I've been thinking about it, and I agree. I'll do it. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you review my edit of the history section on the Pottery article? It's currently at User:Brunnock/Pottery. -- Sean Brunnock 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I created a redirect page at User:Uriah923/ON to fix redlinks on pages such as Talk:Conventional warfare. I suppose this would help an SEO attempt a tiny bit, but I don't think its a problem.

How do you like Reed? I'm thinking about applying. Is the reputation for "extreme academic workload, a sink-or-swim social ethic, and a reputation for heavy recreational drug use" ( Reed College) accurate? I don't mind a "reputation as politically left-wing," but are other viewpoints encouraged and welcomed? And how did you get your parents to let you go to such a crazy place? You can email me or reply here. Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Another thing: could you do something about 24.97.210.40, who keeps adding useless, nonnotable info to Corn nut? I've already reverted his edits 5 times in the past few months. TheJabberwock 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,

You moved this into the "motion to close" section on Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but you have not actually moved to close the case. Thanks, Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hrm, Mindspillage confused me by motioning and then reverting herself. :-) Dmcdevit· t 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the release -- appreciate the prompt attention. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Should I just say "Ditto?" Thanks for keeping me on your watchlist. Best....... WBardwin 07:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Oops... forgot to check the AOL ranges. Thanks for unblocking it. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You say "Only proposed enforcement 1 passes." I believe it only has five supporting votes and two opposes, requiring seven for a majority. I deduce from the voting patterns and comments that there is some feeling that an enforcement clause would be somewhat superfluous in my case. If this isn't the case, those who opposed should perhaps reconsider their votes. -- Tony Sidaway 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rolling sanctions against me into this matter in this fashion is out of process,

• I am not a party to the matter
• The proposed sanctions are not on the Workshop page, so I am barred from even defending myself
• Some of the causes of action you describe are not even tangental to this matter

...and as to the specifics on vandalism...

• Several dozen people refer to MarkSweeps actions as vandalism, which makes a significant consensus
• it is a proposed finding of fact, are you considering sactioning anyone who supports it?
• I have criticized actions, not people, so this cannot be a personal attack

...and on UPP...

• There is no stated policy to prohibit my messages to 43 UN Wikipedians, save one, which I have acknowleged
• The action in the sanction is misdescribed, and in any even merits a finding of fact to support it
• I have exhaustively allocuted to my actions
• In light of the uncivil comments directed at me by several opponents, this scarcely bears mention. Specifically, for you to allege that I was attempting to stack a vote would itself be a failure to assume good faith, and by your standards, a personal attack

If you really want to do this, which I recommend against, bring it as a separate matter yourself, rather than proscecuting from the bench. Be advised that you are treading on several Foundation issues and will likely be the subject of an appeal.

StrangerInParadise 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You are indeed a party, and have involved yourself quite extensively at this point. Several of your points are clear-cut wikilawyering. I don't need a policy to declare something that is wrong wrong. You may indeed defend yourself on the workshop right now. That "several dozen people refer to MarkSweeps actions as vandalism, which makes a significant consensus" is unsubstantiated (and sounds very exaggerated), most definitely not what consensus means, and we don't declare undesirable edits "vandalism" by consensus, anyway. Calling people vandals and thugs is most certainly commenting on people, not actions. There is no question that you were stacking the vote. Please don't waste our time with accusations against me and idle threats. I propose what I do for no other reason than that after a careful review of the evidence and your own contributions, I have decided this is the necessary action. The process for the Arbitration Committee is the Arbitration Committee's process. I am not out of process. Rather, I suggest you take criticism to heart and act both civilly and not disruptively. Dmcdevit· t 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

After reading Tony's explanation, I see how this bypassing the workshop page is not strictly out-of-process, though I still maintain that it is bad process. My question remains: for what possible reason would an arbiter bypass an active workshop page, except to bypass discussion?

I am unaware of having made an idle threat, could you clarify? Also, you should not take my comments as an accusation in any but the most rhetorical sense: if you are so certain that to conclude vandalism is a failure to assume good faith (despite the evidence), is it not possible that to conclude that vote-stacking is similarly a failure to assume good faith? You may deplore what I did, as I deplore what MarkSweep did. Either we should speak freely of our convictions, or be consistent in withholding judgement. I'd opt for the former. BTW, a minority consensus is still significant, and in the case of the perception of vandalism, it is much, much larger than you allow. I could do a poll- no names of course- on WP:CENT and see what others say. I do not claim that MarkSweep's actions are vandalism because many others say so, or would say so, I claim it because they were destructive, out-of-process and in clear bad faith. You should consider whether you are seeking to punish me for a legitimate difference of opinion.

BTW, when I say prima facia bad faith, are you clear on what I mean? I have been wondering.

Also, "after a careful review of the evidence and your own contributions, I have decided this is the necessary action", you wrote and voted on a decision before I ever presented evidence, so how do you figure that you've made a careful review of the evidence? How presumtuous of bad faith is it to call my submissions wikilawyering? I am interested to know to which ones you are refering. Have you considered that I am doing ArbCom for the first time? Few appear to be following the rules at all, how should I infer what is supposed to be argued. I have had several shots of vague innuendo directed at me (under the title of evidence no less!), and you want to take only me to task for describing MarkSweep's actions- on hard evidence- as vandalism?

As to UPP, I have written a first-draft of a defense, I can only say that you should read carefully and keep an open mind. I will break it out onto the evidence page. Please ask questions.

