Dmcdevit, some weeks ago you asked me about the possiblity of designing a bot to A) check whether pages on WP:PP were still protected and B) generate a list of protected pages that weren't listed on WP:PP. I spent some time thinking about this and what could be done, and even tried out a few things. In the long run though, I've decided this is not something which is practical to do on the live server both because of the access requirements for testing whether a page is protected and the consumption of unnecessary bandwidth in the process.
However, I do believe it would be possible to meet your needs with scripts running on the toolserver. This is something which goes beyond the bot work that I have done so far, and I think you would probably have better results asking someone else about it. I suggest talking with Interiot about solving your needs, especially part A). In the long run it would be nice to have a "Special:Protectedpages" or the like on wiki to provide information on page protection (especially as the varieties increase). An open request to do this exists on bugzilla, bugzilla:2171, and you can offer comments there if you like, though I have no idea how long it is likely to be before this sees some results. In the mean time, try having a chat with Interiot, he may be able to address many of your needs.
Dragons flight 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me an opinion How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back.
evrik 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think he just did another 3rr on the philly pages. I stopped. ;-) evrik 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I think I'm going to unblock both Boothy443 and Evrik early - I think both editors have violated 3RR, but in this case, the blocks from my perspective do not seem to adequately address the core problems that are present in the editing dispute, and will only serve to defer the edit war into the future. I will not unblock right now becase I need to leave, but it will be my inclination to unblock when I return to the Wiki. Please let me know your thoughts on this, especially if there are other pressing concerns to warrant the present block to continue to full term which I may not be aware of. I hope to hear back from you soon! :-) -- HappyCamper 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. Can you please verify whether GBZ is another Gibraltarian sockpuppet? It goes on removing information from History of Gibraltar... Regards -- Ecemaml 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you keep the semi protect up for a day or so longer please? Waleeed is a persistant vandal who has been at this for weeks. Could you also check Saalama ( talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of Waleeed that has not been blocked. Thanks Jwissick (t) (c) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked User:Waleeed because, perhaps unknown to you, he had promised to stop just a couple of hours before your block (in User talk:FayssalF, who is also an admin and apparently was in discussion with him) [6]]. I can't find FayssalF's contributions more recent than 11 January, so I'm assuming that his discussion with Waleeed may have been by e-mail rather than on a talk page, but in any case perhaps touching base with FayssalF could be useful to see where things stand. In any case, I don't particularly wish to second-guess you on this, so please use your own judgment. -- Curps 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about Template:Ice hockey. I marked it for unprotected because its used only on talk pages, and is for a WikiProject (and they may want to edit it someday). -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
(2nd part of question) We don't have a firm definition of high-use (number-wise). WP:HRT was put together and there was a sudden mad dash to protect a lot of templates, which is how a wikiproject template like ice hockey got protected. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to articles like List of places named after Queen Victoria, Lists of country-related topics, List of largest airlines, Category:Cinema of China, Category:Cinema of Taiwan, Category:Cinema of Hong Kong, National dish, etc, where revert wars continue to wage. You may also wish to take note of STC's post in [7], where he showed evidence of Instantnood purposefully reigniting old edits, as I have mentioned before. Yes, administrators are also human, and yes, not all are interested or are compelled to sieve through the tonnes of quibbles we generate everyday. But I do hope a call for help like this can be looked into, in anticipation of worse problems ahead. Thank you!-- Huaiwei 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It is so annoying not to be able to monitor my watchlist due to the autoblocker and AOL. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocked yet again -- same autoblock as number 2 from the last incident. I requested a release from Android79, but if you happen to see this........ Thank you. WBardwin 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your support in my RfA. I greatly appreciated your comments about my judgment and attitude, and I hope to prove you right. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember talk 12:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As you were the person who first welcomed me here (even though I'd been here a while) you were one of my favorite support votes. Congrats and here's wishing you the best of luck and success in assuming your new tasks on behalf of all of us. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) –
Quadell (
talk) (
bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Just in case as an Arizonan you know anything of Spider Ranch, whether it's locally notable or not. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Ranch. Herostratus 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be so kind as to consider blocking 67.171.70.101 ( talk · contribs) and AJ Haskell ( talk · contribs), two seemingly obvious Andrew Lin (indefinitely blocked user) sockpuppets. Since you did the blocking of Andrew and his puppets for his persistent soda vandalism previously, I'm sure you remember this Rfc. I became suspicious that he is editing again after he receiving some instant messages from him, strangely enough (I do not know him, don't worry ;)). The latter of the above usernames has made anti-soda edits within the last two weeks, the former even more recently. - Jersyko talk 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject ( summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. R adiant _>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Working tonight? Please release this block if possible. == AOL and IP blocks ==
I've noticed increased activity in the plague articles. If I free up some time, I'll try and get back there and do some good copy edits. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Came across this - Jughead's Revenge. Looks like a deletion candidate to me, oh, mighty admin. Thanks for your note on my talk page. WBardwin 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your arbcom appointment. Much deserved! Yay dmcdevit! -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit. Thank you for taking the time to explain your oppose vote; rather than turn the `vote` into a big discussion, I'll reply here. I used the word `vote` deliberately, because it ties in with your point. You have something (an afd, an rfa, the arbcom elections, etc), people vote (support, oppose, keep, delete, etc), votes are counted. AfD is a vote. It's not a majority vote, and when
