User talk:Dominic/Archive13

Block of Molobo

Thank you! Full support! -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also supporting other blocks in this edit war. Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And after distracting myself for a while, I finished warning all the other involved warriors. I'm prepared to use the block button again to maintain a safe editing environment. I was certainly pleased to see this though: [1], and I look forward to a change in collective attitude. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Full Support here as well! /me bows to Dmcdevit :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Another full support of all the blocks. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Full support from me too. technically, admins should block for 1 month at most, but unless people object, this is a full-fledged "community ban". dab (ᛏ) 14:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He had it coming, although I'd prefer to get a formal ArbCom rulling for that, for the reasons dbachmann notse. I am afraid some admins may evolve to use the long block periods more and more often, and you know what they say about power... One minor issue: you wrote in the block summary that his "incivily continues". I have not seen Molobo being incivil - could you point me to the relevant examples? I am also greatful that you didn't single out Molobo and blocked and warned his other edit partners. I would like to ask you to pay a special attention to the behaviour of user Ghirlandajo. The extreme incivility and disruptive pattern of his behaviour is visible not only in his RfC and the warning from ArbCom, but also if you look at his contributions you will see how many of them are reverts and how many contain incivil edit summaries. As I am involved in content disputes with him I cannot block him, and he ignores and deletes my warnings and most of those he receives from other people ([2], [3], [4] - those are just three examples from the last few days, and they by no means represent the 'height' of his customs). As attempts to talk to him have apparently failed, I believe that nothing short of a warning block may force him to pay attention to WP:CIVIL, no personal attacks and related policies. So while you are putting your foot down I'd appreciate if you'd consider putting it down on him, too. PS. His reply to you regarding me classifies as clear slander without any evidence - just what one can expect from his (rare) participation in discussions... PS.2 Regarding "adding fuel to the fire": please note that I am willing to talk the matter out at article's talk and I am still waiting for the other side to reply, and the recent edits by the other side are limited to 1) removing a referenced quote 2) speculating in the article about why the quote is irrelevant (ignoring my arguments at talk). If somebody's addign fuel to the fire then again it is Ghirla who doesn't even bother with edit summaries, marking his revert as minor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel we have some sort of misunderstanding. I didn't thought that those two edits consitute a revert at all (I am assuming they are the two you call 'reverts withing 2h': [5], [6]). Are they reverts? Or what is your definition of revert warring? As for RfC and such, I prefer content creation and building encyclopedia to Wikipedia politics anytime. The evidence of misconduct I cited above is pretty evident and I hope some people who enjoy politics and rule enforcing more then I do will act on that, sooner or later. As for slander, a native speaker (Elonka) advised me to recently to use the term defamation, and I will do so from now on, hopefully this will probe better (and even more hopefully I will not have to use neither, soon).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have fully explained my reverts in my edit summary. Sciurinæ has failed to use the talk at all, and Irpen's side was not supported by anybody (while mine was). Now that I know which edits you have pointed out, I certainly agree they were reverts, however I believe I was justified in them, especially as I have explained myself both on talk and in edit summary. A single revert is not a bad thing in my view, if explained properly. Now, if anybody - myself included - would engage in series of reverts without engaging in talk, that's certainly would be a bad behaviour. But sometimes when you write an article you find an error (or what one considers an error) so obvious that it good faith it has to be removed (reverting someone's edit, or parts of, sometimes). Having close to 20 FAs and many other contributions 'under my belt', and having collaborated with many editors, and resolved many content dispute satisfactionary to both sides (thus FAing articles on controversial subjects) I feel confident that I know what I am doing (although of course I, as everyone, make occasional mistakes, and I do appreciate it when you or sb else points out a possible mistsake of mine). That said, I think we are discussing two issues here: one is the reverts I did on SPiP page, which I explained, the other is the extremly uncivil and disruptive behaviour by user Ghirlandajo, and I'd appreciate you comments on that. I don't understand your comment about "You can't simply throw out dispute resolution like that" - I don't recall I refused to participate in any DR process? As for description of edits, some edits are slander, defamation or such, as clear as the definiton of those terms in Wikipedia. I see no reason to ignore such uncivil or unjust behaviour, or to dress it up in some pretty words; at the request of a concerned editor I stopped using the term 'slander' in favour of 'defamation'. I don't see that there are many other choices to describe action when some people spread false or inaccurate information painting me as some 'cabal leader bent on taking over Wikipedia'. FYI, I have started a mediation related to that issue, and I hope that once the relevant parties apologize to me this topic will not be revisted again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid some admins may evolve to use the long block periods more and more often — this will no doubt happen, necessarily. Wikipedia is among the top 20 sites of the internet now, and we simply cannot afford to prat around with every problem user as we used to (five warnings, and then increasing blocks from five minutes up to three hours). This is not about power (peer review between admins works very well), simply about efficiency: as soon as it is clear a user is here for other reasons than collaborating in writing an encyclopedia, they should be blocked to protect good faith users. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and making that block again, I found myself thinking how much better it would have been if my first indefinite block in April had simply stood. Certainly it was well-founded enough, and we had no reason to hope for reform. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens

There was a misunderstanding on my part that the 'evidence' should not be listed until the case was "opened" and a link to a page for evidence was given. Please let me know if this matter is still open, or if not.... if it will need to be resubmitted. I have now included said evidence on the complaint. Thank you Sarastro777 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Latin America

Hello. I have talked to you on irc. Unfortunately, much of content on historia de Venezuela has copyright violation. If you are interrested in Latin America and have a lot of time, you can translate part of [:es:Historia_de_Chile] which is longer than the English article. Moreover, the article is a "featured article" on es:. --Youssef 18:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. There's no shortage of article to translate. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about Highways RfA

According to the history, you were the arbitrator who proposed Probation for all major move warriors on the proposed decision page. PHenry recently pointed out to me that as it stands, Freakofnurture is not being put under probation. Was this intentional, or was it merely an oversight?