StrangerInParadise 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ JoshuaZ 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This edit of yours apparently deliberately alters my comment on a talk page with the specific intention of breaking a link. I believe that even a cursory examination of my contributions will make it clear that I am not a linkspammer. I'm sure you are aware that, in general, editing other people's comments on talk pages is bad form. Is there a specific policy of which I am unaware that we may not link to OmniNerd, even in a discussion of plagiarism by a Wikipedian of an OmniNerd article? If so, then your edit was legitimate. Otherwise, I ask you to revert at least the part that altered my comment. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

"…As for breaking a link: if you are talking about User:Uriah923/ON, that was a silly oversight of my using the find-and-replace and a redirect was created.…" No, actually, I was talking about breaking the external link I put on a talk page, pointing to an article in OmniNerd that some other Wikipedian had apparently plagiarized. I thought that merited indicating from where they had plagiarized. Yes, I understand that OmniNerd was linkspamming us, and I'm of course happy to be rid of the spam, but I don't see why that means that we cannot link to them in a circumstance where a link would normally be there. Again, is there a policy that they are never to be linked to, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, didn't read closely enough the first time. Fine. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Dmcdevit, i come to you for help in settling a dispute between myself, a non-administrator, and [User:Cyberjunkie], an administrator. I recently published an article on the Portuguese Discovery of Australia, a topic of importance to australian culture. Cyberjunkie believes that this topic is not worthy of its own page, and has deleted the article. i am doing all i can do avoid wikidrama, but feel the need for my article, which i put considerable effort into and is backed up by legitimate sources, to remain present on the wiki network. sincerely, √αzzρεr 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Forget it dude, √αzzρεr 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Here is a brief description. Here is the "last straw". It includes incivility, personal attacks, threats of sockpuppetry and even some legal threats. Enough. We've given him multiple opportunities. I protected his user and talk pages due to the threats. He can email us if he wants to comment. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This particular user sent me an email saying that he was banned for linkspamming. He has mentioned in his email that he was banned by you, though his blocklog shows that he was banned by User:172. He pleads ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, and would like to continue as an editor. Is there any scope? -- Andy123 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time! -- Andy123 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I've started to do it using AWB because the normal bot software (of pywikipedia) refuses to run this job. I think there's about 1000 edits to do, sorry about that massive delay in starting the task, it should be done in an a couple hours :) -- Tawker 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: All done :) (I think), let me know if I've missed a big string of them / if there are any problems -- Tawker 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle

I disagree that that confirms that she'll never be acceptable. Just because Bob, Just Bob is her and she evaded a ban doesn't warrant an indef ban. Just an extension of the ban. Since the ban is up now, I wonder whether its really relevant to have a ban at all. 59.167.131.8 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You deleted two boxes from the user space. There is no rule that allows you to do so, and the page had already been recreated by an administrator because of this. While templates can be deleted for divisiveness, there is no such rule for the user space. I cannot even see why asking for a trial should be "inflammatory". Please do not abuse your powers. De mortuis... 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

That page was a validly deleted template. Moving the identical content to a user page and transcluding it (which is ssentially what a template is) in order to claim that it can't be deleted is appeal to mere technicality. It's the same thing. The proper way to address a disputed deletion is on WP:DRV, where the issue is already being discussed, with a rather strong showing for deletion, and certainly not repeated recreation. I'm deleting it again, and this time I'll be protecting it. Dmcdevit· t 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no rule that allows deletion of user subpages, and it was already unprotected and recreated by an admin before. You violate wikipedia policy. De mortuis... 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You've got it backwards: "Violating policy" means doing something that the policy says not to do, not doing something that the policy doesn't say to do. Repeatedly recreatig validly deleted content, on the other hand, violates both policy and the spirit of the policy. Have you seen the discussion on DRV? Tell me how you can think what I did was wrong when it was clearly Good? Dmcdevit· t 00:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Just look at the talk pages of what you deleted. Admin Mike Rosoft explained there why you have no right to delete it. As this can also be seen from the discussion you are referring to you apparently choose willingly to ignore wikipedia's rules and I will file a complaint against you. De mortuis... 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I repeat that you seem fixated on rules rather than what actually is good for the encyclopedia, but the funny thing is that here I have violated no policies at all. Please read WP:CSD if you are unsure. The original templates were deleted by the templates criterion. They were then recreated under a different name, and I deleted them citing two deletion criteria: both the template criterion and G4, for recreated content. The issue should have been concluded on DRV, not circumvented with a recreation. And speaking of which, there is a sizable consensus in favor of the deletion at deletion review (which is where you would have taken my deletion if you disputed it and it wasn;t already there), and so the deletions were firmly within policy. And a good idea. Dmcdevit· t 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there, getting a bit tired of this. Really cannot see why I shall be censored while all sorts of other opinions are allowed. As there were already administrators who agreed with me that the deletion was out of place I think you should try to get a general rule on things like this rather than delete in one case and claim you know what is best for wikipedia. ROGNNTUDJUU! 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

In your response to mixvio's request for arbitration, your response was, "Reject, though if there are arbitrable conduct issues, like personal attacks and edit warring, they should be presented as such and I'll reconsider." I have three questions. 1) If a personal attack is made against everyone (in some cases named, in others not) who disagrees with an individual's point of view, is that considered a personal attack? 2) Is characterizing the motivations of those who disagree with one's opinion in vulgar or offensive terms a personal attack? 3) If so, is it possible to attach a complaint against mixvio for conduct issues to the current complaint, or should a separate complaint be filed? I really hesitate to do this, and we've been trying to be patient with mixvio, but there comes a point when something must be done so I'd like to understand my options. Thanks. - Jmh123 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a request in my talk page.-- Inanna 05:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope you care what i say because i'll do everything until my username deleted.-- Inanna 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that your decision to block User:Rgulerdem for one week was justified. I'm familiar with his editing and he's been in conflict with a great number of editors since his earliest days of editing on WikiPedia. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Fethullah_Gulen. He came into conflict over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where he repeatedly removed the cartoons despite super majority editor support for their display and was repeatedly blocked because of it. His involvement with WikiEthics has been particularly contentious and in an effort to gain himself support he's previously resorted to internal spamming, see WP:AN#Extensive_internal_spamming.3F. Although not directly related you might take note of this self-nom RfA to gain a larger perspective on who User:Rgulerdem is. Netscott 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Dmcedvit. Thanks for ruining my record as a civil and amicable editor. I notice you didn't bother replying to my explanation of my position and why you were mistaken in blocking me. You didn't bother unblocking me, nor stepping aside so the admin objecting to your block could unblock me. You ignored requests by other users and an admin to ease up. I explained to you precisely why I found it desirable to be unblocked -- To clear my name.

Which is all too late now. And though that may not mean anything to you, I made it clear it means something to me.

I hope you try to realise that wielding a big stick ruthlessly has it's consequences. Working in an environment with editors like Rgulerdem is hard enough at the best of times. But to then cop a bludgeoning from you is beyond reasonable expectations.

I'm thoroughly disillusioned with wikiprocess and authority mechanisms on wikipedia, in relation to both writing an encyclopedia, and internal management. I've left wikipedia.