all the votes are in, it's the responsibility of the closing administrator to determine which of the votes are valid, and then whether the votes have allowed a consensus according to Wikipedia policy. I do think I could judge consensus well enough. I'm sure there used to be a question about this, which might have helped... Anyway. No hard feelings, it's your vote. Good luck with the arb com. Proto t c 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I only just got around to answering your message on my talk page, but I just added it to my watchlist and will spend a bit of time with it this afternoon. Have fun storming the castle! · Katefan0 (scribble)/ mrp 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand :-) You are the vandals! You keep deleting user pages... Just let the irismeister's user page show completely, as he meant it to be, not white as you would like it to be. He is, afterall, a user in the so-called "anyone can edit" encyclopedia of yours, and you should live up to your own standards if your honor were an issue. Besides, even your own policies should prevent vandalizing user pages, even if vandalism comes, as it does, from your own registered editors and "administrators". Finally, you complicate your legal problems unnecessarily while you help us. Indeed, you are feeding the ongoing people vs. Wikipedia libel and disinformation class and individual legal actions by providing evidence :-). Keep up to good work! :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection
Hi again, Dmcdevit (D? Dmc?). I have tried to elaborate on consensus and what my approach to AfD would be in a comment on my RfA. Please take the time to consider this, and I hope you might consider amending your vote to neutral. If there is anything else you would like to know to gain a clearer impression, please don't hesitate to leave a message for me on my talk page. Proto t c 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- appreciate the lookout on these blocks. Understand congrats are in order for your new job. A difficult function, hope you have a good time with it. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[8]. Looks like he caught himself. If he does it again, I will block him. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hello, Dominic/Archive10. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.
Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.
Second, I think your suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.
Personally, I think the integrity of Wikipedia has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.
These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That's one neat tool. :) I let Splash and katefan0 know. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reasonable answer about wheel warring. I am somewhat disappointed that you were the only one to respond to an issue the community feels strongly about ( WP:AAP), although CM did note the concern. Oh well. R adiant _>|< 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just saying hello. You must be back at school now, grappling with, um, lemme guess, various medieval authors. Is Hum still all "Western" culture, or do they have you read other classic works now? A little Analects here, a little Bhagavad Gita there, keeps the world turning. Zora 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that, yes, I did close Gibraltarian (please say I did it right!) and I've notified the parties and WP:AN and put a notice on the enforcement page. I guess I'll just let all the commentators know it's over and that'll be it! -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You say: "That "longrunning vendetta" is one you are a part of, and truthfully, it can't have happened one-sidedly". I don't follow this. Can you point to any actions or statements by me, at any time, that suggest that I bear malice towards him? I cannot. This grudge appears to be completely one-sided. He seems to have decided, very early, that I was an abusive administrator, and this seems to have colored all his interactions with me. -- Tony Sidaway 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would just like it to go on the record, that User:Instantnood appears to be igniting an old debate and continuing to do revert edits in [9], fresh out of a 7-day ban?-- Huaiwei 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dominic/Archive10, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said "congratulations" before on your new-found glory. Personally, I think that for any reasonable person this would be a kind of slow torture. But have fun and be good. "No chance this user will abuse the ArbCom tools - support" brenneman (t) (c) 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been fixing errors on Arb ever since I started following it last September. This is a major reason why I have applied to be a future ArbCom Clerk. -- TML1988 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [10] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much delete My entry on requests for arbitration. I realize it was premature, and I made a RFQ. This is my first time trying to resolve a dispute. Cuñado - Talk 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Question for you. Kate, Ral, jdavid and I made the decision to protect the talk page on NLP. That was Friday. We did it to cool tempers down. Well now, they moved the edit war over to Principles of NLP. Is that article in the mentor's jurisdiction? There is a merge tag on it to merge it into the main article and it's the same basic issues as the main article. The others and I also want to know if user pages are covered in our jurisdiction. I'm asking because we've already had one user be very uncivil on Kate's page...a user involved in NLP. Thanks. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
At 06:23 on February 11, 2006 you deleted my request for arbitration, which was entitled User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch.
Why did you do that? Are you simply allowed to delete a Request for Arbitration? Sam Sloan 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.
Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.
Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:
User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:
I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.
Zeq 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anon User:80.90.38.19 editing at Pelasgians appears to be banned user User:Irismeister based on content and tone. You might want to look into it. I see that the Faucounau stuff has made it into various non-English Wikipedias (e.g. Romanian) which I'm not competant to edit.... -- Macrakis 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .
This maybe of value:
Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Took Ben a whole week to violate his probation. *sigh* I just don't know. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.
It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.
I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"
Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.
Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Your vore was after Fred made this finding:
""Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) "
It was now shown that this was one more mistake he made in the case.v (see the case)
Please cancel the vote and do it again based on findings of real facts.
Thank You. Zeq 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus before closing RJII v. Firebug. Firebug may not actually have left. -- Netoholic @ 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In response to your request for evidence entries on the two cases in question, I've placed a digest of evidence at the above location on the evidence page and in the section following. For various interpretations see proposed findings of fact 16, 17, 18, 20 and 20.1.. -- Tony Sidaway 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response. Travb 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"Talk softly and carry a big stick?"