If it was intentional, what is your reasoning? (Freakofnurture is included in the related finding of fact.)

If it was an oversight, can it please be corrected? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

• Talk thread

I'm very wary of the "making/accepting" arbitrary decisions proposed decision. Much trouble ahead based upon people citing this, I forsee. Can you comment further? I don't see the talk thread getting much love. - brenneman ^{L} 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 26, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean National Plebiscite, 1980, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole

You asked me if I'd missed closing this, last night, and I was quite surprised to see how long it had been left and I promised to do it today. However looking at it again today I see that it's still stalemated. You have four votes to close but one opposing close, making only three net votes to close. If another arbitrator votes to close, or else James F withdraws his objection, I will close the case. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't thinking. I'll have to nag some more then... Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

UCRGRad RfA clarification request

Per the Arbitration policy, I request that you provide a rationale for your vote of "Reject" in the UCRGrad RfA request. Thanks! --ElKevbo 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom arbitration

If it's not too much trouble I would appreciate a reply to the email I sent this morning. I would also like you to forward a brief note from me to the ArbCom mailing list. David | Talk 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hiya, in regards recent events with Piotrus, have you been following the discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader" ? If not, I would be interested in your opinion, thanks. --Elonka 06:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Hey man, I see you have an Einstein quote on your page, "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.", I've not heard this one before, but I heard a similar one by John Archibald Wheeler, "We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." — and they were contemporaries too I think. There isn't any real purpose to this message, just found it interesting. - FrancisTyers · 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to my comments

I'd very much appreciate a reply to my comments above. Please note, that my prososed additions will probably never make it into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy if you ban me from this article. Raphael1 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian architecture

If you take a look at the talk page of Russian architecture and its archives, you may understand that every expedient at discussion has been tried, but talking with AndriyK, though tried by dozens various users, invariably proved futile. He will listen to you more or less politely and will not concede a point. Therefore this silly tag disfigures the article for half a year now. Yet I do not care about it as long as sock puppets like this one do not remove my own counter-tag. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this implimented

Hi! Got involved with the heirarchial reorganization of maps on the commons a few weeks back, and as we worked into categories where names matched here, images here (mainly historical maps) that should be moved to the commons crossed my path. Subsequently, I've traded some emails with BOT wizard User:AllyUnion, to see if it was feasible to have things moved automatically. Now I find You begining this Category:Move_to_Wikimedia_Commons category. So the question occurs: How is this being implimented? There is no talk page and only a brief note on purpose, all of which are rather buried by the long See Also section. There is no reference of a self-tagging template that automatically adds the category.

I'm given to understand that image moves have been mainly manual, as in time consumptive and inefficient of man-hours expenditures. (Offensive to a computer engineer like me, who can see the images 'mirrored-to-here' from the commons! <g>) So is this just a way to tag those which need someone to manually move, or is there something automatic involved (Like the BOT that runs when a category is tagged with {{category redirect}}? Please clue me in! Thanks // FrankB 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Xposted answers

Unfortunately, this category is resolved by manually moving the images, reuploading them to commons and and then listing the replaced ones on Wikipedia for deletion. The category is populated by tagging pages with {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}. It would be great if you could assist in clearing out the category (or can devise a bot), as it currently has a large backlog. Particularly, all the image galleries that are tagged there mean that there are really a lot more there than it looks like. Dmcdevit·t 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. As I feared. ;{

Silly considering (based on behavior) the dbases have at least cross loaded images in thumbnails form from the commons to the local servers. Silly to put us slow human's in the middle too. I don't write scripts, but I'll see if I can prod someone who does. We may need an 'vetted' category to indicate an image is fully ready for transfer, s.a. 'Vetted for move to Wikimedia Commons' indicating it's fully prepepared and recategorized per commons categorization. The same cat when it lists on the commons can be used as a 'checkover' list there to verify the editors judgements from here, at least with respect to proper categorization and copyright needs. // FrankB 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Important RfC

Hi. Why don't you take part in this RfC - as an admin ocassionally involved to Eastern Europe affairs? The user in question is one of the most important and controversial editors in the region. Thanks, Ukrained 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article ban

Would you please add an article ban on Islamophobia for User:Karl_Meier to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision. An editor who put this link on his user page and never apologized for it and is still "editing" on Islamophobia does not help the project at all. Indeed he just started again to strip down the article. [7][8] Obviously he does not even consider an attack on a mosque islamophobic.Raphael1 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, could you please end your mud-throwing against me on the talkpages of users that is not involved in the discussions regarding that article? All I have done on the Islamophobia article is to attribute the claims and opinions to their source, and insisted that you should include a notable source for the views and opinions that you want to include. I know that you find your personal opinions regarding what is an example of Islamophobia, to be the "obvious" truth, but that is not enough on Wikipedia. Another thing is that your constant mentioning of the external link on my userpage is getting a bit old... -- Karl Meier 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, that you are editing destructively on this article. Instead of looking for references or adding a {{fact}} templates, you are simply removing valuable text. i.e. [9] Raphael1 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did search for it, but I couldn't find the article on BBC or on archive.org. If you can find the source for it (maybe you should spend some time on that instead of trolling against me on other users talkpages...), then please restore that. I know you don't care about references, but it's really required for something like that. -- Karl Meier 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't really have any more time for your endless "debates" tonight Raphael1. If Dmcdevit is interested, then here is a link to all of my recent edits to Islamophobia article: [10] -- Karl Meier 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If Karl Meier would be only concerned about proper references, he probably wouldn't remove them as he did here and again here. Raphael1 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it's useless in that context. It doesn't say anything about "Islamophobia". But I already explained that to you.. Why do you find it so hard to understand? -- Karl Meier 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because the page doesn't mention the word "Islamophobia" doesn't mean, that the quotes aren't perfect examples of Coulters islamophobic slurs. Raphael1 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I do my best to resolve the dispute on Russian architecture. I propsed mediation, but the opposite party refused. Now they try to remove or change the dispute tag pretending that there is no dispute. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen.