Think about it. Rgulerdem is still here, and you've driven me off. Truly, a fools preference. Compare our article contributions and you'll see how in this instance your overzealous excesses contribute miserably to the fundamental goal of writing on an encyclopedia. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Metta Bubble has blanked his talk page so to follow the logic (which I agree with btw) about how User:Rgulerdem arrived at +3RR and Metta Bubble didn't please see this version of MB's talk page. Netscott 06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Inanna has recently been using the sockpuppet 81.214.217.214 ( talk · contribs). She's trying to empty Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of -Inanna-. What should we do? -- Khoikhoi 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately she's on a dynamic IP. All we can do without causing too much collateral damage is revert-on-sight and hand out short blocks when she comes back. Leave a note n WP:AN/I if you catch sight of her evading the ban. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 02:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for the advice. -- Khoikhoi 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

As long as you're clarifying the remedies, maybe it should say "banned from editing Wikipedia" instead of "banned from Wikipedia"? -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Space_Cadet. This user seems to has gone Molobo's way. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your helpful response. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. As I see it (and as I remember a discussion some time ago), setting a page to a prior state is something anybody can do. Admin-Rollback just makes it easier. I agree, it degrades the value of the rolled back edit. In the case of Molobo and SpaceCadet, however, I will continue to use rollback as I see necessary, since they also leave no/wrong/insulting edit summaries, and many of their contributions border on disrupting wikipedia. Especially with Molobo, any discussion is like talking to a wall (not that I and many others have tried). I hope you understand. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I concur with Chris. There is a golden rule: don't feed the troll. It's quite useless to discuss anything with trolls, because it's exactly what they need. Molobo and SpaceCadet may be likened to battering rams used by Polish editors to spread their POV. We've been all over the same things again and again - check the history of Simon Dach, for instance, where for two months they reverted Konigsberg to an obscure Polish name despite a mounting protest from scores of editors. In the case of Molobo, discussions have a collateral damage, as he has an obnoxious habit of pasting huge chunks of copyrighted stuff in the discussions without acknowledging their authorship, sometimes in the middle of your own comment. See [1], [2] for example. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

2 qurasitons.

1: How long is the barrign me from editign her page for?

2:Can I challenge the verdict?

3: You do relaise you have just been played, right? I didnt threaten to post Liable, I threatened to post an artilce I had written. I also didnt post the material several times, and had not tlake don it for months.

James list of evidence was itsslf ridiculous as most of it was not relaly aimed at the point of arbitration, and one can just as eaisly come up wiht a long list of evidence agsint him.

The bit abotu her son, and how low I was to brign him into it, is also ridiculous. I posted that her son had been kidnapped, and returned to her. This was after she posted a news article on it on her own website. ( And is thus not liable and was verifiable.)

Look at the below. Tell me htis is not Bias, and not vandalism.

How am I disruptive in revertign it?

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."

The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.)

Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)

It is entrley promotional.

The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.

It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.

It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.

The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen solely for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.

These are the problems.

As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.

Hey there,

I thought the 'revert parole' idea was good. I was just wondering about this RfA, how long does the process take? Much thanks, -- User:Kashk 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi again, I see that you have proposed to put me on probation which I think is very unfair. I guess I will try to get an advocate to help me with this case so I can prepare an statement on all the efforts I have made to resolve the issues before engaging in what you have called 'persistent edit warring'. These efforts include almost every possible way there is on Wikipedia to resolve a matter, such as Notice reports, Mediations, Several RfCs, contacting many admins and trusted members to come and try to resolve the case, trying to engage in a civil discussion with editors (Aucaman and those suggested by ManiF below), etc etc (Some of the evidence I have already collected can be seen at the top of User:Kashk/sandbox.

The first time I was blocked it was unjustified - "blanking Talk:Iranian peoples", ( [3]). What I had infact done, was to archive the talk page and gather all the disputes and put them in the talk page again. So my experience with Wikipedia has not been the most pleasant and the way I have been dragged in to this is unfair in my opinion.