Since rational argument has clearly failed, you use threats.
In is irrelevent whether you are an arbitrator, you are obviously not following wikipedia policy.
Please refrain from threatening me: "VIP is expressly not for this kind of dispute, and if you put it there again after being reverted and explained to, it will be merely disruption." I have asked you for clarification of your reasoning, and you have twiced manipulated wikipedia policy. Further, you refuse to verify this statment: Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has the approval of both us and Jimbo. Prove your assertions, don't threaten me with your au-thor-i-tt-y.
You said: "so can I suggest that this is probably not worth fighting about." This is telling. You want me to drop this. Why? Where is the approval of both Jimbo and Arbcom? Where on wikipedia did Arbcom reach a consensus and Jimbo approve? If it is not on wikipedia, where are these alleged converstations which you defend Ta bu shi da yu with?
Further, you have not shown where my complaint on Vandalism in progress is not vandalism. You created a sentence which fit your own view, but you have yet to state a sentence which supports your view. Travb 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you removed some of the userboxes from the Userbox/Beliefs page. Were you also the person that deleted the actual templates? -- Shanedidona 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please restore {{ User Doom box}}. It is meant to be funny and lighthearted. It has been around for weeks and even TonySideaway and MarkSweep have left it alone (or perhaps they just didn't know of its existence). Thank you. -- F a ng Aili 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't see it as anything but humorous and expressing a certain exasperation among people who happen to like userboxes. -- F a ng Aili 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I did something that administration didn't do:
I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.
Subject: RE: AskArchivist
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500
From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: travb****@yahoo.com
Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.
Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a
link back to the entire article at time.com.
You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.
Best regards,
Bonnie Kroll
Ask the Archivist
I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.
Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you took interest in an arbitration where I am involved. I was one of the editors who repeatedly added a quotation of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, which shown him in bad light, while some other editors kept removing it. See [18] for the removed text (note the move of the "<!--" comment tag). Now there is a Proposed decision to ban me from the article. Could you please take a look at the case once again?
Available sources for the two quoations are collected here, and here. I believe I made all my edits in good faith; if ever in doubt, do not hesitate to ask me about any edits I made (I am trying to be short here).
With best regards,
Heptor
talk 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please consider this a non-greeting not in any way related to this edit, since that would probably constitute improper communications in light of this. But I hope your day is all you could hope for it to be. Guettarda 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the AC is known to be one big happy cabal anyhow, I don't figure it's any worse for me to wish you a happy birthday in the open. Have a good one! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I noticed on the Tommstein arbitration page(s) that Central was placed on personal attack patrol. He has recently attacked myself, but more importantly attacked other users directly involved with the JW pages stating one or more of them are me. I am not, and have not been involved with those pages for over two months. Here is his quotation:
"There appears a clear grossly biased pro-JW agenda going on here in the same way the JW Fundamentalist sock puppet Retcon|Missionary was doing. I imagine he is quite possibly involved posting under a new log on name[s]. The JW aim unmistakably emerging to be is: (1) Mess up all non-pro Watchtower material mixing it with opposite material, (2) Then remove all such material to new pages, (3) Then remove the new pages at a later date, and bingo! An entirely grossly pro-JW set of propaganda articles are left. If anything remotely balanced is still in existence, it is so hard to find the public coming here will give up. It does not take a brain surgeon to see this corrupt biased and manipulative goal unfolding here, and it's certainly not hidden with all the less than covert smaller steps towards that Pro-Watchtower propaganda end. Central 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
Here is the link to the violation as he is on personal attack patrol. For the integrity of the JW project, moreso than for vindication for myself and past actions in 2005, I wish to file a formal complaint regarding Central. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Retcon 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have really really pissed off some anonymous Shi'a. He (it's probably a he) believes that any use of the word Rafidi on Wikipedia is an insult to Shi'a everywhere. I point out that it just means Refuser, that it is not necessarily a slur, and that it was used at the time of Ali. Makes no difference ... this guy is convinced that any use of the word Rafidi makes the utterer a Salafi Muslim and he hates Salafis. I've been restoring the word Rafidi when he deletes it, and I've also blocked his attempts to link a page of Shi'a invective to the articles for Wahhabis and Salafis.
I think this is the Samarra shrine bombing effect.
So, how are you? Zora 08:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, my apologies but it seems Central has taken it upon himself to now personally attack administrator Sean Black and editor Duffer1 here. I'm unsure if he will be able to markedly change from his present ways as even some on his side of certain arguments on the JW pages are having difficulty with him including Joshbuddy. It does not appear that he views his probation in a serious manner. Retcon 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I presented evidence showing that it was Zero who removed scholarly work (from a book by Morris) and replaced it with propeganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#This_is_the_section_-_can_you_read_it_.3F
if you have extar time please see this as well:
Can you help me getting ArbCom to look at the evidence ? rule on it and explain under what circumsatces removing such material is allowed ?