Thanks.--AndriyK 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got a email from AndriyK. You blocked him.

Please have a look at the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags " in the section Types_of_vandalism). Blanking the tag if the dispute has not been settled is qualified as vandalism. Terefore, what Andriy was doing is just restoring the page after vandal attack. Well, tag removal is not a simple vandalism and not exempt from the three-revert rule. But AndriyK did not brake 3RR.

It would be more effective if you warn the users who were removing or vandalizing the tag against doing so as per Types_of_vandalism.

Thanks.--Mbuk 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad you took the time to consider my candidacy, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me, especially with those transwiki tasks. Let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Images on Commons

I noticed that you really chowed down on that category yesterday ;). I just finished script that I put in [[User:Voice of All/Specialadmin/monobook.js] that makes it easy to compare the licenses and delete images form the cat page. Though you have to enable "signed.applets.codebase_principal_support" in about:config if you have firefox/NS, and do somthing else for IE :).Voice-of-All 00:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request related to ArbCom case you may wish to look at

I'd like to ask you to examine this request for checkuser, which is currently pending. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iloveminun You examined and completed a prior request against the same user somewhat recently, so I'm contacting you. Currently it may have signifigance, if the request is valid enough to warrent the user of checkuser, for Iloveminun's arbcom case, which is in evidence. Note that I'm not asking you neccessarily to use the checkuser tool, if it is not warrented, mearly that you examine the request. Kevin_b_er 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag

Please note that User:Ghirlandajo provokes a new edit war by removing the OR and POV tags. Please suggest how this situation can be resolved.--AndriyK 09:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And please note that User:AndriyK is currently waging an edit war on an RFC, violating RFC policy and WP:POINT (see WP:ANI entry here.) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Irpen nor other users are permitted to edit my summary. (What they persistantly do.)--AndriyK 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to comment view on the RFC itself, only on the talk page. See here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil me

In relation to the 7th point in my arbcom case (remove this if I'm acting out of hand), you use this to maintain that I am uncivil, frequently make assumptions of bad faith such as refer to other editors as racists and bigots for opposition to my edits. I just think that edit is unfair, as it comes right after Zeno of Elea refered to me as a "Ramadan-crazed narcasistic fundamentalist" a "Muslim fundamentalist", referred to islam as a "horrid religion", Muhammad as a "deranged rapist psychopath". My reply, referring to Zeno as a Bigot was not about his editing of articles in "opposition to [my] edits", rather because those statements I have listed appeared like Bigotry to me. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope of arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries versus user:SSS108

You chose to accept the case of abritration, but what is the scope of this arbitration, only the article Sathya Sai Baba, or category:Sathya Sai Baba or category:Sathya Sai Baba plus user:Andries? I would like to know because I want to know what I should comment on. I prefer that the arbitration deals with Sathya Sai Baba and closely related articles contained in category:Sathya Sai Baba Thanks. Andries 11:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your message at User_talk:AndriyK#Blocked_again

Deletion of properly inserted dispute tags does damage the integrity of the encyclopedia because it hinder resolving POV disputes. Having deleted the tag, the supporter of POV-version of the article do not care about dispute resolution, they ignore WP:DR, refuse mediation etc. The reader remains uninformed that article is biased. It is not a surprise, that deletion of properly inserted dispute tags is forbidden by the policy.

Any edit war always has two sides (one cannot be edit warring with oneself ;) ). This does not mean that both sides are always equelly guilty. Therefore, unbiased and good faithed admin always checks the role of each users in the edit war. Reverting unexplained edits or edits with offensive edit summaries is, in most cases, usefull activity. While offensive edit summaries, removing properly inserted tags, etc. is a violation of the Policies and has to be prevented or punished.

It is difficult to assume a good faith towards the admin, who blocked one of the users and ignored incivility and violation of the Policies by the other ones. It could happen once by mistake. But if it happens second time with an experienced admin and ArbCom member, after the situation was explained by e-mail and on the talk page, it makes me think that the admin abuses his power to support his friends or the users with similar POVs. I would be glad if you convince me that I am mistaking. Thanks.--AndriyK 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't share AndriyK's suspicion about "friends" or "users with similar POVs".

But I would like to second AndriyK's concerns about removing the dispute tags. Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. The problem has to be resolved according to WP:DR. Removing the dispute tag is not the right way.--Mbuk 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, this is a well-known tactic frequently used in football: trying to shame the referee who in all fairness is harsh towards the violator to be harsh too (even if unfairly) towards an opponent. It sometimes works and causes even unjustified penalty kicks ordered by a referee in fear of being called unfair in order to show even-handedness.

Your entire activity in Wikipedia is a huge disruption and you are getting the exact treatment you are asking for. Your disputed tags were placed improperly in contravention to sources cited earlier at the article's talk pages or in the articles themselves. Your unwarranted tag-trolling and revert warring is but the only activity taken at Wikipedia since your month ban by ArbCom for other dirty tricks. You loaded the talk pages of a whole lot of people with baseless accusations and uninterrupted pestering for already answered questions. Your Wikilawyering and unwarranted appeals to the Policy pages where you also gain no support are yet as disruptive.

