Thanks for doing this CU. I'm actually rather glad that they aren't related to RJASE1. For future reference, was it worth filing the request, seeing that you had just completed the checkuser that showed that TortureIsWrong != TortureIsBad = RJASE1? I filed the request to see if there were other socks. Would you have already found that out when you did the first CU? If it was a waste of time, then I want to make sure I don't file that type of RFCU in the future. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean when you say "unless you have something for me to to compare against". What would you need? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take some action before it once again escalates [1]. I btw did not actually revert Hillock, but removed clear trolling by User:Ukrained. -- Kuban Cossack 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Noticed this puppy was trolling on RFA's--is this a sock of someone I should know about? I wanna be able to keep an eye out ... the person had the distinctive odor of being from somebody's sock drawer. -- Blueboy 96 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently blocked Corticopia. I appreciate your input on the thread at The Noticeboard. I was wondering why you said he should be blocked if his actions continue, but didn't mention what you feel should be done now. I appreciate it if you clarified this point at the the Thread
Thanks,
BH (T| C) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for your concern over the article. You are indeed correct; when I stepped back and took a look at it, I realize that I have fallen into a "revert war". I never really imagined i'd be one to get caught in it, but I guess the joke is on me. Thank you for your suggestions as well and I will make sure to try those out next, as editing back and forth won't solve anything. Feel welcome to keep watch as a possible mediator too, your input is more than welcome! MezzoMezzo 06:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I tip my hat to you once again for uncovering this ongoing abuse. [8], [9]. Proabivouac 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to your deletion rationale:
I would submit to you that:
With these four points in mind, I would then submit to you a request that you undelete the category. Bl a st [ improve me 13.06.07 1020 (UTC)
I think all the political categories should be reinstated. Apparently, they were removed out of process, and process should be paramount in the Wikipedia. Further, I agree with the arguments that Blast advances. I also will declare that removal of these categories is far more divisive than the categories themselves could ever dream of being (and divisiveness was never their purpose anyway). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit,. I have no axe to grind either way about these categories: probably, on balance, I'd prefer their deletion, but it's not a big deal for me either way. I am posting here only because my attention was drawn to these deletions by another editor who posted to my talk page.
However, I can see no speedy deletion criteria to justify the deletion on sight of the long list of categories at your deletion log, on the grounds that they are "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". You may well be right in that assessment, but why not just put these categories up for discussion at WP:UFCD? I am minded to restore them, but would first like to hear your reasons for speedy-deleting them rather than nominating them at WP:UCFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand your dismay. I did attempt to talk to AMIB as did a few other people on the talk page of the AfD. He remained adamant and it seemed clear that no productive discussion was forthcoming. I do agree that it might have been a better idea to wait longer. JoshuaZ 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the Arbcom enforcement noticeboard. The only way to solve this issue is if Atabek and I, just the two of us with no outside interference, go into an arbcom, where we post our evidence and let the neutral third party admins decide. I will remind you that Atabek was initially going to be blocked for 1 year for this kind of behavior, but wasnt due to a split vote. I'm not here to say anything more than just that I am planning to make a request for arbcom between Atabek. We've tried RFC, I've tried making a peace proposal with him, we've tried mediation, nothing worked, the last step is arbcom. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, when you attempt to delete a category, please inform the residents in the category to remove them from the pages first and depopulate the category. Deleting category speedily without depopulation leaves a whole bunch of unnecessary red links. Thank you! Wooyi Talk to me? 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, User:Itaqallah brought these userboxes to my attention: User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/christian_homophobia, User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/Islamic_misogeny [sic.] What is your opinion of them? Proabivouac 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Did you delete this category? If so, why? "Classical Liberal" is a widely accepted phrase describing a school of thought. KConWiki 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather disturbed at the deletion of this page, not least as it was nominated for deletion in March, the result being a VERY strong KEEP. Could you say now why it has been deleted without further discussion. Thanks Galloglass 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have not posted on this page since last Christmas, but I do remember and appreciate how effectively you contributed to reducing revert-warring on a number of Eastern European topics. Now it seems we have a new hot spot, Estonia. There is a number of editors, apparently all based at the Tartu University, making disturbing edits in contradiction to a bunch of guidelines. Stray picks mostly taken from the first day when I took a look there (note edit summaries): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]... Mind-boggling revert warring is accompanied by baiting, accusations of "bad faith" and "patent lies", and a healthy dose of good old trolling in the vein of Bonaparte. [18] [19] [20] [21] User:Petri Krohn, a Finn who can't be accused of being pro-Russian, seems to be the only non-Estonian editor