which he clashed with a number of editors and can be seen from his recent talk archives. --A Jalil 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That sound like spin. He's not in an edit war with himself. He's reverting every 24 hours, precisely because you and Wikima revert him every time, as well. And there is absolutely no discussion going on. Dmcdevit·t 07:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We have had very lengthy discussions, and we even discussed too much. If you look at the archives of many articles related to Western sahara, you will find that many editors (I, wikima, Juiced Lemon, FayssalF, Collounsbury, ...) were involved in the discussion with koavf. The outcome is always the same: no result. For a few days ago here is a sample of how it looks. He says on his user page that he is here (on Wikipedia) to "try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)". and in another place he wrote he will do his utmost to free Western Sahara .. on Wikipedia of course. So, if you let him do, there sure will be no reverting war. The same behavior he was indef-blocked for is unchanged. --A Jalil 08:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not sufficient though. In all these recent reverts, have you been discussing? The problem is, it's quite obvious from the outside that "same behavior he was indef-blocked for" that he is engaging in now, is the same behavior you are engaging in now. Banning him would be giving the upper hand to other edit warriors, not resolving the dispute. Dmcdevit·t 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. Picaroon (t) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg

Hi. Please come and participate in the discussion of Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

☆

		The Civility Barnstar
		The barnstar is presented to Dmcdevit for his efforts in fostering civil discourse on Wikipedia and IRC.

Dominic, your firm stance on civility is appreciated. It is deplorable that a growing number of editors view civility as expendable. Your actions have already been mischaracterized as "severely harming the former air of freedom floating at Wikipedia's IRC channels". I believe it's a sign of the times, though. Please keep up the good work. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Deprecation" of vocab-stub

You don't think that there was no decision to deprecate it, a discussion concluding it wasn't deprecated, and a guideline that your change does not comply with is reason enough? Come to that, what reason was there for making the change in the first instance? Alai 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, there was no "decision" to deprecate it? That was the purpose of the template, and the category it assigns articles to has been permanently in the category for transwiki since its creation two years ago. I have no idea what discussion or guideline you are talking about that is to the contrary, but I think you are simply misreading things, if so. This template is for articles that give word definitions or usage; and it was created as a holding cell for such articles. If the article gives encyclopedic information beyond such a definition, then a stub-sorter should resort it according to it's encyclopedic content, and not its form. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I can't even really figure out why you are characterizing my edit as a change. Dmcdevit·t 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines in question is WP:STUB (to which I made explicit reference to in my edit summary). The discussion is located here (this was flagged at the template's talk page).

I'm certainly struggling with the concept of the "purpose" of a template being to be deprecated. A deprecated template (or indeed entity of any kind) would be one that should not ideally be used at all, presumably having served some actual purpose in the past, and on its way to eventual extinction. If you're rather claiming that all articles bearing this tag are "deprecated", then by that logic it shouldn't be a stub tag at all (deprecated or otherwise), since that's on the contrary an explicit claim that the bearer is at least a potential full-fledged article, that just needs further work. You don't need a stub template for to populate Category:Copy to Wiktionary; that's what {{copy to Wiktionary}} is for. If it's going to be necessary to tag all the articles currently having this tag with both to achieve a "clean break" between the conceptually separate two entries, I'm willing to bite that bullet. Categorisation of the stub category is one thing, and may be justifiable on fuzzy family resemblance grounds, but that's a far cry from having the template actually populate that directly -- which it's never done, until your most recent edits. A much more natural reading of the purpose of this tag is that it's the stub type counterpart of Category:Vocabulary, which no-one would argue are all "candidates for Wiktionary". Fuzziness between the applicability of the two is grounds for filtering/re-sorting, not for declaring them to be interchangeable. If this isn't going to conform to the form and purpose of a stub type, then it shouldn't bear any naming or wording similarity to a stub type -- as it currently clearly does, apart from your obscurely-located "documentation", which is itself far from consistent with the much more prominent wording on the stub category page. Indeed, it could just be replaced with the Wiktionary template, and then deleted. Either way, it can't sensibly be a "deprecated stub template": it should either be a standard one, or not one at all. Alai 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Attribution of Image:Verrazano-Bridge-Dawn.jpg