I also don't believe I have engaged in "consistant edit warring", my "consistant" contributions to Iranian articles are much appreciated by some [4] [5]. While at the same time I am targetted by hateful personal attacks in Persian by anonymous IP right after engaging in a dialogue with Aucaman (See here). User:Kashk 11:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there, can evidence be presented against one of the "semi-involved" parties in that case? -- ManiF 06:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed that you have included me in the arbitration case decision, without me even knowing that I'm part of the case to present evidence for or against the case up until now. However, if the case is to be extended to cover the larger conflict which I'm sure you've been studying, then I think other users who have been constantly edit waring on behalf of or on side of Aucaman, should also be included in the case. Namely, User:Zora, User:Ahwaz, User:Heja helweda, and User:Xebat. For example, please take a look at this body of evidence against User:Zora. -- ManiF 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, if you check the history page of the Iranian peoples article you can see the User:Xebat has been a huge part of the dispute as well. -- Khoikhoi 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll try to gather some evidence tonight, but I don't think one night is enough time. If you have been going through the evidence, there is a clear pattern of these users, particularly User:Xebat, User:Ahwaz, User:Heja helweda, and User:Zora assisting/backing User:Aucaman in all of his adventures on Iran-related pages. Accordingly, some of them have been blocked by administrators for personal attacks and 3RR on several occasions. Whatever Iran-related page User:Aucaman has been involved in or disrupted, he has seeked these particular users' help [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] knowing thier stance on Iran-related issues. -- ManiF 08:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a question, would the proposal be changed if we provide evidence for these people? -- Khoikhoi 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have the same question as Khoikhoi, would the proposed decision be changed if we provide evidence for these people, especially now that another ArbCom member has voted on it? I find it very unfair that all of the editors who have have been involved in a dispute with Aucaman, are being included in the arbitration case's proposed decision without a prior notice, while users who have been edit-warning on behalf of Aucaman, assisting his efforts, are simply getting off the hook here. Here is just a sample of this particular group of users' conduct. In order for justice to be done, I think either editors who weren't officially a participant in the RFAr should be excluded from the proposed decision or the the proposed decision should be widened to include all parties involved on both sides of the wider conflict. -- ManiF 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding your message here. Lukas appears to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm going to be presenting the evidence. Could you give me some time to prepare these? Say, 5-7 days? Aucaman ^Talk 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, although I had originally planned to keep a lower profile, I've now gone ahead and submitted what material I had, as things seem to have started moving rather fast suddenly. Lukas ^{(T.| @)} 15:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This user should be banned. He has made derogatory comments, intentional fabricated controversial and untrue material into articles, and deliberately disturbed both order and balance in the Wiki-community. He has been in numerous exchanges with other users. User:Acuman also applies double standards he says one thing for others and sees himself above what he demands and ascribes to other editors. He has upset the following articles in a long list of articles tied to Iran; Kurds, Kurdistan, Persian Gulf, Persians, Iran, Iranian peoples. The editors he has allies himself with are also irrational and uncompromising racists or bigots. I demand he be disciplined. I have seen the list of controversial and flat our provocative edits and fictional claims he has made and ask that he be closely watched by administrators, all editors, and the whole community. He has acted in a distasteful manner and has not respected the rules and demands of the community. 72.57.230.179 08:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, regarding your proposal here [12]; I respect whatever decision the committee may hand-out, nevertheless, it hurts me to see after avoiding any further controversial editing, and my compromise with others, that I too may be banned from contributing to the topics which I am familiar with. If you need some evidence that point towards my attempts at compromise with other editors, kindly let me know. It has been weeks since I have reverted Iranian people (I only added some picture lately), or the Persian people articles, and since the suggestions by some admins, which I took to heart, I have not engaged in edit-warring, since early March, and I will not do so anymore. Although, Aucaman was blocked four times in the past month, and to this day continues his disruptive behaviour. I also feel it is appropriate that other users be put on probation, however, I wish that the committee had looked into Zora ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)`s contributions as well; see here please [13].. At any rate, here are some diffs showing my successful attempts at compromising with various other editors, some whom had engaged in revert wars with others (in some cases, such as the Persian Gulf article the long edit wars ceased after I intervened) [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. I would hope that you re-evaluate my contributions for the past month and a half, and you commute the decision regarding me to a probation, rather than a topical ban. Please let me what you think. Thank you Zmmz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello I was asked to add a comment here by Zmmz. I would generally say I have an opposite POV on the articles where I have come into contact with Zmmz, but in the cases where we have had serious conflicts we have been able to compromise. Zmmz definetely has a stong POV, but I think it would be wrong to block him from editing these articles since on the whole I think he makes useful additions. I think it is kinda strange that out of all the Pro-Iranian editors it is Zmmz that has been picked on, since he is easily the most reasonable and not to mention courteus of all of these users.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Ditto to most everything Moshe just said. In my case, I had a brief conflict with Zmmz a couple months ago when he was brand new on the scene here, and still did not know all the ropes - but we were indeed soon able to reach a compromise that was satisfactory to everyone, by each giving a little... From what I can tell, he seems to have adjusted to becoming a "wikipedian" remarkably swiftly; and since this here is the first time I have ever commented on any arbcom case in any way, it could be said that he is more experienced than I am in certain areas! ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Zmmz has asked me to comment as I watch Persian Gulf. I'm unfamiliar with most of the details and certainly with the arbcom case. I will say he does seem to want to work constructively on the Gulf page. One thing he has not done is involved himself with the never ending flameposts on the talk page, which would be tempting if he has a strong POV. That's all I feel competent to comment on. Cheers, Marskell 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your input. I'm going to propose a less strict remedy instead that would allow Zmmz to edit in most of Persia-related articles under probation. If you'd like to offer evidence against another involved party, do it at the evidence page, not here. Dmcdevit· t 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Zmmz has stayed out of the revert wars, but from my POV, he continutes to be a profoundly disruptive editor. He still does not GET the concept of NPOV; he believes that he has no POV whatsoever and that anyone who admits to one is thereby disqualified from editing. See this lecture to me on my talk page: [21]. I don't know how this could be done, or what rules would apply, but anything that could get Zmmz to agree to live and let live, to allow other POVs as long as his was represented, would be appreciated. Zora 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Well in some ways I agree with you. But I think part of the reason he is a pretty good editor is precisely because despite having an extremely strong POV and pretty much only writing with that POV, he is still almost always courteus with editors of different POV, this strongly contrasts with similar editors like...hell I will just name them, Zereshk, and Southern Comfort who seem unable to tolerate different beliefs.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you all for your kind words, and happy Easter. In regards to comments by Zora, with all due respect, your claim that you may neutralize articles as opposed to some POV is very selective. Trying to erase the Persian ethnicity of a poet called Rumi, and stating, “Let’s just call him a Muslim, he belongs to all of us”, not only it is not in an NPOV fashion, but also highly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. I have stated many times before that my main concern is with the factual, relevant integrity of an article, in its academic form, and it is not the job an encyclopedia per se to include all sides, or multiple hypothesis, for that they can be numerous (unless in some cases where we do not posses enough data, it is necessary to do so). The Media usually allows all sides. Some of your edits have been historically inaccurate as well [22]. However, I have asked you before to provide me with an edit of mine that was not factual, or relevant, because I am interested to know myself. And, , as compared to the other user in the case, who was blocked four times in the past month, my compromising efforts have resulted in a cease to edit wars in the Angel, and Persian Gulf articles. Also, if you recall, out of all the other editors, I was the only one who agreed with a new version in the Al Khwarizmi article: I`m sorry, that is not being disruptive, rather hopefully it is productive. Zmmz 20:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Greetings. With all due respect, if I'm going to be put on probation for edit warring on articles like Jami, then Mel Etitis should be put on probation as well considering his behavior there [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and false accusations against me on Talk:Jami#Personal-attack_edit_summaries.2C_etc.. And he was blocked for 3RR on that article [29]. And on top of all that, he's an admin. People have been stripped of their adminship for this type of behavior. Take care, SouthernComfort 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I just wanted to let you know, ever since my last block, I have made a vow to follow the WP:1RR, hence I haven't really gotten into any edit wars. Would that make a difference? Also, does probation every expire? — Khoikhoi 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Just curious as to your justification for deleting the {{ User Objectivism}} and {{ User No Objectivism}} userboxes, considering the multitude of philosophical movements represented in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. - Objectivist-C 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems like a widely known and established philsophy to me. Are you proposing to delete every philsophy userbox less well known than this one?? Ans e ll 23:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dbachmann_and_clique I don't think I'm allowed to vote or comment so I will msg you who voted. (The talk page of this arb does not have a specific talk for it so this is the best idea I had.) Banning the person is a useless step. They will create more sock puppets. You have to get them to come to terms. DyslexicEditor 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I got an email for User:Molobo about your indefinite block of him: 01:51, 16 April 2006 Dmcdevit blocked "Molobo (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (per consensus to extend this to indefinite; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring). I don't see any consensus to extend this to indefinite. While there are some users supporting this, there are also others which think that month is the best solution (those others include me, an admin, and Irpen, a user who often opposed Molobo). And there are also those who think that even a month is too much. Anyway, I would like to ask you to revert your change to a month block (minus the time already passed), or for opening of the ArbCom case (if you want to present the arguments for the block). I can understant why a month long block was applied in this case, but an indefinete is a significant overkill. Molobo may be annoying from time to time, but I have also seen him being a useful content creator (granted, not often enough, but enough not to approve of an indefinit block - he should have at least one more chance in a month to prove that he has reformed himself).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I support Piotrus on this one. An indefinite block is excessive in this case. Molobo should be given a chance to improve his behavior. If he comes back after his one month compulsory vacation and continues his edits in the same spirit, he can just be blocked again. Besides, if he is blocked indefinitely, what will prevent him from coming back with a sockpuppet, sooner or later? Balcer 22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Molobo has been given PLENTY of chances to "improve his behaviour". Look at his RfC, for example. So far, he has been a ram weapon tool in the hands of Balcer, Piotrus, etc. Dozens editors cannot write new articles, while he — with the full encouragement of Balcer and Piotrus — turns innumerable articles into a nationalist mess and launches one wild revert-warring campaign after another. And this "useful content creator" has not written a single new article which has withstood AfD procedure as yet. I strongly support indefinite block, although I understand that Polish nationalists will get upset about losing such a "valuable" contributor to their propaganda. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I kind of agree to give him another chance (while not being Polish!). Regardless of his (from what I understand) annoying jingoistic edits, I think the malefactor is dealt with a bit arbitrarily: It’s unfair to inform someone on his talk page that you were going to put him in detention for his wrongdoing for one month and then say, well, on second thought we throw you out of school for good ( ne bis in idem). And I think the condemned should be able to have a say in this, too ( audiatur et altera pars)! Teodorico 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