If you continue this tactic you will find yourself frequently blocked and experienced admins will be able to see who is acting in bad faith here. My hope is that you will simply change your ways and seize disruptive activities for now limited to tag-trolling, revert-warring, wikilawyering, content removal, attacking your opponents and unsuccessful attempts to recruit the supporters for your crusade. If you don't, you have no one but yourself to blame for not being able to edit. --Irpen 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems, one of your friends has shown up. ;)--AndriyK 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ray Hnina

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [11]especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I added Ulster Project to your desk because it involves politics and social issues (program involving 'the troubles' in Ireland). Please look at it and either accept or let me knwo and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:152.163.100.138

Since I know your on-line will you deal with this user. He is trolling at User:Vitriouxc and removing his name from WP:AIV. Could you at least semi-protect User:Vitriouxc (a indefblocked editors userpage) so he cannot edit it. — The King of Kings 08:19 July 09 '06

And User:152.163.100.134 too. — The King of Kings 08:21 July 09 '06

User:Vitriouxc is protected. User:152.163.100.138 is blocked for 15 minutes, but it's AOL, so not likely to help much. User:152.163.100.134 also appears to have been a problem, but that's AOL and there's not a high volume of edits from it, so I don't think a block is necessary. That userpage does not seem to hae a problem. Hope that solves the issue. If not, I'm, off to bed now, so you'll be better off finding someone else unless it can wait until tomorrow. Dmcdevit·t 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah

Thank you Dmcdevit. This user's relentless libel had practically driven me from Wikipedia. If ArbCom hears the case, his sympathizer Bishonen will likely use it as an excuse to unblock him to respond to the case, allowing his attacks to continue. Please don't forget about his other username, User:Amibidhrohi.Timothy Usher 09:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Email?

Is your email system not working or have you not checked your mail today? Irishpunktom and myself have agreed a full resolution of any dispute which may previously have existed between us, so the arbitration is now moot, superseded, obsoleted, etc. etc. Please confirm you understand this. David | Talk 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega delete?

I see you've been deleting A LOT of images, soo many that it's filling up the recent changes page!--Andeh 08:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Um. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Feces image

On 2006-07-01 you deleted Image:Human_Feces.jpg because someone previously moved it to the commons. Unfortunately I had added a lot of descriptive information on the english wikipedia page that wasn't there when it was moved and thus subsequently lost. Is there any way you know of to get that descriptive text back, or do I have to write it all over again? I would appreciate it if you could drop me a line and let me know. Thanks, Cacetudo 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete these edits?

Why did you revert the changes made for Image:Nuclear weapon programs worldwide.png and deleted them? Please let me know. CG 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on the Moby Dick arbitation case...

Isn't Remedy 2.1 more of an enforcement clause? It should be worded more as a remedy, and 2.1 as written could be moved to the enforcement section. Ral315 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

Greetings:

The log shows that you deleted Image:Railway swing bridge.jpg. There is no justification stated on the page. As this is a useful and important image I am requesting more information. Thanks, Leonard G. 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's still a blue link, as you can see. The reason I deleted it is simply because it's already at Commons, which is why it is still visible when linked (except now it can be used by all Wikmedia projects). Deleting duplicate images at Commons is simple housekeeping, and there's no cause for concern unless it was improperly tagged and the image deleted was a different version or had more sumary information (in which case it can be restored), but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Dmcdevit·t 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it did not work as an active link - the deletion broke two articles, the small gallery image in bridge and the infobox image in swing bridge, both of which were shown on my browser with appropriate spacing in white and a small blue icon with a question mark centered within. My temp fix for this was to make a copy of the commons image and upload it as Image:Railway_swing_bridge_from_commons.jpg. I have noticed that sometimes the servers do not properly specify use of an image in articles - I would assume that one would have to change the links in the relavant articles to point to the commons servers, (unless one can do the image equivalent of a redirect). I am not familiar with either technique. Perhaps you could re-delete my copy after updating the two articles appropriately (to point to the commons image), and I can study that as a model for any future fix that I need to do. Thanks for your patient assistance, Leonard G. 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem was probably that the server I was using had not updated yet. One problem with commons (perhaps now fixed) is that it did not show the articles referencing it, while it (usually) does of both source and reference are within wikipedia. - Leonard G. 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Verified as working correctly, and also showing the references. Thanks, Leonard G. 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag-removal edit war

I know how much you dislike edit wars. Could you please warn User:Irpen, User:Telex and User:Grafikm_fr? They remove the dispute tag while there is OR and NPOV dispute about Ukrainization and provoke edit war there. Thank you in advance.--Mbuk 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmc, if you're to examine the subject, I think you should read the whole talk page beforehand instead of believing on the spot this quite glib summary. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmc, you have blocked User:Irpen, whom we both know as a very productive contributor. He is also one of the main authors of the Ukrainization article. I have looked into the recent history of the article and have found that only two users were adding material to the article last week, they are User:Lysy and User:Irpen. Of the six reverts you mention as the reason of the block (during a week!), the very first is not a revert but an addition of a new paragraph. That leaves only five reverts, three of which are related to two different tags. For an intensively edited article it looks like a normal WP:BRD process rather than the revert warring, especially taken into account that Irpen was intensively engaged into the discussions on the talk page of the article. Is it possible to reconsider the block? abakharev 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also looked into the User:Grafikm_fr's block and among four blocks you mention, the last one is a self-revert. This leaves three reverts in a seven-day period. Are you sure it qualifies as a revert warring? abakharev 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