interested in monitoring these subjects on a regular basis and he has to face an avalanche of complaints from the Tartu guys on ANI and elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians for some context). He asked me for advice, but I really can't figure out what may be done to counter tendentious editing by a team of determined users from the same establishment. When you have some spare time, please take a look at what's going on with Estonian articles. Thanks in advance, Ghirla -трёп- 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've dealed before with the likes of you, who go around believing that they have the authority to delete everything based on their high-and-mighty principles of "NPOV" and other assorted crap. Know that the Wikipedian categories you deleted had already survived the deletion attempts of others before you, and they will not end with you. Don't give me your "divisive" garbage, we're not one big, happy, family of hippies. If you can't handle the fact that Wikipedians have varying political opinions, do us all a favour and stay put. I will soon be recreating the Wikipedian categories you deleted, and if you return to your shameful deletionsit ways, I have higher authorities that I can report to. And a good day to you as well. -- Voievod 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, take a look [22] and here [23]. The extent of IP sockpuppeting by User:Tajik in the second case, is just incredible. Thanks. Atabek 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, you might remember this user from Georgia (country). After returning from the block Sosomk maintains the same attitude, revert warring and incivility. My [24] was declined. I asked for it to be reconsidered. Tamokk 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, sorry for this dispute on your talk page. I just wanted to answer Sosomk's comments. Again I will initiate 3RR against S. Tamokk 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I already initiated this [26].
Hi, Dmcdevit.
I have blocked a bunch of obvious socks:
Otvetniyudar (
talk ·
contribs),
HachikTumanyan (
talk ·
contribs),
Zhirtibay (
talk ·
contribs),
Aramgutan (
talk ·
contribs),
AlexParKinson (
talk ·
contribs). They are obvious socks of an experienced Azeri user, but I do not know who. Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot
User:Atabek, but I am not sure that it is him). In the event the master is identifiable he should probably be blocked. Can you do checkuser to identify the master?
Alex Bakharev 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at 71.235.81.32. I warned him against making offensive remarks such as this one 1. He just responded with this on his talk page 2, and left this comment on the talk page for New England 3. Is there a way you could block a range of IP addresses since he mentioned on his talk page (diff 2) that he can create IP addresses as he pleases? I'd take this too WP:ANI, but there kind of slow when it comes to responding to my threads. Thanks, Black Harry (T| C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He just left this on my talk page 4 Black Harry (T| C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case ( User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).
Currently User:Diyako/ User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ( [33], [34], [35]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.
This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.
-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you blocked 161.200.255.162 ( talk, contribs, block log) on 15 May for being an open proxy. Apparently, the proxy is used by Chulalongkorn University and all traffic from the University's networks seem to go through it. I already put an unblock request at WP:OP, but thought you might be able to tell me if the network configurations need to be fixed, so that I may notify those responsible. - Paul_012 ( talk) 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not censor Jack's userpage. Our policy prohibits personal attacks, not general comments. Leave others' user pages alone, please. Discuss the issue with Jack if it really bothers you. Thank you. Sala Skan 22:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(moved from User talk:Salaskan) Regarding [36]: Please do no revert me with an anti-vandal tool without any discussion. As to the content of the revert, a big banner saying "STAY AWAY FROM WIKTIONARY. Wiktionary is full of idiots." is very disruptive. Do not add it in again. Dmcdevit· t 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the checkuser on Doctor11. Best wishes.-- MONGO 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering--since you're a former arbitrator, would it be appropriate to get ArbCom to rule that anyone who unblocks User:ColScott will be desysopped? I know this is extreme, but given the situation, I would think that anyone who unblocks him has no business being an admin. Blueboy 96 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Approval process? and possibly the section directly above it. – Pomte 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_in_an_AfD. Could you please explain? Kwsn (Ni!) 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
There are currently 28 instances of "WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose." on the ucfd page.
While although I won't complain about the number of categories you nominate (if one assumes that there are far too many categories, then it makes sense that several would be nominated), I'm nevertheless concerned about the lack of individual consideration you appear to be giving each nomination.
If you wish to remove something that someone else has consciously and deliberately included, then it's only respectful to treat each such case as an individual and unique case. Bot-like actions aren't very sensitive to the editors who may be affected by your actions. Particularly disappointing is the constant inclusion of the link to not#myspace. While although, obviously, some tags are used for social networking, this is not always the case. And treating them all like they are, with such a blanket declaration, is impolite at the very least. It even suggests a tendency to assume bad faith.
Again, I'm not asking you to stop nominating categories for deletion. You do what you feel is best for the project. But I would ask that you rethink the manner in which you go about doing it.