Hi, I have a complicated request in regards to this image. I was the original photographer and uploader of that photo quite a long time ago. Since then, user Nagytibi had uploaded the image to Commons, and the image page on Wikipedia has been deleted. However, when Nagytibi uploaded it to Commons, he failed to include my green infobox in its description page, which contains details about the photo and attributes the image to me, including my real name. In his/her defense, I think I may have added the infobox some time later after uploading the image, so it may not have been there when he/she uploaded it to Commons. Thus, as it stands now, there is no information on the image page attributing the image to me. Now normally, I wouldn't care about this, but this photo was used in an episode of The Colbert Report aired JAN'19 2006 (despite the fact that it's a crappy quality photo taken with an ancient camera phone), and I want the bragging rights among my friends (interestingly, no attribution for the photo was given in the show as far as I could tell, despite its cc-by license, though they may have mentioned it in the final credits). Now I could just edit the Commons description page to include my name or username, but I think it would look weird/suspicious if I did that. I would prefer it if someone with authority (specifically, the ability to verify my claim that I created the image through the deletion log), like an administrator such as yourself, could access the deleted image description page on Wikipedia, and copy the infobox to the Commons description page. I chose to request you to do this simply because you were the one who deleted the image page on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, and also apologies in advance if my request seems a little petty. --Aramգուտանգ 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy in real life. Done now. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Aramգուտանգ 06:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpupets right to vanish

Please comment.[16] --יודל 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

StealBoy/Lyle123: new ISP

Hello. That guy just won't quit. He's back at it with what seems to be a new ISP (though from Australia again). I've indef-blocked Blueboy7777 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yallowboy6666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) whose pattern of hoax articles is unmistakable. I've also soft-blocked the accompanying IP 58.168.36.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for a month. You might want to adjust that last one: if the IP is dynamic then that's probably too much collateral damage but if it's static this should be made into a hard block. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine. And those are the only two users that have been on that IP, and it's the only IP they've used. I made it into a hard block. Dmcdevit·t 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert599 - Gazifikator

Can you look into this new checkuser request [17], as you also identified earlier several sock accounts associated with it. Thanks. Atabek 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Verify licensing on OTRS for an image

Hi Dmcdevit, I'm contacting you because you are listed as a person with an account on the OTRS system and this image has a tag suggesting contacting such a person to verify we have appropriate licensing. Let me know if this is not actually the way I should do this.

I'm questioning the licensing because the image claims cc-by-sa 3.0 but the web page the picture comes from states a CC attribution, non-commercial license. - thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The original copyright holders did indeed note that their images are normally released under a noncommercial license, but that they were willing to license it freely for Wikipedia. The image appears to be acceptable, despite their conflicting documentation on the website. It also looks like Riana has sent them an email asking for clarification about the same matter a few days ago, though they've yet to reply to that particular question. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Molobo

.. is back and I caught his latest page, German collective guilt on NP Watch. It obviously isn't a speedy, nor even a PROD, but I have left a note on the talk page. There is a lot of POV and I think it's arguable the content is so adrift from the title that it may never be any better than existing articles covering the same topics. When I looked into his edit history, I felt you should be aware of this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting truly fed up with Molobo (talk · contribs). I've specialized on articles covering the Allied occupation of Germany and I believe he has followed me there for harassment purposes. I've crossed swords with him before, and believe it has continued during his block under such guises as 83.27.70.170 (talk · contribs), 83.27.74.68 (talk · contribs), Granet (talk · contribs). This latest activity by Molobo was began when I corrected yet another misleading text he had inserted [18].