May I also draw your attention to the fact that before Mbuk complained to you here, he also opened an RfC against Telex (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Telex), and that his appeal to you seems to have been a second choice when the RfC was swinging against him. Since then, over the last one or two days, no revert warring seems to have taken place on the article, but quite a bit of constructive editing and discussion on the talk page. My impression is that the reasons for your blocks were mostly stale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am second that the last few days, User:Irpen and User:Lysy were adding material to the article and were actively looking for a compromise as all good wikipedians should. I completely agree that excessive edit warring is a bad thing, but would measure the excessive warring in double-digit numbers of reverts, not in three-five reverts in a week. You may also want to look into the assesmsnts of the matter by Irpen on User_talk:Irpen#Edit_warring_2. Do you object if I will bring the matter to WP:AN to seek a third opinion? abakharev 05:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stale? Look at this: that's Irpen reverting AndriyK in May (notice an OR tag?), and that's AndriyK putting in the OR tag again, in May. That's AndriyK's first edit to the article in October, 2005, and that's Irpen reverting it 10 minutes later. There is no way I can believe this is stale, after a few hours without edit warring (maybe they have to sleep). This typo fix happens to be the only edit Telex made to the article that wasn't a revert I cited. Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been surprised by Irpen's recent lack of response in our dispute at Ukrainization's talk, only to realize that he's been blocked for edit-warring at the very article. While I respect your administrator's discretion, as Irpen's opponent in the dispute, I'd like to voice my opinion that the block was inappropriate, unnecessary or even harmful. A warning to all the involved parties would probably be more useful and less disruptive. I know that Irpen is sometimes quick to revert (I am too) but he is also open for discussion. This said, I have to admit that I've not appreciated the edit war on the tags on the article going on in the background of the dispute. However, I doubt if blocking editors will help to solve this problem. What the article badly needs is a good mediation, and that is what Elonka in my understanding attempted to do there. I was going to request the help of an experienced mediator if the edit-war on tags persisted after our disputes with Irpen had been settled (or failed). All that's achieved now with the block, is that the dispute has to wait until it expires. I understand that Irpen has not been blocked because of our collaborative edits, but because of the past revert-warring on the tags, still I believe the timing of the block was inappropriate. If he deserved to be blocked, it should have happened earlier, not in the middle of a potentially productive dispute. I do not doubt your good intentions but still I suggest that you consider unblocking. --Lysy^talk 07:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I did take the block lightly even though I disagree that it was appropriate as I explained in detail at my talk. I was also surprized that the user:Mbuk whose contribution to the entire project is non-existing, save disruptions, and whose provocative behavior, wikilawyering and, particularly, the bad-faith report above largely caused this whole mess and blocks of several contributing editors got away with just a warning (despite he edit warred rabidly and was warned not to do so in the past) while editors who were actually working on the solution found themselves blocked and the article progress was thus interrupted. I do think that Dmcdevit tried to do help the best he could and since the blocks expired, the issue of those particular blocks is now moot. The more global issue on the actions in similar situation is a separate one and it is addressed below. --Irpen 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping the edit war.

I would like to add, that what Irpen has written at his talk is not true. :As a matter of fact, I explained the tag [12]. AndriyK did it as well [13], [14].--Mbuk 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your policy on edit-warring

Dmcdevit, I am still a bit puzzled about your recent blocks over Ukrainization, and I have a question regarding myself. I understand you are taking a strict stance on edit-warring, which is okay (and I've seen you inspiring shock and awe on edit-warriors at Arbcom.) But with the standards you seem to be applying, I have the feeling even I could find myself on the wrong end of them some day. So, here's a genuine question: what would you recommend me to do?

I tend to follow this rule: In an emerging dispute, I revert once with a reason in the edit summary. If that doesn't stick, I revert a second time with a detailed reasoning on talkpage. If that doesn't stick, I usually don't revert again but ask for other people's opinions or help. That may result in a third opinion on talk, leading to further consensus-building in the best case. Or it may result in those people choosing to join in reverting. I don't ask them to do that, though. But conversely, I am willing to do the same kind of "helping-out" reverts in other articles, if I'm confident that the other side is acting obstinately and disruptively and has not been responding adequately to rational talk-page discussion. There are such cases.

In practice, look at what happened at, for instance Souliotes between 20 June and 4 July. I ended up doing some 10 or 11 reverts within two weeks, scratching 3RR once. I was dealing with a guy who insisted on including an OR paragraph even while admitting it was OR. I think I removed it some five or six times. Another guy was adding and removing "fact" tags arbitrarily on the whim of which statements suited his POV and which didn't. Both were making personal attacks. I discussed extensively both on article talk and personal talk pages. I offered to go for an article RfC. But in the end, only reverting helped.

So, am I a revert-warrior in your book? Honestly, what would you suggest I do in such a situation? Don't tell me "follow dispute resolution" - I know what dispute resolution is. Article RfCs hardly ever get response these days; mediation has big backlogs and moreover requires much higher levels of mutual cooperation and rationality on both sides of a debate. Both can be great in some cases, but if all disputes of the above type and size went to either of these two avenues, the place would be utterly swamped. Informal "ask a trusted friend to join the discussion" is often much more efficient. And don't tell me "edit warring never improves a conflict, but always makes it worse". It's simply not true, in my experience. Sad as it is: some people are prepared to edit obstinately against policy and/or consensus, and cannot be reached by rational discussion. It's sometimes simply necessary to tag-team revert them in a demonstration of consensus, until they themselves reach 3RR. They understand no other language. Ugly, but in the case above that's what actually got the article pacified in the end. -- Your inveterate, unrepentant revert-warrior, Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am second this. For a case there I should probably be blocked for see Lazar Kaganovich, and yes, I sometimes "help" people in their revert wars, if I see that one side is right. I see the revert warring in combination with the 3RR as a sort of crude voting on the validity of different versions. Another inveterate, unrepentant revert-warrior, abakharev 00:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My two cents. The blocked users have been removing the {{OR}} and{{POV}} tags from the article Ukrainization, although the article has been disputed. this is quite different from your example.--Mbuk 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not different, it is utterly similar. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment to the note by the Future Perfect and Alex. I also thoroughly support admins reigning in and throwing blocks per their judgement to alleviate the overload of the ArbCom with obvious cases but under one condition: admins should take it upon themselves to thoroughly investigate the issue every time they dare to administer justice by their unilateral decisions. In cases, like the ones suggested by Alex or Future it would be easy for an admin to take the legitimate editor for an edit warrior unless the admin takes enough time to diligently study the matter. If an admin does not have time for that, he should leave it to the admins who are less busy at the moment. The emotional aggravation of the legitimate editor to be hit by an unfair block is too huge to risk it. In the note I posted at WP:AN shortly before this accident (what an amazing coincidence!) I offered one clue on how to see whether one needs to be even more thorough than normally. If the suspect is an established editor, with a reputation he likely cherishes and the empty or short block log, then what looks like edit warring may actually turn out to be something else, like WP:BRD or simply fending the troll off. As such, if the examples presented by Future and Alex the issue is looked at properly, there would not be any action against the editor who is developing the article.