Bladestorm 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case, in which you have commented, has been decided. The Arbitration Committee endorses the current indefinite ban on Tajik, and also has banned him for one year should his indefinite ban be lifted.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please move this to the namespace of the creator instead of deleting it ( WP:MIG), or nominate it for deletion if you want to get rid of it? Sala Skan 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User socialist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When you requested a week ago that Category:Administrators open to recall be speedily renamed to Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall, you neglected to tag the category. Discussion of problems caused by the name change is here. Your input is welcome on the new proposal of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Tim Smith 03:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the purpose of: (Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{User:DieWeibeRose/Userboxes/EndUN}} +{{subst:User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN}})) -- DieWeisseRose 04:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The userbox was nominated for deletion because it was allegedly "... divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad." This conclusion was rejected. I don't agree with you that there was "Considerable concern ... expressed about the abuse of templates like this for proselytism and the like" nor was there any consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox". Also, Dmcdevit's implementation of your deletion review summary/decision resulted in the partial and selective depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. Will you please revise your deletion review summary/decision? -- DieWeisseRose 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your proposal here and was about to start a discussion on something like this but you've already done so. I also learned there are a lot of other proposals too. I wonder why none of them got through. What happened to your proposal? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
hi, could you check Tones benefit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for any signs of Bonapartism? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that Adriana Aurora and Nandana23 might be the same person. [38]. Blnking the same parts of the article. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You didn't comment on User:Ezag. Arrow740 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sosomk is again edit warring over the same article. We write our arguments on the talk page. S. is just reverting us calling our edits vandalism and anti-georgian. Please block this user again so that next time he will go to the talk page. [39] Tamokk 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This time he is operating with User:Tones_benefit another edit warrior and suspected sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Tamokk 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite S. did not give arguments for his reverts I did try to alter my edits to meet his point. Mediation will not be relevant in this case. There is nothing to mediate. I will go there only if S. will say anything constructive on the talk page. Tamokk 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I have stricken your vote from Meta in the current board election. Each editor is only allowed to vote once, even if xe meets he voting criteria in several projects. I therefore struck your vote from Meta and kept the one from the English Wikipedia, because your vote from the English Wikipedia is the latest one. Thanks for understanding, Jon Harald Søby 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this CU. I'm actually rather glad that they aren't related to RJASE1. For future reference, was it worth filing the request, seeing that you had just completed the checkuser that showed that TortureIsWrong != TortureIsBad = RJASE1? I filed the request to see if there were other socks. Would you have already found that out when you did the first CU? If it was a waste of time, then I want to make sure I don't file that type of RFCU in the future. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean when you say "unless you have something for me to to compare against". What would you need? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take some action before it once again escalates [1]. I btw did not actually revert Hillock, but removed clear trolling by User:Ukrained. -- Kuban Cossack 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Noticed this puppy was trolling on RFA's--is this a sock of someone I should know about? I wanna be able to keep an eye out ... the person had the distinctive odor of being from somebody's sock drawer. -- Blueboy 96 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently blocked Corticopia. I appreciate your input on the thread at The Noticeboard. I was wondering why you said he should be blocked if his actions continue, but didn't mention what you feel should be done now. I appreciate it if you clarified this point at the the Thread
Thanks,
BH (T| C) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for your concern over the article. You are indeed correct; when I stepped back and took a look at it, I realize that I have fallen into a "revert war". I never really imagined i'd be one to get caught in it, but I guess the joke is on me. Thank you for your suggestions as well and I will make sure to try those out next, as editing back and forth won't solve anything. Feel welcome to keep watch as a possible mediator too, your input is more than welcome! MezzoMezzo 06:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I tip my hat to you once again for uncovering this ongoing abuse. [8], [9]. Proabivouac 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to your deletion rationale:
I would submit to you that:
With these four points in mind, I would then submit to you a request that you undelete the category. Bl a st [ improve me 13.06.07 1020 (UTC)
I think all the political categories should be reinstated. Apparently, they were removed out of process, and process should be paramount in the Wikipedia. Further, I agree with the arguments that Blast advances. I also will declare that removal of these categories is far more divisive than the categories themselves could ever dream of being (and divisiveness was never their purpose anyway). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit,. I have no axe to grind either way about these categories: probably, on balance, I'd prefer their deletion, but it's not a big deal for me either way. I am posting here only because my attention was drawn to these deletions by another editor who posted to my talk page.