May I ask you - considering that you made as few as 50 edits in this project - are you sure that you met Molobo before and may properly assess the destructiveness of his behaviour? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I’ve met him once and the fierce Polish-German edit war he was involved in seemed a bit trivial and quirky to me. All I said was that I think it is - as a matter of principle - a bit unfair to tighten the measures ex post and not to hear the accused at all! But if the number of my edits and the time I can afford to spend here is, as it seems, a significant factor for you, then you’re right, I shouldn’t form an opinion. Teodorico 11:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Teodorico, please don't take Ghirla's tone personally. Some people are less diplomatic, but we welcome all editors, no matter how active they are.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Let me just note that I never encouraged Molobo to continue his divisive contributions. I tried a few times to suggest to him that he change his behavior and contribute to Wikipedia in a more constructive way. I must say those accusations by Ghirlandajo that Molobo was some kind of a pet troll of certain people are deeply offensive. Let me go on record to state that I always viewed the vast majority of Molobo's contributions as harmful, as he seemed to be obsessed with a single point of view to the exclusion of all others. I am also glad he has been blocked for one month. However, an indefinite block seems to me a punishment that is somewhat too drastic.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask Ghirlandajo to stop his wave of offensive behavior lately. Besides baseless accusations presented against me and Piotrus here, your recent edit comments have become increasingly offensive. I would put this comment on your talk page, except that you have developed a habit of censoring it. All my contributions to it are being deleted on sight. I can only say it's easy to win any argument, if you simply remove the rebuttals of your opponent. It is also easy to appear as a great editor, if you remove from your talk page all indications to the contrary. Balcer 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, my talk page belongs to me. I have prevously said that I don't want to have anything to do with editors like Bonaparte, Molobo, Halibutt and (now) Balcer. Please stop pestering me with your propaganda and move your nationalist agenda elsewhere. I also don't think that yours and Molobo's constant delations on talk pages of other users will help you to further your anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

My house belongs to me too, yet I try to behave politely to my guests. If you plan to censor your page, at least put up a notice to that effect, so that people don't waste their time commenting on it. As for any crusade against you, it only exists in your paranoid imagination. Balcer 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Dmcdevit, I think you can see above (and in the 3RR discussion) that there is no consensus. Also, I've just noticed that you've even protected Molobo's talk page, effectively taking away from even the ability to communicate with us on his talk page. That's... oh well. Let me just request that you unprotect his page in addition to going back to the month lenght block, for which there was a consensus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm ignoring you, but I'm rather busy at the moment and since the original block was for a month, which won't expire for a while, there's no urgency in deciding whether it should be a month or longer. I'll reconsider within a day or so. As for the talk page protection, blocked users have no right to use their talk page when blocked, that's simply a handy software feature. When they continue to use it for unproductive comments like "deleted by Irpen as usual" and "deleted as usual," then I have no qualms with protecting. Molobo can use email to contact me, and he has been doing so. Dmcdevit· t 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I would support unblocking Molobo if there is the slightest evidence that he is going to change his behavior. Unfortunately, I have to agree that his talk page didn't give any such evidence, and rather suggested that the behavior that he was blocked for would continue. However, I wouldn't see much harm in letting the one month block expire naturally and then reblock for longer (why indefinitely? ArbCom penalties are often just a year-long block, why should this be different?) if he behaves disruptively again. To Ghirlandajo's comment above: Molobo has recently written the article Hans Krüger, which isn't all that bad. If Molobo agrees to put himself under reasonable restrictions, he might become an ordinary strong-POV editor. Kusma (討論) 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

While I would love to see Molobo blocked indefinitely, I have to agree with Piotrus that the way this was done is not quite kosher. I may have missed this, but was this announced on any noticeboard (i.e. WP:AN or WP:ANI)? If there was similar support for an indef block as for the month long block, then he should stay blocked, otherwise it should go to the ArbCom. (and just if you are wondering, yes, do count me as a supporter of an indef block). If not yet done so, maybe this should be announced on a noticeboard, so that the community can have a say in this. In short, I think the indef block is good for Wikipedia (and I thank you for that), but the way we got there has to be looked at again. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