This is all fine and dandy to cite WP:DR but it sounds patronizing and also offensive to the users who know it well and routinely follow it. When I remove someone's nonsense addition to the article and in response receive a {{blank}} at my talk, I would see it as a bad faith aggravating gesture. So looks the reminder of WP:DR to the editors who resolved hundreds of disagreements with their opponents in the past.

When dealing with a sock, abusive vandal or a bad-faith troll the demand to follow WP:DR just makes no sense. As such, it is useful to look and compare the involved editor's overall backgrounds to get some initial clues. Demanding to file RfCs and ArbCom every time a new troll or an extremist appears just makes no sense. We would be all writing RfCs and ArbCom submissions if we followed it. AndriyK's case is a more grievous than most, and here, I was wrong not to have addressed to the ArbCom yet.

The bottom-line is the same. If the editor is at fault, it is ok to punish him, irrespective of his past contributions. However, the due effort to determine the actual fault is required. If this is impossible, ArbCom is lesser of an evil than the editors offended by the unjustified block.

Look at it this way: this is the same discretion thing as for admins to block per their own judgement when there is no technical 3RR. The editors also can make a good-faith judgement on how to deal with particular situation and, when acting reasonably, should not be penalized for that, similar to an Admin throwing a non-3RR judgement block, should not automatically be grilled at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. --Irpen 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather agree with Irpen. Mbuk's and AndriyK's sole activity (judging by their contributions) seems to be tag insertions and reverts on various Ukraine-related pages. If someone wants I can give out detailed statistics. The rest of their edits are basically endless talking and wikilawyering, as we still have to see both of them actually write something. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RogerMooreArm

Please take a look at the case as I am told you had preformed the previous checkuser --Cat out 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! there is a new posible sockpuppet, this time an anon (User:70.235.121.129) making similar edits. Thanks. --Cat out 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks

Hello Dominic/Archive13, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

152.163.100.195 (talk · contribs)

Hi there. I realize there's nothing to stop you from randomly blocking AOL IPs, but could you at least set a slightly higher threshold for week long blocks, 1 edit from a vandal + a 1 week block = vastly more collateral damage than stopping power--205.188.116.138 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming I can't use your talk page to contact you, so I'll respond here. It looks overblown for a simple reason: the vandalism was coming from accounts using that IP, so it dos not appear in the contributions. I have m:CheckUser, and determined that a high volume of attack usernames were being created by that IP address over many days, and so I felt the block (which does not affect registered users, but does prevent account creation)was justified and appropriate. I couldn't find any productive edits, which I know is deceptive when looking at an AOL, but for some reason whoever was using this IP did not appear to be switching Is very rapidly at all, since there were many consecutive days where very obviously the same person (or people woking in connection) were on it. If this has affected you, tell me and I'll fix it right away, but if you're just a concerned AOL user watching the blocks, I hope that satisfies your worries. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I noticed you using {{Sockpuppetproven}} for puppets blocked via checkuser results; I used to do that, but eventually got tired of typing in "checkuser results" as a summary, and instead created {{sockpuppetcheckuser|Puppeteer}}. Feel free to use that if you want, it shows up as:

This user is a confirmed sock puppet of Dmcdevit, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely. See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

Hope you find it useful! Essjay (Talk) 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Would you care to also give some hint how to resolve the conflict if not with arbitration? Socafan 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ASCII

Great duck, but where is his towel? ;P Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy you, but I know that you're an arbitrator, and I was wondering if you have CheckUser privileges. There is an outstanding request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun, regarding a third imposter of mine. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not annoying; though I didn't run the original checkuser, I'll see what I can find. The duck, by the way, was donated by someone else who decided my userpage was missing it for no discernable reason. Care to donate a towel? :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah that was an easy one, obvious match, and checkuser's quick tonight. [15] I'll add this to the case soon. Dmcdevit·t 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Essjay has declined because of the Arb case, and I was thinking it was important because the ban was for one month per puppet. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Autor

Hi, who was the autor of this picture : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3AOstia-Toilets.JPG ? Kelson 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar and Arbitration

I know you have voted on the matter of Coolcaesar, but right after you voted, his destructive and malicious behavior began again, even after an ingenuine apology that you thought was legitamite. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your vote, as is clear by the edit that if an Arb Case does not make him change his ways, nothing will, and this IS indeed the apppropriate step. --69.238.56.207 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

An appeal to reason

You write:

What did you expect? We clearly disagree as to what the situation calls for. It is certainly not your decision when thi is closed, and so while we've read and know your psition, that's why there was no reaction from me: I was not moved. As for this proposed remedy it is at best goading and an assumption of bad faith. Strangely, considering your behavior so far I am not surprised. Dmcdevit·t 06:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think our disagreement is much more fundamental than being about "what the situation calls for". Firstly, I consider that your decision to reject everything I've done without a word to me to say that you had done so, or to explain why, lacks even basic common courtesy. This note was the first time you have said this, although it was four weeks ago that I sent you the statement.

As for this "proposed remedy", it's not, it's a "finding of fact". It's a fact which I have found to be true. Nothing which has appeared on that page has in any sense been taken account of by any arbitrator. Nothing at all. I really can't understand your obstinacy on this point. Whatever you think you are doing, it is not arbitration. I've offered to negotiate and suggested alternative ways of handling any problem to which proposed decision no. 1 is designed to address (which my voluntary agreement with Irishpunktom has in any case rendered impossible). Nothing has happened. No response. It has been the very opposite of the responsive process it should have been. If I sound bitter about it, then you are not getting an inaccurate impression.

I must ask for an explanation of your remark "Strangely, considering your behaviour so far I am not surprised." This is either a personal attack or something much worse. Perhaps you should bear in mind that old French proverb "Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il se défend". For the uninitiated, the point being made is that the second statement being true is not a reason to believe the first statement is true. David | Talk 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly am stunned that you expected a response to your last insulting and condescending email. If so, my answer yet again is this: you haven't solved the problem, because I personally have no assurances that your agreement with Irishpunktom will be upheld; there is no way to make sure it doesn't fall apart the second we close the case. Also, it is inadequate. The problems raised in the case speak directly to Irishpunktom's judgment and behavior as an editor, not merely towards you, and towards your judgment as an administrator, not merely in dealing with Irishpunktom. Your agreement is a good step, but not sufficient, as I did in fact explain to you. You say you agree to avoid reverting each other and to use mediation and that you won't protect or block when Irishunktom is involved. That misses the point. I want Irishpunktom not to edit war at all; I want you not to inappropriately protect or block at all, not merely with regard to each other. I want a ruling that will assure both of these things. I believe that it is not unreasonable for me to want that because your prior behavior, and especially your continued and current defense of it, has made me question your judgment.

It is my opinion that, while I have no reason to doubt that you are a superb article editor, I simply think you are not suited to be an administrator. Please don't take this personally, it is an opinion reached after an evaluation of the facts. It is clear that you unblocked yourself in a dispute, misusing your blocking tools, that you protected to your preferred version in a dispute in which you were involved, misusing your protection tools, that you repeatedly used rollback in a content dispute, misusing your rollback button, that you were even edit warring in the first place, causing doubt as to your administrative judgment, and that you have yet to recognize that any of these behaviors were wrong. Further, your continued hostility and treatment of arbitration as some kind of a battle with the arbitrators is really off-putting; that's what stimulated my response to that "proposal" of yours. It seems to me you are personalizing this with me, even though I have no more animosity towards you, or reason for such, as towards any other subjects of arbitration I've dealt with. The odd thing is that though the rest of the Arbitration Committee doesn't seem to share my seriousness towards administrative misconduct, you are still bitter about failed proposals. What I am trying to understand is why you think these confrontational and dismissive emails/messages/comments will help your case in any way. Incivility doesn't improve my opinion of your judgment. I hope you understand my position now, and why I have acted as I have. Dmcdevit·t 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid yet again you've failed to see the wood for the trees. I am not, at present, trying to get you to change your mind about anything to do with me as an administrator.

I am trying to get remedy no. 1, the article ban from editing Peter Tatchell, withdrawn.

This is because, while I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I could not in all conscience do so while that remained. I am an article writer and editor, and this is one of the articles I have largely written. An article ban is intolerable because it brands my contributions harmful. It is something which I consider a "vote of no confidence" which covers all my article contributions.

Given that I am in the situation of wanting to continue but being unable to should this article ban be passed, I am prepared to negotiate almost anything to get rid of it. Coming to a voluntary agreement with Irishpunktom, and the other proposals I have made on the workshop page, are suggested as ways which might satisfy you enough to think it unnecessary to impose an article ban.

As far as "I personally have no assurances that your agreement with Irishpunktom will be upheld", I'd like to think that you had my word for it, and that was enough, dictum meum pactum and all that. Certainly I consider a solemnly undertaken agreement to be superior to any other restriction that anyone might impose. I am at liberty to reject anything the ArbCom decides. I am not at liberty, in full conscience, to repudiate my own word. I also think the agreement has within it all that is needed to handle matters should it in fact break down - which is that it goes straight back to ArbCom. Perhaps you should read it again to remind yourself. If that really isn't good enough, why not try the 'suspended sentence' idea I suggested on the workshop? David | Talk 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would consider the "suspended sentence" idea if I thought your agreement was sufficient. As to solely remedy one, here's why I don't. I have made a very narrow proposal, that you cannot edit one article with a million alternatives. Obviously I'm not suggesting that you can just move on to articles about fruit with impunity, but even so, it's one article and you are specifically permitted, even encouraged, to make suggestions and comments on the talk page. The agreement doesn't even prohibit edit warring. It says you will each try to avoid reverting each other, and then that you will discuss when reverts become necessary. It is simple to edit war during a talk page discussion session, and claim the conditions of the agreement are upheld. It also only pertains to you and Irishpunktom, which permits both of you to edit war with others while staying within the agreement. I find that our already-narrow remedy of a specific article ban does the job nicely. It isn't, however, a vote of no confidence against all your contributions or branding them as harmful. I don't know how I can make that any clearer than coming out and saying it: as the person that proposed it , I don't think your contributions are anything like harmful. But you have been prone to edit war there, and that's why the proposal has support. An article ban, like probation, is in a counterintuitive way, indiciative of that. It means that we don't think your contributions are harmful; who in good conscience would not ban a genuinely harmful editor from Wikipedia? Rather, it allows you to edit unhindered but for one page. If you choose to react disproportionately to or intended meaning, I cannot do anything about it, but know that it would be against our wishes for you to discontinue your editing here over that. In any case, this is my reasoning for supporting remedy one in light of your agreement with Irishpunktom. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not just "one article" and you are being disingenuous to say that, when you know how by now how strongly I feel about it. The reason the agreement doesn't prohibit edit warring is that it is impossible to define edit warring. The agreement is both more and less than you think it is: it is more, because it is a positive commitment to work collaboratively, and it is less because it is not a thing that should ever be considered obeyed to the letter and not the spirit. It is more in the spirit of Wikipedia than what you want to do.

I do not think you have properly taken account of the fact that editors contributing to political articles are far, far more likely to be involved in editing disputes than others simply because more other editors have strong views on the topics they are editing. I also do not think you have taken account of the fact that this is not a severe editing dispute and would not in and of itself have come to arbcom had it not involved one editor who went on to have another dispute straight after (and that that editor was not me). That is why I am offended by arbitrary punishment. I remind you that I chose to add myself to this case.