However, I can see no speedy deletion criteria to justify the deletion on sight of the long list of categories at your deletion log, on the grounds that they are "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". You may well be right in that assessment, but why not just put these categories up for discussion at WP:UFCD? I am minded to restore them, but would first like to hear your reasons for speedy-deleting them rather than nominating them at WP:UCFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand your dismay. I did attempt to talk to AMIB as did a few other people on the talk page of the AfD. He remained adamant and it seemed clear that no productive discussion was forthcoming. I do agree that it might have been a better idea to wait longer. JoshuaZ 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the Arbcom enforcement noticeboard. The only way to solve this issue is if Atabek and I, just the two of us with no outside interference, go into an arbcom, where we post our evidence and let the neutral third party admins decide. I will remind you that Atabek was initially going to be blocked for 1 year for this kind of behavior, but wasnt due to a split vote. I'm not here to say anything more than just that I am planning to make a request for arbcom between Atabek. We've tried RFC, I've tried making a peace proposal with him, we've tried mediation, nothing worked, the last step is arbcom. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, when you attempt to delete a category, please inform the residents in the category to remove them from the pages first and depopulate the category. Deleting category speedily without depopulation leaves a whole bunch of unnecessary red links. Thank you! Wooyi Talk to me? 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, User:Itaqallah brought these userboxes to my attention: User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/christian_homophobia, User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/Islamic_misogeny [sic.] What is your opinion of them? Proabivouac 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Did you delete this category? If so, why? "Classical Liberal" is a widely accepted phrase describing a school of thought. KConWiki 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather disturbed at the deletion of this page, not least as it was nominated for deletion in March, the result being a VERY strong KEEP. Could you say now why it has been deleted without further discussion. Thanks Galloglass 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have not posted on this page since last Christmas, but I do remember and appreciate how effectively you contributed to reducing revert-warring on a number of Eastern European topics. Now it seems we have a new hot spot, Estonia. There is a number of editors, apparently all based at the Tartu University, making disturbing edits in contradiction to a bunch of guidelines. Stray picks mostly taken from the first day when I took a look there (note edit summaries): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]... Mind-boggling revert warring is accompanied by baiting, accusations of "bad faith" and "patent lies", and a healthy dose of good old trolling in the vein of Bonaparte. [18] [19] [20] [21] User:Petri Krohn, a Finn who can't be accused of being pro-Russian, seems to be the only non-Estonian editor interested in monitoring these subjects on a regular basis and he has to face an avalanche of complaints from the Tartu guys on ANI and elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians for some context). He asked me for advice, but I really can't figure out what may be done to counter tendentious editing by a team of determined users from the same establishment. When you have some spare time, please take a look at what's going on with Estonian articles. Thanks in advance, Ghirla -трёп- 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've dealed before with the likes of you, who go around believing that they have the authority to delete everything based on their high-and-mighty principles of "NPOV" and other assorted crap. Know that the Wikipedian categories you deleted had already survived the deletion attempts of others before you, and they will not end with you. Don't give me your "divisive" garbage, we're not one big, happy, family of hippies. If you can't handle the fact that Wikipedians have varying political opinions, do us all a favour and stay put. I will soon be recreating the Wikipedian categories you deleted, and if you return to your shameful deletionsit ways, I have higher authorities that I can report to. And a good day to you as well. -- Voievod 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, take a look [22] and here [23]. The extent of IP sockpuppeting by User:Tajik in the second case, is just incredible. Thanks. Atabek 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, you might remember this user from Georgia (country). After returning from the block Sosomk maintains the same attitude, revert warring and incivility. My [24] was declined. I asked for it to be reconsidered. Tamokk 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, sorry for this dispute on your talk page. I just wanted to answer Sosomk's comments. Again I will initiate 3RR against S. Tamokk 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I already initiated this [26].
Hi, Dmcdevit.
I have blocked a bunch of obvious socks:
Otvetniyudar (
talk ·
contribs),
HachikTumanyan (
talk ·
contribs),
Zhirtibay (
talk ·
contribs),
Aramgutan (
talk ·
contribs),
AlexParKinson (
talk ·
contribs). They are obvious socks of an experienced Azeri user, but I do not know who. Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot
User:Atabek, but I am not sure that it is him). In the event the master is identifiable he should probably be blocked. Can you do checkuser to identify the master?
Alex Bakharev 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at 71.235.81.32. I warned him against making offensive remarks such as this one 1. He just responded with this on his talk page 2, and left this comment on the talk page for New England 3. Is there a way you could block a range of IP addresses since he mentioned on his talk page (diff 2) that he can create IP addresses as he pleases? I'd take this too WP:ANI, but there kind of slow when it comes to responding to my threads. Thanks, Black Harry (T| C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He just left this on my talk page 4 Black Harry (T| C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case ( User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).