There was discussion both on 3RR and Incident (see top of this thread for a link). I'd tentatively support forbidding Molobo from doing more then 1 revert - he spends too much time reverting and not enough time content creating, even through his talk contribs show he has extensive (if POVed) knowledge in the relevant areas. But there was no consensus for a indefiniete block, and for that reason if there are those who want it NOW, we should go to ArbCom. Also, note that if Molobo returns after a month and goes back to revert warring, there will be enough arguments for a year block.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Unblock Molobo. I think he is at least better or the same as Ghirlandajo. If you block him indefinitely you should also think of other editors like Ghirlandajo. -- Deutsche 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This user is definitely Molobo's or Bonaparte's sock. Please check his contributions and impose a block. His blanking of my new article Battle of Gross-Jaegersdorf was particularly pathetic. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

When I decided to extend the block, I lookeed over that AN/I discussion again. I see 6 people (myself included) that support the indefinite block (which I had raised in my initial question). I see 6 that expressed support for the one-month block, but dispute the longer one. The only ones that explicitly disputed the indefinite block were Piotrus and Appleseed (and possibly Irpen). I hadn't anticipated much opposition to the extension. In any case, I'll put it back at a month with the stipulation that at the first whiff of a return to edit warring he will be reblocked. And if he decides to ever call me or anyone else an anti-Polish racist on-wiki (instead of emailing them to me like he is now) he'll find himself blocked as well. Dmcdevit· t 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

That sounds good to me. Thanks! I will also unprotect his talk page again, as a blocked user is allowed to edit his own talk page. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sounds fair to me. There is only that much 'second chances' that one can be given. But even if we do have to block him again, can we make it a year, not indefinite? I am kind of against indefinite in general - people can change, and year is a looong time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a pity that Piotrus and Balcer have followed Molobo's way in his absence. They both were reported on WP:AN3, yet Piotrus now attempts to cover up 5 reverts that Balcer made in 3 hours, by calling my notice "libel" and an attempt to "smear" Balcer's name. I would welcome your comments on the issue. These two guys seem to think that 3RR was devised for everyone but themselves. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

"They both were reported" of course fails to mention that they were reported by you. Anyway, your report did not find any support and I was not blocked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Balcer. In fact no one found any fault with my actions (I reverted comments by an anonymous troll), except Ghirlandajo. For a possible reason why he started this little campaign, I invite interested readers to consult Talk:Russophobia. Balcer 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Battle_of_Gross-J%C3%A4gersdorf&diff=49437984&oldid=49437431 which is clear a copy violation from the internet links that I've provided on talk page. I suggest him to stop and to Admins to block him. Thank you. -- Deutsche 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am inclined to believe Ghirla that Deutsche is a sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte. At any rate, there were no copyvios as far as I could see. Can you check it out, and if proven, extend my initial 24 hour block to one of indefinite? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your kind warning on my talk page. I understand everything now. Regards, --D-Day^{( Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Glad to hear it. :) Dmcdevit· t 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You rolled back a change to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks because the person hadn't posted to the Talk page (though I had posted seconds later to clarify the change). I would encourage you to also discuss on the Talk page, or you'll be guilty of what you complained about in your edit comment.

The original addition of a very large extension of an official wikipedia policy without any consensus or discussion seems to me to be the original infraction. That is backed by a majority disagreement on the talk page, which at least means that section should be reviewed before it is directly added to official policy. That is why we believe it should be removed, pending discussion. This may be slightly more aggressive, but that is simply because it's an official policy that is deemed to have wide consensus among editors, when, in fact, this policy does not have wide consensus.

I'm interested in how you propose this be handled, going forward, and whether you recognize a distinction between Official Policy pages vs. regular pages with regard to the burden of proof for major additions. I recognize this is a gray area, but I'd at least like you to weigh in on the Talk page, even if only as another vote, to help push this discussion forward.

Thanks. Strom 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The proposal was first mentioned on the village pump by someone other than myself, and then proposed on a subpage at Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension and announced at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, where others actively edited it, and it got lots of support on the talk page. I added several weeks ago after all objections had been reasonably addressed. I don't know how you call that an infraction, and if you are suggesting a vote then you are way off-base. In any case, just because you didn't discuss it, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. Removing first, asking later isn't the kind of courtesy I expect. Dmcdevit· t 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You recently deleted Template:User transhumanist. You listed the reason as T1: " divisive". I believe that you are incorrect and that the template should have been listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Specifically, while Transhumanism is a controversial topic, it is not offensive for one to label oneself as a Transhumanist (much like how separation of church and state is controversial, but {{ User:UBX/separation}} is not offensive). Please restore the template and nominate it through this process. Thank you, -- M @ r ē ino 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Got your message. I thought that the conclusion of the Great Userbox Debate was the exact opposite -- if it's not offensive, don't delete it -- but I admit that I stopped paying attention to that in February b/c no one had deleted any of my userboxes since then, so I believe you when you say the policy has changed again. Anyway, I don't care much about having the userbox in template form. I do want to put the text and icon on my user page, though. Could you please forward that to me? I'm not an admin, so I can't access the content of deleted pages.-- M @ r ē ino 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply remove the "anti" template and allow users who either believe or support a cause to use the box? People who share similar views wish to find out who else shares that view... it would be rare in my opinion for people to seek others who share their "anti" views. Just as we label ourselves as male/female, our country, or preference in browser, our operating system of choice... we should be able to state if there is a philosophy we support. Transhumanism by its very definition is a field of science, only human beings lift it from its neutrality and give it a need for polarization. I hate the frog as well, should we not remove those templates as they would polarize the community with frog haters and frog lovers at each others throats ;) Enigmatical 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I've decided to write to you personally as you seem to be open to discussion. Would you please reconsider your deletion of the "User transhumanist" userbox? By speedy deleting it, rather than taking it to TfD, you placed the onus on those who want it undeleted, and it may well not survive simply because transhumanist is not as well known a philosophical position as, say, feminism or atheism. Both "User feminist" and (I believe) "User atheist" have recently been restored, as have many userboxes that indicate that an individual subscribes to a particular religious viewpoint. Whether or not such boxes are restored should not depend on the popularity of a particular philosophy or religion, or on the vagaries of who turns up to vote. Rather, the pattern of recent debates has been to accept that a mere unaggressive statement that a user subscribes to a particular philosophical or religious view is not, in itself, divisive. I can see how the anti-transhumanist box could be considered divisive, as it attacks a philosophical view, but whether or not the unaggressive expression of a view is divisive cannot depend on whether or not someone creates a userbox attacking it.