Gratifying as it is to hear that your collective wish is that I should continue, this is simply not enough. The fact that you were willing to form judgments about me without ever asking for my side, that you have not changed those parts of the decision which are factually inaccurate, and were unwilling to entertain any form of discussion or negotiation (at least until now), is indicative of bad faith on your part. I only have your word for the claim that you wish to continue. All that I know now has taught me that this is not sufficient. You ought to remember your own statement on standing for election "The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors". David | Talk 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that quote shows exactly my motivation in this case, thanks for digging it up. An article ban is an article ban, if it were more, it would be more, and that's why it benefits our encyclopedia most. I cannot prevent an unreasonable reaction to one, however, especially since that, not the merits, seems to be your major argument for me to change my support. Don't tell me that, now that your free editing there has been threatened, it is not a dispute, after dozens of reverts and at least one 3RR violation over many months. Don't question my sincerity again or good faith, or lecture me on how arbitration works. If you have nothing new and useful to offer, then I am done here. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly unreasonable to take offence at an offensive statement, even one by implication. However I accept your sincerity and good faith are not in question: it is by now quite obvious that you had none to start with. I am not lecturing you on how arbitration works so much as telling you that what you are doing is not arbitration, and it hasn't worked. I don't know what it is you think you're doing. It certainly isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia, and please don't kid yourself that is. David | Talk 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were trying to show me that you are a productive editor that works well in our collaborative atmosphere, blatant incivility would not be the way. Dmcdevit·t 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hey Dmc. I responded to the topic you brought up. My response is a bit long, so I won't reproduce it here. But thanks for bringing up the topic.....I'm guessing this issue is bothering other people too. I hope I helped clear up some things for you. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Molobo redux?

Since it was you who blocked Molobo and brought some measure of peace to the Eastern European segment of this project, I think you might be interested to check the latest developments. There appeared 83.5.xxx.xxx, which operates from Warsaw, making usually one edit from one address. He surveys my watchlist on a regular basis and targets my contributions relentlessly. We suspect him to be Molobo, but our request to investigate was rejected on WP:RCU. Revelling in his impunity, the guy went to WP:AN and WP:ANI where he posted a slanderous message "Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree". This guy, while making no useful or constructive edits, distracts my attention from creating new content. Besides, I don't like being stalked. Could you advise what I should do? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo is lobbying against an innocent user. His personal attacks and monopoly over articles have been finally brought to the attention of the wider community by myself- see the relevant discussions at the notice boards for mroe information. I hope your healthy judgement directs you in the right direction on the matter, making no exceptions for users who regulary violate several Wikipedia policies. Please see the history of Ghirlandajo's latest block provided at the boards. Regards. 83.5.249.155 13:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon, could you be so kind as to stop your anti-Ghirlandajo campaign? If your sole aim here is to bring my edits "to the attention of the wider community", your activity may be classified as stalking. Since you don't want to be logged in and change your IPs every five minutes, it's quite impossible to talk with you in the absence of a talk page. Besides, your detailed knowledge of WP procedures and my past activities implies that you have (had) a legitimate account here. Such a blatant sockpuppetry should by no means be encouraged, especially from users who are blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I highly second Ghirla's demand. Obviously, I cannot prove as is that various IPs coming from that B class network are one and the same user, the fact that all IPs edit the same pages and have the same comments bordering on personal attacks and stalking, as well as the fact this user already knows lots of people tend to prove such a hypothesis.

Here is the list of IPs detected so far:

• 83.5.214.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.250.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.192.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.226.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.246.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.221.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.190.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.242.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.200.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.5.249.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Based on this, it appears that it is a user evading a block.

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with these types of trolls is their yellow-bellied cowardice, hiding behind the skirts of their anonymity. These trolls have a distinct pattern, and modus operandi, which sooner or later comes out and reveals who they are. It gives them a thrill thinking they are fooling everybody other than themselves. It's a shame that this is coming out of Warsaw, a beautiful city, with beautiful people (who undoubtably would take issue with this troll). Before these types of trolls could post on WK, they typically were arrested for perversion of some kind in society at large. It's unfair to brand Molobo as this Trollobo, until proven otherwise. I don't have any reason to think he would stoop to this low of a level. Dr. Dan 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not Molobo. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_user:Alex_Bakharev__and_his_semi-protection_spree, especially the latter links, for evidence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, AFAIR Molobo was from Gdynia, not from Warsaw - though I might be wrong. //Halibutt 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

According to [16] all these numbers are Polish Telecom. Proof that the 83.5 numbers are given dynamically: [17] (check the participant Spółdzielca's IP numbers). I also found an 83.5 IP user who gave an address in Lublin, so I suppose (if that was not a student working from a university computer) that Warsaw is just the address of Polish Telecom. Looks like the stalker may be difficult to block, since you may be blocking 1/32 part of Poland. Nevertheless, I think this is not Molobo, it is his style, but not his language.--Pan Gerwazy 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Activity

I've simply been rather busy at work, which should be much reduced next week. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Coolcaesar Requests for arbitration

I ask that you kindly reconsider your vote for user:coolcaesar and change it to accept the case. After he made his apologies on the arbitration page, he has gone on to offend two more Wikipedians in just 3 days. I know that there has not been alot done previously, and mediation as well as dozens of notices to him were the actions that were taken. But, after he apologized to the ArbCom, he continued again to do this. It shows that even a pending ArbCom case is not enough to change his actions. I kindly ask that you reconsider your vote for he flat out lied, and that comes after all the horrible personal attacks he committed. I posted the links on the Arbitration Case that relates to him. I would appreciate it. Thank You. --69.227.160.83 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox RfArb

I have noticed that on the "proposed decisions" of the RfArb against Eternal Equinox, you have voted to support the "Taunting by Giano" FoF using the same comment that you used to used to oppose other "Taunting by Foo" FoFs. Is this deliberate? --David Mestel^(Talk) 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a silly copy and paste error, thanks for pointing that out to me. :) Dmcdevit·t 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob - happy to be of service. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)