Currently User:Diyako/ User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ( [33], [34], [35]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.
This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.
-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you blocked 161.200.255.162 ( talk, contribs, block log) on 15 May for being an open proxy. Apparently, the proxy is used by Chulalongkorn University and all traffic from the University's networks seem to go through it. I already put an unblock request at WP:OP, but thought you might be able to tell me if the network configurations need to be fixed, so that I may notify those responsible. - Paul_012 ( talk) 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not censor Jack's userpage. Our policy prohibits personal attacks, not general comments. Leave others' user pages alone, please. Discuss the issue with Jack if it really bothers you. Thank you. Sala Skan 22:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(moved from User talk:Salaskan) Regarding [36]: Please do no revert me with an anti-vandal tool without any discussion. As to the content of the revert, a big banner saying "STAY AWAY FROM WIKTIONARY. Wiktionary is full of idiots." is very disruptive. Do not add it in again. Dmcdevit· t 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the checkuser on Doctor11. Best wishes.-- MONGO 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering--since you're a former arbitrator, would it be appropriate to get ArbCom to rule that anyone who unblocks User:ColScott will be desysopped? I know this is extreme, but given the situation, I would think that anyone who unblocks him has no business being an admin. Blueboy 96 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Approval process? and possibly the section directly above it. – Pomte 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_in_an_AfD. Could you please explain? Kwsn (Ni!) 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
There are currently 28 instances of "WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose." on the ucfd page.
While although I won't complain about the number of categories you nominate (if one assumes that there are far too many categories, then it makes sense that several would be nominated), I'm nevertheless concerned about the lack of individual consideration you appear to be giving each nomination.
If you wish to remove something that someone else has consciously and deliberately included, then it's only respectful to treat each such case as an individual and unique case. Bot-like actions aren't very sensitive to the editors who may be affected by your actions. Particularly disappointing is the constant inclusion of the link to not#myspace. While although, obviously, some tags are used for social networking, this is not always the case. And treating them all like they are, with such a blanket declaration, is impolite at the very least. It even suggests a tendency to assume bad faith.
Again, I'm not asking you to stop nominating categories for deletion. You do what you feel is best for the project. But I would ask that you rethink the manner in which you go about doing it.
Bladestorm 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case, in which you have commented, has been decided. The Arbitration Committee endorses the current indefinite ban on Tajik, and also has banned him for one year should his indefinite ban be lifted.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please move this to the namespace of the creator instead of deleting it ( WP:MIG), or nominate it for deletion if you want to get rid of it? Sala Skan 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User socialist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. When you requested a week ago that Category:Administrators open to recall be speedily renamed to Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall, you neglected to tag the category. Discussion of problems caused by the name change is here. Your input is welcome on the new proposal of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Tim Smith 03:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the purpose of: (Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{User:DieWeibeRose/Userboxes/EndUN}} +{{subst:User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN}})) -- DieWeisseRose 04:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The userbox was nominated for deletion because it was allegedly "... divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad." This conclusion was rejected. I don't agree with you that there was "Considerable concern ... expressed about the abuse of templates like this for proselytism and the like" nor was there any consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox". Also, Dmcdevit's implementation of your deletion review summary/decision resulted in the partial and selective depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. Will you please revise your deletion review summary/decision? -- DieWeisseRose 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your proposal here and was about to start a discussion on something like this but you've already done so. I also learned there are a lot of other proposals too. I wonder why none of them got through. What happened to your proposal? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
hi, could you check Tones benefit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for any signs of Bonapartism? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that Adriana Aurora and Nandana23 might be the same person. [38]. Blnking the same parts of the article. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You didn't comment on User:Ezag. Arrow740 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sosomk is again edit warring over the same article. We write our arguments on the talk page. S. is just reverting us calling our edits vandalism and anti-georgian. Please block this user again so that next time he will go to the talk page. [39] Tamokk 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This time he is operating with User:Tones_benefit another edit warrior and suspected sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Tamokk 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite S. did not give arguments for his reverts I did try to alter my edits to meet his point. Mediation will not be relevant in this case. There is nothing to mediate. I will go there only if S. will say anything constructive on the talk page. Tamokk 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I have stricken your vote from Meta in the current board election. Each editor is only allowed to vote once, even if xe meets he voting criteria in several projects. I therefore struck your vote from Meta and kept the one from the English Wikipedia, because your vote from the English Wikipedia is the latest one. Thanks for understanding, Jon Harald Søby 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)