I presume he then had a look at my contributions list and during September 30 preceded to mess up some of the articles I recently edited. Note his message to Xxx236 where he refers to the article I had planned to create and had outlined a structure for in my Sandbox German_Collective_Guilt. The polish camp I refer to is by the way the ones described in this book. So, what Molobo essentially has done is to try to pre-empt the creation of an article dealing with the psychological concept collective guilt as relates Germans today, and instead replaced it with frightfully POV article that essentially consists of a very POV and inflated listing of what should only be a chapter in the real article. Wikipedia policy says "assume good faith". I think Molobo has used up the right for such assumptions a long time ago. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Divisive userboxes

Requesting your input concerning some speedy deletions. Please see: User:CharonX#Regarding your T1 Deletions (and a semi-related DRV). - jc37 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG

FYI from another user page...

A bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [19] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this image gets deleted, we can restore it once the ArbCom issue is dealt with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Penguin Lifecycle

Hey,

I just wanted to let you know that I nominated your image of the penguin life cycle as a featured picture candidate. If you are interested in checking out how the voting is going go to the nomination page. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyskolos

This section was blanked. Per ArbCom, all appeals of blocks for pedophile activism should be directed to ArbCom in private. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

On 6 April I deleted Goat Glossary of Terms and Talk:Goat Glossary of Terms because they had been prodded as having been transwikied to Wiktionary. The original editor, User:GoatLink, can't find it at Wiktionary. I saw you were an admin over there as well, so could you take a quick look and see what happened to it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed transwikied. Transwikied articles go to the transwiki namespace, so wikt:Transwiki:Goat Glossary of Terms. However, that article was alter deleted by another admin as you can see in the deletion log. Hope that helps. Dmcdevit·t 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have been sleeping and forgot to click the link. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Did you get my emails from Monday? Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Amorrow LTA page

I debated long and hard myself about creating that ... but after finding out that this was a guy whose edits not only could be reverted, but must be reverted, I figured we needed something to let people know about this guy. Maybe if it were restored under semi-protection ... I dunno. Was wondering why this couldn't have gone to AfD ... I was just trying to help out. Blueboy96 12:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded by email. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For cleaning up over half of the RFCU requests that were open. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help clerking! :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RfCU

Hello Dmcdevit. Regarding this [20], the block log [21] of this identified sock of User:Artaxiad actually claims that it's most likely sock of User:AdilBaguirov. I think this comment unnecessarily targets User:AdilBaguirov, which could potentially extend his current ArbCom restriction for no reason. So can this situation be addressed in the block log. Also, banned User:Tajik again reappeared on the same old Safavid dynasty, disrupting the article [22] and continues again at Talk:Safavid dynasty claiming he is not Tajik, but says he only inserts Tajik's text :) on the talk page. Thanks. Atabek 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was on an open proxy. There is no technical evidence to disprove Alex's conclusion that it was Adil. Please talk to him about changing the tags based on behavior. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it, Dmcdevit, make sure you read this and comment on it. Also make sure you check my IP (82.82.138.140, provided by Arcor) and compare it to User:Tajik's (80.171.47.194, provided by HanseNet/Allice) and User:DerDoc's (193.170.48.2 which is an Austrian IP). All three are alleged socks which is totally impossible. You also need to explain why User:Tajik is still banned, although his alleged sockpuppet User:Tajik-Professor is unblocked after checkuser revealed that the accusations against both were wrong!

I think this [23] describes the situation well: "The article and the paragraph you want to have restored was written by Tajik (whose ban, by the way, may be lifted since the accusations against him were proved wrong)". So User:Tajik or User:German-Orientalist, etc. socks listed under [24], editing the same article over and over, inserting the same text of Tajik over and over, and then repeating over and over that you're not Tajik, does not actually contribute to any kind of constructive editing neither establishes ground for softening a ban. And does it really matter which IP address in Germany you keep disrupting from? Atabek 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your general bad faith attitude (= always assuming bad faith) is well known and notorious. And, for your information, Hamburg has up to 2million people and is the largest concentration of Germany's Afghan and Iranian population (together some 50.000). Claiming that there is only one among all of them who edits Wikipedia is just nonsense. And DerDoc ist not even writing from Germany, he edits from Vienna in Austria (1400km further south!). There is only one user who is disrupting and that is you, Atabek. You are in constant conflict with others simply because of their ethnicity. And most of the time, you are busy reporting them to admins. Seems like you consider all Iranian, all Afghans, and all Armenians as your enemies. That is disruptive, Atabek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.138.140 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fight this fight about Tajik on my talk page. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

truth

you are urged to put your political feelings aside and tell the truth. i think many are so mad at derek that this is clouding their judgement. i am not convinced that greenwinged is polounit. i am more convinced that they are different. Appealplease 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul

Thank you very much for the checkuser on Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani. --Yamla 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Haham hanuka

Hello Dmcdevit! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:216.12.193.9

Hi. Could you take a look at whether your range block reported at that talk page is still required? A user of that IP range is requesting to be unblocked. Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a hosting company, and one with the descriptive name "Everyone's Internet." I'm afraid there will be proxy abuse from it again, but there is no way to separate out the proxies and the legitimate workplaces using their services, so I've unblocked it for now. Dmcdevit·t 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Emails and ArbCom

I noticed on A.Z.'s discussion page a reference to emailing ArbCom. Would I be correct in assuming that an email then identifies the sender in real life? While I have no comment to make on the block, pro or con, I was surprised to read, given the drama on the discussion page, that no one had yet emailed ArbCom. Could it be because no one wants to have their on-line identity connected to their real lives, especially around such a contentious subject as Paedophilia? Could that not then weight the discussion in an unfair manner, a "process bias" as it were? Of course, if there is no way to tie the identities together, then there is no problem. Bielle 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm butting in, but I disagree that there is an inherent "process bias" as you put it, especially when the issue at hand policy-making and not necessarily policy itself. One way or another, I have e-mailed ArbCom on this issue, two days ago--real name and all. =)--Dali-Llama 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not "butting in" from my perspective. I am happy to have interested readers respond. I note you made a strong statement on A.Z.'s discussion page just before you came here, pointing out, from your personal knowledge, the mistake about there having been no emails to ArbComon the subject. I don't know how many of the other commentators might be influenced not to email because of the identification issue. You may be in the majority or you may not. My point is simply that if there is anyone who refrains from commenting, for or against, because of the identifiaction issue, then there is a possibility of bias. (If the pros and cons are equally reluctant, then the bias is only a technical one.) Bielle 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an email would identify someone in real life. I don't understand what you mean. Dmcdevit·t 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When I send an email from my computer, it goes out with my return email address on it, from my browser. Perhaps there is a way, through a Yahoo account or something like that, to send an email that does not have a traceable route back to the sender. I don't know the answer. I couldn't do such a trace, but then I can't do a checkuser either. I had the impression that the only anonymous email was through a public computer, where you don't give your real identity when you rent time on the machine. Perhaps I'll ask at the Ref Desk. Thanks for your time. Bielle 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal setting you have on, though perhaps it was the default for your software. It is definitely alterable. Mine says "Dmcdevit" for my wiki wmail account, and my real name only for my private one. Dmcdevit·t 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An apology

In response to [25], I knew that checkuser only reveals the IP of a user, and I'm really sorry that the case wasn't obvious to me. Please accept my apologies.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblock, anon or no?

Hey, there. Saw an unblock request at User talk:Drono, apparently affected by the block on 76.199.100.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). One curious thing, I noticed your block reason was "{{anonblock}}{{checkuserblock}}" but the block doesn't appear to be anon-only. You know more than I do, so I can't do much more than point out what seems to be a discrepancy. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Thank you so much. That was a mistake in marking the checkboxes, and one which had the potential to affect a lot more legitimate users. I'm glad you mentioned it. Dmcdevit·t 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good thing we got that resolved, then. :) Thanks for the prompt response. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejected Iantresman checkuser request

Hi, I'm writing to you because you wrote "Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved" [26] as a response to this request, which was made by Art LaPella. However, on examining the blog logs of Iantresman's suspected sock puppets, I see that one of them, Leokor has a clean block log. Would it be possible to reinstate the Leokor part of the checkuser request? Cardamon 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)