Zeq 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've pulled your prod request, he was notable enough to appear on What's My Line in 1960 [19] MNewnham 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiHowTo does exist wit more than 600 articles! If you want to contribute, then you can go to its home page, and help it become a mediawiki project! Moa3333 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about how to interpret the wording of your proposed administrative 1RR remedy, and I have put my thoughts, with concrete examples, here. Your thoughts would be useful in clearing up any confusion. -- Tony Sidaway 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:
ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
While I totaly disaprove of the content and tone comment that you reverted I feel that indeed something very wrong had occured here.
Many times I wrote: I don't have any problem with ArbCom banning me altogether. All I care is for Nakba to become NPOV. that is all
There were indeed edit wars, from both sides. ArbCom ignored one side.
There were no attempts of dispute resultion in the nakba conflict. as a new editor I only now learned about these options - ArbCom ignored that.
I made requestes about the problem in Nakba to Jayjg, Fred and Jimbo - no one made any effort to direct the feuding parties into any dispute resolution process. Yet you ignored that in the verdict.
The edit war by Zero continue. In 1948 war (until it was protected now protected over 3 weeks), in Nakba the edit wars continue until now (without me) and Zero continue to just revert people left and right on many articles. ArbCom has ignored all that
Prior to close you can still fix it. I suggest you start by interducing into the verdict two items: 1. Clarification about sources, when can what be removed (see Jay comment) 2. mandate a quick dispute resolution process for Nakba
You can also take more steps so that Zero's abuse will stop. I did not wrote abuse lightly - read how he treats other editors (as "trash" "vomit" etc..)
Zeq 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have listed a request for arbitration in which you are an involved party here. uriah923( talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sideaway unprotected it with absolutely no discussion with the mentors. I reprotected it but now he is arguing the point. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that most admin tools shouldn't be used lightly, but I'm surprised to hear you lumping them together that way. One-click rollback is just a shortcut for an edit anyone can make. Blocking is a significantly bigger deal. Friday (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from the article, Dario Chioli. This article had already gone through the AfD in November. The result of the discussion was no consensus. The "rules of engagement" for the prod tag dictate that this article is not a candidate to be deleted using the Propsoed deletion process as this is a controversial deletion. This article will have to be re-nominated for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. I have taken no further action on the article. James084 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the weirdest SuggestBot list...ever. lol The one towards the bottom will really make you laugh. This is what happens when someone has 21,000 edits and his high on any one article is only 125. :) -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize that you took out my note that one of the bans was overturned, because the administrator who put it on was in error? That really needs to be there. Where on that page can I note that? RJII 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
It seems our old friend Gibraltarian is back. This time avoiding setting up any sockpuppet, under the IP address 212.120.226.60. He just reverted this article and tried to erase any mention of his permanent block from his former user page. Any friendly administrator willing to take care of him before this escalates once again? Thanks, Asterion 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Flame wars ragin' out of control -- the situation is dire -- it's time for McDevitMan!
What kind of costume do you wear? Zora 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you responded positively to the idea of a separate page for users to ask for enforcement [21]. I've setup a prototype and I'm seeking comment User:SchmuckyTheCat/UREA proto. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Snowspinner asks slimvirgin to take care of EveryKing, She then emails snowspinner off wiki: [22]. He then thanks he for her help, [23]. Within 15 minutes EveryKing is blocked by an notably anti-larouch editor [24] whos had no measurable recent involvement in any page involving Everyking.
In our IRC discussion you agreed that because the requirements in this case were open to interpretation we must trust admin judgment. I pointed out that we can't depend on admin judgment when the action was initiated by those with widely known an publicly announced vendetta I assume good faith, but I can't ignore disturbing evidence, that events above are clear cause to warrant at least a basic consideration. And your response to me? <Dmcdevit> This is why we make admins: they have discretion to act. Give me a break. And leave your bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories for the playground not the encyclopedia.
The respect I had for you is lost. I see you too are more interested in protecting the interests of a favored crowd then fulfilling your role as an arbitrator by demanding a situation where all parties can believe they are are treated fairly. This project will soon have a thousand administrators, and yet the arbcom is still unable to find the courage to demand that a handful of editors with a clear vendetta have no further involvement, direct or indirect, with enforcing control on Everyking. Such a simple, obvious, and uncontroversial thing.... The handling of this subject has been so negligent and against the goal of achieving resolution that the users who are attempting to drive Everyking off the project need make only the slightest efforts to conceal their activities before you dismiss all objections as bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories. -- Gmaxwell 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, some weeks ago you asked me about the possiblity of designing a bot to A) check whether pages on WP:PP were still protected and B) generate a list of protected pages that weren't listed on WP:PP. I spent some time thinking about this and what could be done, and even tried out a few things. In the long run though, I've decided this is not something which is practical to do on the live server both because of the access requirements for testing whether a page is protected and the consumption of unnecessary bandwidth in the process.
However, I do believe it would be possible to meet your needs with scripts running on the toolserver. This is something which goes beyond the bot work that I have done so far, and I think you would probably have better results asking someone else about it. I suggest talking with Interiot about solving your needs, especially part A). In the long run it would be nice to have a "Special:Protectedpages" or the like on wiki to provide information on page protection (especially as the varieties increase). An open request to do this exists on bugzilla, bugzilla:2171, and you can offer comments there if you like, though I have no idea how long it is likely to be before this sees some results. In the mean time, try having a chat with Interiot, he may be able to address many of your needs.
Dragons flight 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me an opinion How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back.
evrik 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think he just did another 3rr on the philly pages. I stopped. ;-) evrik 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I think I'm going to unblock both Boothy443 and Evrik early - I think both editors have violated 3RR, but in this case, the blocks from my perspective do not seem to adequately address the core problems that are present in the editing dispute, and will only serve to defer the edit war into the future. I will not unblock right now becase I need to leave, but it will be my inclination to unblock when I return to the Wiki. Please let me know your thoughts on this, especially if there are other pressing concerns to warrant the present block to continue to full term which I may not be aware of. I hope to hear back from you soon! :-) -- HappyCamper 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. Can you please verify whether GBZ is another Gibraltarian sockpuppet? It goes on removing information from History of Gibraltar... Regards -- Ecemaml 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you keep the semi protect up for a day or so longer please? Waleeed is a persistant vandal who has been at this for weeks. Could you also check Saalama ( talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of Waleeed that has not been blocked. Thanks Jwissick (t) (c) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked User:Waleeed because, perhaps unknown to you, he had promised to stop just a couple of hours before your block (in User talk:FayssalF, who is also an admin and apparently was in discussion with him) [6]]. I can't find FayssalF's contributions more recent than 11 January, so I'm assuming that his discussion with Waleeed may have been by e-mail rather than on a talk page, but in any case perhaps touching base with FayssalF could be useful to see where things stand. In any case, I don't particularly wish to second-guess you on this, so please use your own judgment. -- Curps 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about Template:Ice hockey. I marked it for unprotected because its used only on talk pages, and is for a WikiProject (and they may want to edit it someday). -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
(2nd part of question) We don't have a firm definition of high-use (number-wise). WP:HRT was put together and there was a sudden mad dash to protect a lot of templates, which is how a wikiproject template like ice hockey got protected. -- Netoholic @ 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to articles like List of places named after Queen Victoria, Lists of country-related topics, List of largest airlines, Category:Cinema of China, Category:Cinema of Taiwan, Category:Cinema of Hong Kong, National dish, etc, where revert wars continue to wage. You may also wish to take note of STC's post in [7], where he showed evidence of Instantnood purposefully reigniting old edits, as I have mentioned before. Yes, administrators are also human, and yes, not all are interested or are compelled to sieve through the tonnes of quibbles we generate everyday. But I do hope a call for help like this can be looked into, in anticipation of worse problems ahead. Thank you!-- Huaiwei 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It is so annoying not to be able to monitor my watchlist due to the autoblocker and AOL. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocked yet again -- same autoblock as number 2 from the last incident. I requested a release from Android79, but if you happen to see this........ Thank you. WBardwin 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your support in my RfA. I greatly appreciated your comments about my judgment and attitude, and I hope to prove you right. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember talk 12:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As you were the person who first welcomed me here (even though I'd been here a while) you were one of my favorite support votes. Congrats and here's wishing you the best of luck and success in assuming your new tasks on behalf of all of us. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) –
Quadell (
talk) (
bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Just in case as an Arizonan you know anything of Spider Ranch, whether it's locally notable or not. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Ranch. Herostratus 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be so kind as to consider blocking 67.171.70.101 ( talk · contribs) and AJ Haskell ( talk · contribs), two seemingly obvious Andrew Lin (indefinitely blocked user) sockpuppets. Since you did the blocking of Andrew and his puppets for his persistent soda vandalism previously, I'm sure you remember this Rfc. I became suspicious that he is editing again after he receiving some instant messages from him, strangely enough (I do not know him, don't worry ;)). The latter of the above usernames has made anti-soda edits within the last two weeks, the former even more recently. - Jersyko talk 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject ( summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. R adiant _>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Working tonight? Please release this block if possible. == AOL and IP blocks ==
I've noticed increased activity in the plague articles. If I free up some time, I'll try and get back there and do some good copy edits. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Came across this - Jughead's Revenge. Looks like a deletion candidate to me, oh, mighty admin. Thanks for your note on my talk page. WBardwin 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your arbcom appointment. Much deserved! Yay dmcdevit! -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit. Thank you for taking the time to explain your oppose vote; rather than turn the `vote` into a big discussion, I'll reply here. I used the word `vote` deliberately, because it ties in with your point. You have something (an afd, an rfa, the arbcom elections, etc), people vote (support, oppose, keep, delete, etc), votes are counted. AfD is a vote. It's not a majority vote, and when
all the votes are in, it's the responsibility of the closing administrator to determine which of the votes are valid, and then whether the votes have allowed a consensus according to Wikipedia policy. I do think I could judge consensus well enough. I'm sure there used to be a question about this, which might have helped... Anyway. No hard feelings, it's your vote. Good luck with the arb com. Proto t c 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I only just got around to answering your message on my talk page, but I just added it to my watchlist and will spend a bit of time with it this afternoon. Have fun storming the castle! · Katefan0 (scribble)/ mrp 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand :-) You are the vandals! You keep deleting user pages... Just let the irismeister's user page show completely, as he meant it to be, not white as you would like it to be. He is, afterall, a user in the so-called "anyone can edit" encyclopedia of yours, and you should live up to your own standards if your honor were an issue. Besides, even your own policies should prevent vandalizing user pages, even if vandalism comes, as it does, from your own registered editors and "administrators". Finally, you complicate your legal problems unnecessarily while you help us. Indeed, you are feeding the ongoing people vs. Wikipedia libel and disinformation class and individual legal actions by providing evidence :-). Keep up to good work! :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection
Hi again, Dmcdevit (D? Dmc?). I have tried to elaborate on consensus and what my approach to AfD would be in a comment on my RfA. Please take the time to consider this, and I hope you might consider amending your vote to neutral. If there is anything else you would like to know to gain a clearer impression, please don't hesitate to leave a message for me on my talk page. Proto t c 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- appreciate the lookout on these blocks. Understand congrats are in order for your new job. A difficult function, hope you have a good time with it. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[8]. Looks like he caught himself. If he does it again, I will block him. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hello, Dominic/Archive10. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.
Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to take a minute to comment on your vote on the Johnski arbitration case. First of all, it appears there probably are now enough votes to close the case. That case (along with many others) has been stalled for a month now because of the arbitration elections. Meanwhile, Johnski has been aggressively editing the article, with little or no consequence. I was able to get an administrator to block him, although that likely will only been a week at the most.
Second, I think your suggestion that semi-protection not be indefinite is limiting at best. So far, the arbitration committee, has not (in my opinion) given any deterrent to those editors who constantly whitewash the article to stop. Mind you, these same editors are probably DOM agents (although this is not completely verifiable) pushing what is essentially is scam. This means, the problem will continue to be an ongoing issue which possibly will have to be revisited by the arbitration committee in the future.
Personally, I think the integrity of Wikipedia has to be taken in to account. There are at least nine other people who jointly filed this RFA (complainants) which agree that these editors are posing a problem to the community. If an arbitration committee sits idling by and gives the appearance of not giving a damn, then we as editors have to wonder why we are wasting our time fixing the articles where an editor is aggressively POV pushing.
These comments aren't meant to be an attack, but a wake up call. All I'm asking if for arbitration committee members to look at the history of the dispute and take it seriously. I'm very leery whether this arbitration decision will do anything to help the decision. Maybe I wasted my time filing it. If anything, I think the decision that is being made needs to be strengthened, not made weaker as you are suggesting. I've made some suggestions as to what can be done on various pages for this arbitration case and for the most part they have been ignored. It is disheartening to spend so much time trying to fix something and be told my suggestions don't matter. Thank for hearing me out. Davidpdx 11:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That's one neat tool. :) I let Splash and katefan0 know. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reasonable answer about wheel warring. I am somewhat disappointed that you were the only one to respond to an issue the community feels strongly about ( WP:AAP), although CM did note the concern. Oh well. R adiant _>|< 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just saying hello. You must be back at school now, grappling with, um, lemme guess, various medieval authors. Is Hum still all "Western" culture, or do they have you read other classic works now? A little Analects here, a little Bhagavad Gita there, keeps the world turning. Zora 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that, yes, I did close Gibraltarian (please say I did it right!) and I've notified the parties and WP:AN and put a notice on the enforcement page. I guess I'll just let all the commentators know it's over and that'll be it! -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You say: "That "longrunning vendetta" is one you are a part of, and truthfully, it can't have happened one-sidedly". I don't follow this. Can you point to any actions or statements by me, at any time, that suggest that I bear malice towards him? I cannot. This grudge appears to be completely one-sided. He seems to have decided, very early, that I was an abusive administrator, and this seems to have colored all his interactions with me. -- Tony Sidaway 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would just like it to go on the record, that User:Instantnood appears to be igniting an old debate and continuing to do revert edits in [9], fresh out of a 7-day ban?-- Huaiwei 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dominic/Archive10, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said "congratulations" before on your new-found glory. Personally, I think that for any reasonable person this would be a kind of slow torture. But have fun and be good. "No chance this user will abuse the ArbCom tools - support" brenneman (t) (c) 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been fixing errors on Arb ever since I started following it last September. This is a major reason why I have applied to be a future ArbCom Clerk. -- TML1988 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [10] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can pretty much delete My entry on requests for arbitration. I realize it was premature, and I made a RFQ. This is my first time trying to resolve a dispute. Cuñado - Talk 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Question for you. Kate, Ral, jdavid and I made the decision to protect the talk page on NLP. That was Friday. We did it to cool tempers down. Well now, they moved the edit war over to Principles of NLP. Is that article in the mentor's jurisdiction? There is a merge tag on it to merge it into the main article and it's the same basic issues as the main article. The others and I also want to know if user pages are covered in our jurisdiction. I'm asking because we've already had one user be very uncivil on Kate's page...a user involved in NLP. Thanks. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
At 06:23 on February 11, 2006 you deleted my request for arbitration, which was entitled User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch.
Why did you do that? Are you simply allowed to delete a Request for Arbitration? Sam Sloan 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.
Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.
Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:
User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:
I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.
Zeq 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anon User:80.90.38.19 editing at Pelasgians appears to be banned user User:Irismeister based on content and tone. You might want to look into it. I see that the Faucounau stuff has made it into various non-English Wikipedias (e.g. Romanian) which I'm not competant to edit.... -- Macrakis 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .
This maybe of value:
Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Took Ben a whole week to violate his probation. *sigh* I just don't know. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.
It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.
I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"
Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.
Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Your vore was after Fred made this finding:
""Removing good information, adding poor information Fred Bauder 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) "
It was now shown that this was one more mistake he made in the case.v (see the case)
Please cancel the vote and do it again based on findings of real facts.
Thank You. Zeq 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus before closing RJII v. Firebug. Firebug may not actually have left. -- Netoholic @ 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In response to your request for evidence entries on the two cases in question, I've placed a digest of evidence at the above location on the evidence page and in the section following. For various interpretations see proposed findings of fact 16, 17, 18, 20 and 20.1.. -- Tony Sidaway 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen a revert war on vandalism in progress until today. Maybe if you can cite were it says deletion of several photos on several pages because of one person's view on fair use is NOT vandalism, that will settle the dispute. Fortunatly, until today, I have never been forced to become familar with wikipedia's vandalism policy. I look forward to your response. Travb 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"Talk softly and carry a big stick?"
Since rational argument has clearly failed, you use threats.
In is irrelevent whether you are an arbitrator, you are obviously not following wikipedia policy.
Please refrain from threatening me: "VIP is expressly not for this kind of dispute, and if you put it there again after being reverted and explained to, it will be merely disruption." I have asked you for clarification of your reasoning, and you have twiced manipulated wikipedia policy. Further, you refuse to verify this statment: Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has the approval of both us and Jimbo. Prove your assertions, don't threaten me with your au-thor-i-tt-y.
You said: "so can I suggest that this is probably not worth fighting about." This is telling. You want me to drop this. Why? Where is the approval of both Jimbo and Arbcom? Where on wikipedia did Arbcom reach a consensus and Jimbo approve? If it is not on wikipedia, where are these alleged converstations which you defend Ta bu shi da yu with?
Further, you have not shown where my complaint on Vandalism in progress is not vandalism. You created a sentence which fit your own view, but you have yet to state a sentence which supports your view. Travb 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you removed some of the userboxes from the Userbox/Beliefs page. Were you also the person that deleted the actual templates? -- Shanedidona 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please restore {{ User Doom box}}. It is meant to be funny and lighthearted. It has been around for weeks and even TonySideaway and MarkSweep have left it alone (or perhaps they just didn't know of its existence). Thank you. -- F a ng Aili 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't see it as anything but humorous and expressing a certain exasperation among people who happen to like userboxes. -- F a ng Aili 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I did something that administration didn't do:
I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.
Subject: RE: AskArchivist
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500
From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: travb****@yahoo.com
Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.
Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a
link back to the entire article at time.com.
You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.
Best regards,
Bonnie Kroll
Ask the Archivist
I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.
Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you took interest in an arbitration where I am involved. I was one of the editors who repeatedly added a quotation of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, which shown him in bad light, while some other editors kept removing it. See [18] for the removed text (note the move of the "<!--" comment tag). Now there is a Proposed decision to ban me from the article. Could you please take a look at the case once again?
Available sources for the two quoations are collected here, and here. I believe I made all my edits in good faith; if ever in doubt, do not hesitate to ask me about any edits I made (I am trying to be short here).
With best regards,
Heptor
talk 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please consider this a non-greeting not in any way related to this edit, since that would probably constitute improper communications in light of this. But I hope your day is all you could hope for it to be. Guettarda 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the AC is known to be one big happy cabal anyhow, I don't figure it's any worse for me to wish you a happy birthday in the open. Have a good one! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I noticed on the Tommstein arbitration page(s) that Central was placed on personal attack patrol. He has recently attacked myself, but more importantly attacked other users directly involved with the JW pages stating one or more of them are me. I am not, and have not been involved with those pages for over two months. Here is his quotation:
"There appears a clear grossly biased pro-JW agenda going on here in the same way the JW Fundamentalist sock puppet Retcon|Missionary was doing. I imagine he is quite possibly involved posting under a new log on name[s]. The JW aim unmistakably emerging to be is: (1) Mess up all non-pro Watchtower material mixing it with opposite material, (2) Then remove all such material to new pages, (3) Then remove the new pages at a later date, and bingo! An entirely grossly pro-JW set of propaganda articles are left. If anything remotely balanced is still in existence, it is so hard to find the public coming here will give up. It does not take a brain surgeon to see this corrupt biased and manipulative goal unfolding here, and it's certainly not hidden with all the less than covert smaller steps towards that Pro-Watchtower propaganda end. Central 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
Here is the link to the violation as he is on personal attack patrol. For the integrity of the JW project, moreso than for vindication for myself and past actions in 2005, I wish to file a formal complaint regarding Central. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Retcon 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have really really pissed off some anonymous Shi'a. He (it's probably a he) believes that any use of the word Rafidi on Wikipedia is an insult to Shi'a everywhere. I point out that it just means Refuser, that it is not necessarily a slur, and that it was used at the time of Ali. Makes no difference ... this guy is convinced that any use of the word Rafidi makes the utterer a Salafi Muslim and he hates Salafis. I've been restoring the word Rafidi when he deletes it, and I've also blocked his attempts to link a page of Shi'a invective to the articles for Wahhabis and Salafis.
I think this is the Samarra shrine bombing effect.
So, how are you? Zora 08:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, my apologies but it seems Central has taken it upon himself to now personally attack administrator Sean Black and editor Duffer1 here. I'm unsure if he will be able to markedly change from his present ways as even some on his side of certain arguments on the JW pages are having difficulty with him including Joshbuddy. It does not appear that he views his probation in a serious manner. Retcon 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I presented evidence showing that it was Zero who removed scholarly work (from a book by Morris) and replaced it with propeganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#This_is_the_section_-_can_you_read_it_.3F
if you have extar time please see this as well:
Can you help me getting ArbCom to look at the evidence ? rule on it and explain under what circumsatces removing such material is allowed ?
Zeq 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've pulled your prod request, he was notable enough to appear on What's My Line in 1960 [19] MNewnham 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiHowTo does exist wit more than 600 articles! If you want to contribute, then you can go to its home page, and help it become a mediawiki project! Moa3333 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion about how to interpret the wording of your proposed administrative 1RR remedy, and I have put my thoughts, with concrete examples, here. Your thoughts would be useful in clearing up any confusion. -- Tony Sidaway 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:
ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
While I totaly disaprove of the content and tone comment that you reverted I feel that indeed something very wrong had occured here.
Many times I wrote: I don't have any problem with ArbCom banning me altogether. All I care is for Nakba to become NPOV. that is all
There were indeed edit wars, from both sides. ArbCom ignored one side.
There were no attempts of dispute resultion in the nakba conflict. as a new editor I only now learned about these options - ArbCom ignored that.
I made requestes about the problem in Nakba to Jayjg, Fred and Jimbo - no one made any effort to direct the feuding parties into any dispute resolution process. Yet you ignored that in the verdict.
The edit war by Zero continue. In 1948 war (until it was protected now protected over 3 weeks), in Nakba the edit wars continue until now (without me) and Zero continue to just revert people left and right on many articles. ArbCom has ignored all that
Prior to close you can still fix it. I suggest you start by interducing into the verdict two items: 1. Clarification about sources, when can what be removed (see Jay comment) 2. mandate a quick dispute resolution process for Nakba
You can also take more steps so that Zero's abuse will stop. I did not wrote abuse lightly - read how he treats other editors (as "trash" "vomit" etc..)
Zeq 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have listed a request for arbitration in which you are an involved party here. uriah923( talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sideaway unprotected it with absolutely no discussion with the mentors. I reprotected it but now he is arguing the point. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that most admin tools shouldn't be used lightly, but I'm surprised to hear you lumping them together that way. One-click rollback is just a shortcut for an edit anyone can make. Blocking is a significantly bigger deal. Friday (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from the article, Dario Chioli. This article had already gone through the AfD in November. The result of the discussion was no consensus. The "rules of engagement" for the prod tag dictate that this article is not a candidate to be deleted using the Propsoed deletion process as this is a controversial deletion. This article will have to be re-nominated for deletion if you believe it should be deleted. I have taken no further action on the article. James084 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the weirdest SuggestBot list...ever. lol The one towards the bottom will really make you laugh. This is what happens when someone has 21,000 edits and his high on any one article is only 125. :) -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize that you took out my note that one of the bans was overturned, because the administrator who put it on was in error? That really needs to be there. Where on that page can I note that? RJII 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
It seems our old friend Gibraltarian is back. This time avoiding setting up any sockpuppet, under the IP address 212.120.226.60. He just reverted this article and tried to erase any mention of his permanent block from his former user page. Any friendly administrator willing to take care of him before this escalates once again? Thanks, Asterion 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Flame wars ragin' out of control -- the situation is dire -- it's time for McDevitMan!
What kind of costume do you wear? Zora 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you responded positively to the idea of a separate page for users to ask for enforcement [21]. I've setup a prototype and I'm seeking comment User:SchmuckyTheCat/UREA proto. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Snowspinner asks slimvirgin to take care of EveryKing, She then emails snowspinner off wiki: [22]. He then thanks he for her help, [23]. Within 15 minutes EveryKing is blocked by an notably anti-larouch editor [24] whos had no measurable recent involvement in any page involving Everyking.
In our IRC discussion you agreed that because the requirements in this case were open to interpretation we must trust admin judgment. I pointed out that we can't depend on admin judgment when the action was initiated by those with widely known an publicly announced vendetta I assume good faith, but I can't ignore disturbing evidence, that events above are clear cause to warrant at least a basic consideration. And your response to me? <Dmcdevit> This is why we make admins: they have discretion to act. Give me a break. And leave your bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories for the playground not the encyclopedia.
The respect I had for you is lost. I see you too are more interested in protecting the interests of a favored crowd then fulfilling your role as an arbitrator by demanding a situation where all parties can believe they are are treated fairly. This project will soon have a thousand administrators, and yet the arbcom is still unable to find the courage to demand that a handful of editors with a clear vendetta have no further involvement, direct or indirect, with enforcing control on Everyking. Such a simple, obvious, and uncontroversial thing.... The handling of this subject has been so negligent and against the goal of achieving resolution that the users who are attempting to drive Everyking off the project need make only the slightest efforts to conceal their activities before you dismiss all objections as bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories. -- Gmaxwell 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)