Note that this does not affect me personally. I have a personal policy of not using viewpoint templates. Indeed, I would ultimately like to see viewpoint userboxes kept out of template space on the ground that this is not the purpose of template space. However, I believe that a new policy would be required for this to happen (I'd actually be happy to help develop such a policy and work for its acceptance). Under current policy, "User transhumanist" should be treated consistently with, for example, "User feminist". Inconsistency of this type worries me - I think that all reputable positions should be treated equally unless there is some distinguishing feature such as one userbox having aggressive wording (arguably the case with the recent "User objectivist" box). Although I freely admit to being sympathetic to transhumanism, I would feel the same way if the box in question were "User creationist" (i.e. related to a viewpoint with which I am out of sympathy). Mere statements of subscription to a view should not be taken as divisive unless the view in question is such as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as would be the case with, say, "User Nazi" or "User racial supremacist". There is no issue like that here.

Thanks for considering my views. I apologise for the length of this, but sometimes a few paras are needed to do justice to one's reasons. Metamagician3000 03:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

And a Hi to you too! Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 10:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Since a rough consensus on this DRV [30] is that the page should be undeleted and listed on AFD, I have done so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net. Stifle ( talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was wondering where is the best place to put this 'comment' or 'statement' I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman#Comment_by_User:Khashayar_Karimi?! I would like it to be read by those who are voting on the Aucaman ArbCom case and it's decisions, Much thanks -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd like to know what exactly I'm supposed to do then, to deal with this kind of abusiveness. It sort of puts me in the position of "Great, theres no consequences for abusive people, and nothing to be done about it, and no real authority to contact." It reduces the situation to anarchy, and it offers no solutions or consequences for blatant abusiveness.

Under such conditions, I fail to see how wikipedia can operate, and it makes me think i am probably wasting my time here in the first place. Prometheuspan 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC) User talk:Prometheuspan/ArbcomCase reply

<spewn out elsewhere> In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization that Wikipedia is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating, because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator. Prometheuspan 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You've made some RfA nominations recently that have hit a brick wall and failed. Well, finally you got one through (Ezeu) :-). Keep the nominations coming of these good candidates who may not be "obvious" picks to the rest of us, someone's got to do it. NoSeptember ^talk 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I was speaking from memory, so I must have a faulty memory :-P. But, yes, do make some more nominations. NoSeptember ^talk 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. FourthAve ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indicated that they were unaware that the Arbitration was ongoing, that they were supposed to remain actively involved, and seem confused and unclear on what the process and possible outcome are. Can you or someone else on ArbCom (or a non-Tony Clerk, as he's a party) help bring them up to speed? This seems particularly important as the case has moved, apparently without them being aware of what was going on, up to the one-vote-from-closing point where it is now, with a one year ban of FourthAve as the primary result about to kick off.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you also restore the discussion page? The Ungovernable Force 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks a million! The Ungovernable Force 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I feel privileged to say a hello to you. In the month of September 2005, your vote elevated me to be an administrator. I know the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare few moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions ( here please) on my performance here. Regards. -- Bhadani 09:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [ Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [31].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No one claimed that you provided no sources at all, but that you failed to do so for many of your disputed edits. I still think the findong of fact, with those rather damning diffs and quote, sum it up pretty well. Dmcdevit· t 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, just thought I'd ask you a question regarding the ArbCon case...

Over a month ago you judged the last one, you rejected the case... the current case is basically the same thing rehashed (litterally the same info from an old incident). While I've been back from my block I haven't been disrupive, or violated any Wikipedia policies. You stated before "There's no need for a case at least until he comes back and is disruptive again."..

As I haven't been disruptive since returning from my block, I'm just curious as to why you now think the case has a foot to stand on? Thanks. - Deathrocker 07:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To answer the case myself, Myself, Sceptre and Tony have all noticed incidents of disruption since Deathrocker's unblocking, two of which are admins. All evidence is provided by all three of us with diffs on the arbcom case request. Ley Shade 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Tony doesn't mention any "evidence of disruption" by myself, if you read the case he doesn't even mention me, he only talks about how he has recently blocked you (Leyasu) so he isn't going to act as a clerk on the case.

So that leaves yourself and Sceptre, which I have disputed with diffs, giving reasons as to why the case is ridiculous. Sceptre has even admitted been bias infavour of you in the past, so it really holds no water. - Deathrocker 07:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Your welcome to disagree with your actions, if you wish. As for your guilt in any of it, that is what the arbcon will deciede despite the protestion of any of the involved parties. Ley Shade 11:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

My RfA will probably be going live on 1 or 2 May (waiting on one co-nom who is out of town) as we have discussed. I appreciate your kindness and effort in writing your nomination for me. I'd like to ask you to "re-timestamp" your nom if you would, either by replacing your first signature or just signing it again. (this is on advice of someone that noms should be relatively recently timestamped, especially if there are co-noms). Hope that's not too much bother. Oh, and if you have any comments or concerns, on my questions, or answers that would be great to hear about as well... I think we've already talked through some. Thanks again! + + Lar: t/ c 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Dmcdevit - I'm very pleased and deeply appreciate your compliments and support. However, I've done little janitorial work, and I want to work on such tasks to learn and contribute. I know a lot of RfA-worthy people who serve in such jobs with determination before asking for the bigger tools. I must give myself some time to refine my temperament. In the past few days, my colleagues like you here have done me many honors. This made me feel a need to be more honest with myself and useful around here.

Please spare some time to visit Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow and give me some feedback on how to improve myself. Thanks again for your kind offer, and I hope we'll have some good opportunities to work together. Rama's Arrow 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Btw, I know my excuse is ironic in contrast to my nomination of user:Saravask. With him, I have a gut feeling about his usefulness as an administrator, and he accepted my offer. I didn't need him to prove his worth. But I need to build some personal confidence on being able to handle janitorial work, especially AfDs and edit wars. Rama's Arrow 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hm, my general feeling is that not everyone has to have experience in AfDs or particular janitorial areas to become an admin. However if you would still like to wait, let me just extend my offer to whenever you feel ready. Feel free to leave me a note here or email me if you'll accept my nomination in the future. I'll take a look at you editor review (though if you scroll up you'll see that Bhadani left me a similar request, and I promise to get back but have been procrastinating), but I'm not sure if there's much more I can say. :-) Dmcdevit· t 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Indeed, however I was wondering if there would be a change of putting all users on probation, after I have provided evidence that we went through much effort before any "edit wars"? And since much of these "edit wars" were basically taking off a POV tag, Zora who put it back on is being treated differently which is just strange.. Could you reconsider these decisions at all? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I totally understand what you are saying and I agree but my "evidence" was to show that we spent a lot of time trying to resolve the dispute using every tool on Wikipedia, and we didn't get anywhere with it..-- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see this. I think you are the right person to contact about it. -- Irpen 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I will indeed have a word with him and am typing up a warning for him right now. However, I must stress to you that to indulge in edit wars and call others' edits vandalism is also highly inappropriate, and even more so from an administrator. I understand it's a tense situation, but please don't respond in kind. I expect andministrators to fully understand and avail themselves of dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Dmcdevit· t 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. I don't remember calling others' edits as vandalism any time lately and, except that it was indeed a simple vandalism as per our strict definition. I also never call anyone's edit "trolling" except when obvious. Now, one can say that in both cases, that's just my opinion and I use obvious as an excuse. Very well, I would be happy to see any recent examples of my reverting someone with the "rv Vandalism" remark because that is certainly what I want to avoid. My firm intention is to edit in cool mind and if I was mired by anger at some point, I need to learn from past mistakes, and for that I need to see them.

I want to be clear about one thing though, that it is never my intention to have my opponents shut down from Wikipedia. Even in a case of a nightmarish ArbComable fraudulent moving spree I never called for the offender's block (while the ArbCom had him blocked anyway) but simply to undo his damage (done) and ban him from edit warring for some time (which was not done and he returned to a habbit of being one step under 3RR at a bunch of the articles at the same time).

Same here, my intention is not to have this fellow blocked but him behaving such that building an encyclopedia is possible. Even in Molobo's case (who is not rude at all, just hysterical) I never called for his block (which others falsely interpreted as a call to unblock at your very talk page) and recognized his rare meaningful contributions.

I am glad that there is less tolerance in Wikipedia nowadays to rudeness and trolling than there was when I came here. Many months ago the same AlexPU assaulted me, a newbie, at my talk with no consequenes whatsoever. It used to require a months long Arbitrations to go on before the damage of clearly offensive users in plain open-and-shut cases could be undone. The decisive dealing with clear cases reduces the load from RfC and ARbCom greatly. I am holding myself to the same standards I expect from others. If I violated them, bad for me, but I don't think so, at least lately.

Finally, it is my observation, that most rude users never reform. Out of say 10 really incivil and hysterical editors, I might have seen one that improved with time. So, I am skeptical towards your calls to this editor. But we'll see.

In any case, thanks for a hand. -- Irpen 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

P.S. And I think a good indication of the desired "reform" of that fellow would be his moderation of the disgusting talk page statements. Like [32], [33]. We'll see. -- Irpen 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My first and most important question, DMC. Whom are you calling "administrator" here? Is Irpen an admin? (No trick questions, I was out for half a year) AlexPU 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, my mistake, perhaps I confused him with someone else. But the substance of my comment still stands. (Also, I'll reply to Irpen's somment in a bit, I'm distracted at the moment.) Dmcdevit· t 03:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

May I please have a copy of this, so I can subst it back onto my page? Seahen 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Dmcdevit,

You banned Inanna awhile back, but yesterday and today she returned, terrorizing various Turkey-related articles. If that's not enough, she invited various Turkish editors to go to this web board, which is probably full of personal attacks directed at me. The other users there are TuzsuzDeliBekir and Hattusili. You mentioned about a proposal about personal attacks outside of Wikipedia, is it in effect yet? If not, what should I do? She harassed me several times today on my talk page, with messages like this and this. Blocking her has no effect, because her IP changes so quickly, I believe it's dynamic. Thanks in advance. — Khoikhoi 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Also see Saposcat's comment here. — Khoikhoi 04:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, it appears that he translated it for me, check out my sandbox. — Khoikhoi 07:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This kind of harassment of our fellow Wikipedia editors really gets my blood boiling. This is a tough situation in that -Inanna-'s IPs are dynamic, and we have no control over their off-wiki activities. Of course, rest assured, if either of those other two current editors even hint at the "intimidation" Inanna is advocating, they'll be out of here. I'm going to seriously think this over, talk it over with other administrators in private and see what the best course of action is. We nned to try to figure somethiong out. This disturbs me greatly. In the meantime, be sure to keep me informed about any developments, either on-wiki or on that board. Dmcdevit· t 08:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Alright, thank you very much—I appreciate it. I'll inform you of any updates. Muhabbetle. (that's "yours" in Turkish) — Khoikhoi 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am very concerned about this. SC is one of the best editors for Iran-related articles that I know of. Isn't probation enough? His loss would be absolutely detrimental to the project. Couldn't we just have more of a specific ban like just Persian people and Iranian peoples? It's Aucaman that is the main issue. :( — Khoikhoi 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd also just like to say that I think Jayjg's involvement in this ArbCom is highly inappropriate. Don't get me wrong, he's a really great guy and I really respect him, but I just feel that whenenver he was in a dispute with the Iranian editors on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini and Talk:Persian people, he always seemed to take Aucaman's side. I'll provide some diffs: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Is it possible for an ArbCom member to leave the case becuase of this? — Khoikhoi 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I looked at SC's contributions and am sad to say that he and Aucaman together were the worst edit warriors. Also, I'm not convinced that Aucaman is the main issue, because I've too much misbehavior and edit warring on both sides for that to be true. As for Jayjg, that's his personal decision. You can try to talk him into it, but he has already detailed his involvement to the rest of the AC and I don't personally see the need for recusal. The diffs you show demonstrate a fleeting involvement of not much importance, and no demonstration of a conflict of interest. Dmcdevit· t 02:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

*Sigh*, alright. — Khoikhoi 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please check your e-mail. Thanks. -- ManiF 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply