Dmcdevit, I appreciate your concerns regarding my close of this DRV. Let me first address your comments regarding my potential conflict of interest in the matter. While I have certainly had user categories on my page that have been deleted, these were not the categories which I closed the DRV to undelete. Frankly, it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic. Yes, if I'd have closed a "users who support the ACLU" discussion, that might have been improper--but I didn't. I must also contradict your assertion that I closed either DRV against consensus. I read and re-read the comments multiple times. In both cases, I felt the weight of the arguments (and the !vote count) was for undeltetion. Yes, there are some times when policy is strong enough to contravene firm consensus, but these cases are usually given criteria for speedy deletion (i.e. recent changes to BLP policy and policy on non-free content). Closes against 2:1 and 3:1 majorities were not warranted here (these are radical usurpations, not just a few votes one way or the other), and the DRV discussions agreed with this point. Although I agree with your general argument about discussing and weighing the quality of the arguments, voting is not always bad. Going against consensus because you don't like the outcome is bad. Best, IronGargoyle 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, it looks to me like "the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion" applies equally to you. Even on the basis of your votecounting, if no consensus is to default to the status quo, and the DRV most certainly did not have a 3:1 or 2:1 margin, but closer to 1:1, it seems to me that this is clearly a lack of consensus that defaults to the original administrator's decision. But instead, you overturned teh decision, despite the seeming lack of consensus. Are you taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement your personal opinion, criticizing the original administrators for both taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement their personal opinions? It doesn't seem reasonable. Dmcdevit· t 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. Call me clueless but I'm not sure I understand what your concluding sentence means but
I'm not so sure I understand the finer points of how checkuser works in practice so sorry if any of the above questions have super-obvious answers. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yet again we have another (likely) sock puppet (again its probably AdilBaguirov): [1] Hajji Piruz 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there,
You ended up assisting some members last month with regards to user Panairjadde who is banned from making edits on WP. We have some outstanding socks that need to be blocked (updated list can be found here, User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) and we were wondering if you would be able to enforce a similar block on the user's ip range to limit new sock creation? He seemed to have faded away from day you enforced the block thru July 7ish... Thanks, -- Palffy 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Another sock came through somehow, User:Trapboy. Did he edit from that range you blocked, or something else? Kwsn (Ni!) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. What's the deal with User:Tiger white, is he blocked or not? It's suspected that he's a sockpuppet of User:98E and looking back at my history, I actually remember interacting with 98E. They both edit images relating to hip hop artists, South Park, Crash Bandicoot, and stop signs. You can even compare their contributions (specifically the image namespace): Special:Contributions/98E & Special:Contributions/Tiger_white. And not to mention them both starting similar galleries [2] & [3]. Spellcast 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Dmcdevit, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37 (T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that someone was requesting an autoblock be lifted at User talk:151.75.190.98, and that the reason for blocking listed was {{ checkuserblock}}. Since this involves a CheckUser you apparently handled, could you please take care of this request? The CheckUser block template states that administrators who wish to unblock this address must consult with the blocking administrator, and I do not want to undo your work as a CheckUser. Thank you very much. Jesse Viviano 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
71.233.232.243 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has requested on his talk page that you review his block. You blocked him for six months based on checkuser evidence, but he claims that there is collateral damage. I have no opinion; I'm just trying to help. Cheers. Shalom Hello 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dmc, I just found this posting on a talk page at Talk:Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The diff is here [4]. Since it seems to identify a particular individual, it might be prudent to remove it from the history altogether. I'll go and delete the posting from the talk page now. Thanks in advance, old bean! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and we ran into a Nadirali sock just then... Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! j talk 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
...and he's creating new socks again. Please block existing ones here and may I suggest an extension of the block? Things are nice and quiet when its in effect.. -- Palffy 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have e-mailed you and left a message on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am not a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn nor have I even heard of the user. I use my real name to edit on wikipedia and have done for three years. Please remove my user block ASAP. A quick google search of my name would reveal that I am a real person editing under my real name, as indeed would a review of my edits, at least circumstantially. In my opinion, using bots to block long-standing user accounts with no other evidence of malfeasance is tantamount to lynch law. Sorry for the emotive language. 91.125.114.14 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch
Hi, Cause you were so helpfull last time. Can i please have your assistance again on this [5] Thanks ExtraDry 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, I'm wondering what you think of this. Proabivouac 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please undelete Image:Picsingles.jpg. It was moved to Commons in error, as Commons does not allow fair use, and I am attempting to get it removed from Commons. Thanks! — Jeff G. 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out my recent contributions. I've been able to confirm based on behavior that Ursul pacalit de vulpe ( talk · contribs) (formerly Tones benefit) is a sockpuppet of Bonny. Indexxs ( talk · contribs) has also been blocked. Are there any more? Khoi khoi 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I hope this posting finds you well. I have a request for a checkuser and I was wondering if you can help me out. If it's not appropriate to ask you in person, please direct me further. There has been an on going issue at the article SEIU Local 1.on. The editor(s) are posting derogatory information and although they have been reverted/warned, the same information is being replaced, now from a variety of user names. It seems to be the same editor using different accounts. If you could have a look at the history there from the past couple weeks and offer your own opinion, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best regards, as always Hamster Sandwich 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You unblocked User:Gnanapiti under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. Thanks Taprobanus 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
just a few:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus ( talk • contribs)
Dunno if Mackensen informed you, but there's a case that's been defered to you. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you hard blocked this IP as being an open proxy earlier, I've run a few (newbies) checks (googling the IP, RBL and port scanning) and I find no evidence it is one. Since this user is asking his block to be reviewed, could you double check for me? You probably have much more knowledge of OP than I do ;). -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I see from the block record that you have been concerned about this user's behaviour in the recent past. May I ask if you think his constant use of the m to tag edits that are patently not minor (such as reverting good faith edits) are problematic for our project?
I have just left the following message on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ACorticopia&diff=149629790&oldid=149231444 but I would appreciate guidance on the matter if I am wrong in the stance I expressed there. Respectfully...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. User:Kaz redirected the White Huns article to the Xionites and Red Huns to the Kidarites article. These redirects are misleading (see my comment on his/her talk page [6]). Could you please restore the redirects ( White Huns = Ephthalites, Red Huns = Chionites)? You can consult the references i've already provided in his/her talk page. Please trust me on this. Kind regards. E104421 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. In any case, it seems StealBoy & friends are back.
... and these are just the ones I know about. The IP is again from Exetel and I'm wondering when it starts to make sense to report this to them (or is that completely useless?). In any case, if you could again look at a possible range block, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And of course, these are only the ones I managed to catch. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, it appears you've gone on a wikibreak. Should you return, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf, User:MONGO/Ban evasion. Proabivouac 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a thread about your block of the runcorn sock farm: [7]. You'd think I'd cease to be surprised at that the way people make these threads and never bother talking to the person who made the original decision or even telling them about the thread... -- W.marsh 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess not…I just found it very strange that he smiled at me, then marked User:X-Force as a sock after I'd reported it at WP:AIV, when last I heard from Connell66 as User:LOZ: OOT, he smiled at me and congratulated me for tracking down the likely (though not certain) puppeteer. Sorry to have bothered you with this. Proabivouac 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
202.4.79.163 ( talk · contribs) - I think it is obviously Spartathreehundred ( talk · contribs). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly an anon IP sock of User:Tajik, please, check [8]. Thanks. Atabek 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit,
Michael White has emailed unblock-en-l from his @waitaki-dc.govt.nz email address, and from his position at the Waitaki District Council, he might be able to help you track down the original source of the abuse from this IP address that led to the checkuserblock.
Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, take a look here [9]. User:Fadix appears under the User:Drosophilawhodoestnotfly and openly admits he is User:Fadix. This is a second time after the case of User:Anatolmethanol. Among other listed accounts both new User:Andranikpasha and User:Hu1lee are currently involved in revert warring at Khojaly Massacre. Atabek 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am just fed up of being accused of using those socks without having the power to answer back. I have emailed Thatcher requesting a checkusers, which was never in my knowledge run. Anatolmethanol was primarly created to counter Flavius disruptions a previously undefinitly banned user. Since I don't feel having done that much wrong, I find no reason to hide behind multiple socks cowardly. I have to be a sado-mazo to be the author of those edits on Khojali article when I was one of the main users with Francis and Grandmaster involved in the past making the concessions to then have to change by undoing my own concessions. Just say yourself that at least you are set with me, you don't have to run any checkusers to confirm anything, I will endorse any socks I have used. But I refuse this admission to be used to attribute to me edits which I have not done. While a banned user is not protected by any of the policies, I think the minimum required decency to edit should be enough for Atabek and Grandmaster to refrain themselves in seing me everywhere each time a sock appear. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Dmcdevit_and_moving_images_to_the_commons. Talk about you. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by your comment "unrelated" on RFCU/Artaxiad 8, since you blocked a bunch of other socks. Does "unrelated" only refer to Gazifikator? If its not a sock of one of those banned users his edits re odd. Thatcher131 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you previously blocked this user for under a checkuser block, and it appears that whoever it is is back and has knowledge of Wikipedia. He's been canvassing talk pages, etc. Is this the same person? The Evil Spartan 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi a new user (assuming it is not a sock) [11] has broken many Wikipedia laws. They include 3rr, making racist outburts like:"Anti turk kurds or persians, stop editing my ethnic web-page, you can not play with facts; turks in iran are so strong and you are not" and "don't remove without any reasons. i understand you are presian and may belong to pan-Iranist (fascism)". The user is uploading an ethnic map from separatist site that contradicts academic maps. [12] (unfortunately every ultranationalist will maximize the distribution of one ethnic group and minimize the rest). So he is pushing an OR view which simply contradicts plain facts. I think at least he should be blocked for 3rr but the problem goes further since he is making personal comments and does not understand Wikipedia's OR policy. -- alidoostzadeh 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Here is another comment: " http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iranian_Azeris&action=history"((Fascis and anti turk Doostzadeh, i saw ur racist and anti-turkic ideas, wikipedia is not a place for a fascist persian, you can not change facts and clean azeris in area showed in the map)) -- alidoostzadeh 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you officially have a fan. Join the club. Cheers, Nihiltres( t. l) 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, good to know that you still continue to accuse others of being sockpuppets ... of course without any proofs. Good job, admin ... And, yeah, THIS here is my IP. Go ahead and launch your CheckUser ... your wrong accusations were exposed ... now you have to explain why you banned me for no reason and prevented my from defending myself in the arbcom! - Tajik
Noticed that you blocked 67.155.0.0/16 this past winter [14]. XO Communications (an ISP) runs that block, and while there may be an open proxy among those 65K addresses, blocking the whole subnet is probably overkill. (As it was, there was a complaint on User talk:67.155.169.170 and on OTRS about this.)
Rangeblocks are a very drastic measure, and should not be done without quite a bit of research first. Please be more cautious about blocking entire ranges in the future. Thanks! - Jredmond 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Both you and some bot recently made changes to this image: [15] and now it will not link to the South Dakota article. That is, the larger image will, but any modifications done to size, etc. render the image blank in the article. I've tried to figure out what happened, and can't. (I think the same thing happened to a map on the Nebraska article) Could you please take a look at it? Thanks - AlexiusHoratius 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcdevit. Your participation in the discussion here would be genuinely appreciated. -- Macropode 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
All those spoken articles you just approved the transwiki of need to have "en-" prepended to their file names, according to the standard presently observed. Are you aware of a method of automating this process? tgies 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Durova Charge! 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Allthough I don't understand fully, I think you have selected image Niharika Acharya.jpg for to be copied on wikipedia commons. I thought that it is already on commons. I don't know why you yourself didn't copy it to commons.
Anyway thanks. abhishka 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Niharika_Acharya.jpg
Category:Journalists from the United States
abhishka 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
βcommand 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. For a few months ago, User:Koavf was unblocked from his indef block to apparently give him another chance to edit differently, and was placed on revert parole for a year. He was blocked for extensive revert-warring and for other disruptive behaviour. looking at his block log for the period after the unblock, I just wonder if it is not time to take the case again and see if the user has ever changed. Judging by the amount of blocks and the problems he caused either in edit-warring or massive moving of pages without concensus, I doubt there is any hope he changed or will ever change. Please have a look at this case. -- A Jalil 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got mail. Picaroon (t) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please come and participate in the discussion of Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | ||
The barnstar is presented to Dmcdevit for his efforts in fostering civil discourse on Wikipedia and IRC. |
You don't think that there was no decision to deprecate it, a discussion concluding it wasn't deprecated, and a guideline that your change does not comply with is reason enough? Come to that, what reason was there for making the change in the first instance? Alai 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have a complicated request in regards to this image. I was the original photographer and uploader of that photo quite a long time ago. Since then, user Nagytibi had uploaded the image to Commons, and the image page on Wikipedia has been deleted. However, when Nagytibi uploaded it to Commons, he failed to include my green infobox in its description page, which contains details about the photo and attributes the image to me, including my real name. In his/her defense, I think I may have added the infobox some time later after uploading the image, so it may not have been there when he/she uploaded it to Commons. Thus, as it stands now, there is no information on the image page attributing the image to me. Now normally, I wouldn't care about this, but this photo was used in an episode of The Colbert Report aired JAN'19 2006 (despite the fact that it's a crappy quality photo taken with an ancient camera phone), and I want the bragging rights among my friends (interestingly, no attribution for the photo was given in the show as far as I could tell, despite its cc-by license, though they may have mentioned it in the final credits). Now I could just edit the Commons description page to include my name or username, but I think it would look weird/suspicious if I did that. I would prefer it if someone with authority (specifically, the ability to verify my claim that I created the image through the deletion log), like an administrator such as yourself, could access the deleted image description page on Wikipedia, and copy the infobox to the Commons description page. I chose to request you to do this simply because you were the one who deleted the image page on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, and also apologies in advance if my request seems a little petty. -- Aram գուտանգ 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please comment. [16] -- יודל 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. That guy just won't quit. He's back at it with what seems to be a new ISP (though from Australia again). I've indef-blocked Blueboy7777 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yallowboy6666 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) whose pattern of hoax articles is unmistakable. I've also soft-blocked the accompanying IP 58.168.36.197 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) for a month. You might want to adjust that last one: if the IP is dynamic then that's probably too much collateral damage but if it's static this should be made into a hard block. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look into this new checkuser request [17], as you also identified earlier several sock accounts associated with it. Thanks. Atabek 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, I'm contacting you because you are listed as a person with an account on the OTRS system and this image has a tag suggesting contacting such a person to verify we have appropriate licensing. Let me know if this is not actually the way I should do this.
I'm questioning the licensing because the image claims cc-by-sa 3.0 but the web page the picture comes from states a CC attribution, non-commercial license. - thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
.. is back and I caught his latest page, German collective guilt on NP Watch. It obviously isn't a speedy, nor even a PROD, but I have left a note on the talk page. There is a lot of POV and I think it's arguable the content is so adrift from the title that it may never be any better than existing articles covering the same topics. When I looked into his edit history, I felt you should be aware of this. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Requesting your input concerning some speedy deletions. Please see: User:CharonX#Regarding your T1 Deletions (and a semi-related DRV). - jc37 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI from another user page...
A bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [19] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
I just wanted to let you know that I nominated your image of the penguin life cycle as a featured picture candidate. If you are interested in checking out how the voting is going go to the nomination page. -- ZeWrestler Talk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This section was blanked. Per ArbCom, all appeals of blocks for pedophile activism should be directed to ArbCom in private. Dmcdevit· t 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
On 6 April I deleted Goat Glossary of Terms and Talk:Goat Glossary of Terms because they had been prodded as having been transwikied to Wiktionary. The original editor, User:GoatLink, can't find it at Wiktionary. I saw you were an admin over there as well, so could you take a quick look and see what happened to it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you get my emails from Monday? Blnguyen ( two years of monkeying) 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I debated long and hard myself about creating that ... but after finding out that this was a guy whose edits not only could be reverted, but must be reverted, I figured we needed something to let people know about this guy. Maybe if it were restored under semi-protection ... I dunno. Was wondering why this couldn't have gone to AfD ... I was just trying to help out. Blueboy 96 12:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For cleaning up over half of the RFCU requests that were open. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hello Dmcdevit. Regarding this [20], the block log [21] of this identified sock of User:Artaxiad actually claims that it's most likely sock of User:AdilBaguirov. I think this comment unnecessarily targets User:AdilBaguirov, which could potentially extend his current ArbCom restriction for no reason. So can this situation be addressed in the block log. Also, banned User:Tajik again reappeared on the same old Safavid dynasty, disrupting the article [22] and continues again at Talk:Safavid dynasty claiming he is not Tajik, but says he only inserts Tajik's text :) on the talk page. Thanks. Atabek 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
While you are at it, Dmcdevit, make sure you read this and comment on it. Also make sure you check my IP ( 82.82.138.140, provided by Arcor) and compare it to User:Tajik's ( 80.171.47.194, provided by HanseNet/Allice) and User:DerDoc's ( 193.170.48.2 which is an Austrian IP). All three are alleged socks which is totally impossible. You also need to explain why User:Tajik is still banned, although his alleged sockpuppet User:Tajik-Professor is unblocked after checkuser revealed that the accusations against both were wrong!
you are urged to put your political feelings aside and tell the truth. i think many are so mad at derek that this is clouding their judgement. i am not convinced that greenwinged is polounit. i am more convinced that they are different. Appealplease 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the checkuser on Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani. -- Yamla 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at whether your range block reported at that talk page is still required? A user of that IP range is requesting to be unblocked. Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed on A.Z.'s discussion page a reference to emailing ArbCom. Would I be correct in assuming that an email then identifies the sender in real life? While I have no comment to make on the block, pro or con, I was surprised to read, given the drama on the discussion page, that no one had yet emailed ArbCom. Could it be because no one wants to have their on-line identity connected to their real lives, especially around such a contentious subject as Paedophilia? Could that not then weight the discussion in an unfair manner, a "process bias" as it were? Of course, if there is no way to tie the identities together, then there is no problem. Bielle 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to [25], I knew that checkuser only reveals the IP of a user, and I'm really sorry that the case wasn't obvious to me. Please accept my apologies.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there. Saw an unblock request at User talk:Drono, apparently affected by the block on 76.199.100.0/22 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)). One curious thing, I noticed your block reason was "{{ anonblock}}{{ checkuserblock}}" but the block doesn't appear to be anon-only. You know more than I do, so I can't do much more than point out what seems to be a discrepancy. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you because you wrote "Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved" [26] as a response to this request, which was made by Art LaPella. However, on examining the blog logs of Iantresman's suspected sock puppets, I see that one of them, Leokor has a clean block log. Would it be possible to reinstate the Leokor part of the checkuser request? Cardamon 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I appreciate your concerns regarding my close of this DRV. Let me first address your comments regarding my potential conflict of interest in the matter. While I have certainly had user categories on my page that have been deleted, these were not the categories which I closed the DRV to undelete. Frankly, it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic. Yes, if I'd have closed a "users who support the ACLU" discussion, that might have been improper--but I didn't. I must also contradict your assertion that I closed either DRV against consensus. I read and re-read the comments multiple times. In both cases, I felt the weight of the arguments (and the !vote count) was for undeltetion. Yes, there are some times when policy is strong enough to contravene firm consensus, but these cases are usually given criteria for speedy deletion (i.e. recent changes to BLP policy and policy on non-free content). Closes against 2:1 and 3:1 majorities were not warranted here (these are radical usurpations, not just a few votes one way or the other), and the DRV discussions agreed with this point. Although I agree with your general argument about discussing and weighing the quality of the arguments, voting is not always bad. Going against consensus because you don't like the outcome is bad. Best, IronGargoyle 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, it looks to me like "the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion" applies equally to you. Even on the basis of your votecounting, if no consensus is to default to the status quo, and the DRV most certainly did not have a 3:1 or 2:1 margin, but closer to 1:1, it seems to me that this is clearly a lack of consensus that defaults to the original administrator's decision. But instead, you overturned teh decision, despite the seeming lack of consensus. Are you taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement your personal opinion, criticizing the original administrators for both taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement their personal opinions? It doesn't seem reasonable. Dmcdevit· t 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. Call me clueless but I'm not sure I understand what your concluding sentence means but
I'm not so sure I understand the finer points of how checkuser works in practice so sorry if any of the above questions have super-obvious answers. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yet again we have another (likely) sock puppet (again its probably AdilBaguirov): [1] Hajji Piruz 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there,
You ended up assisting some members last month with regards to user Panairjadde who is banned from making edits on WP. We have some outstanding socks that need to be blocked (updated list can be found here, User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) and we were wondering if you would be able to enforce a similar block on the user's ip range to limit new sock creation? He seemed to have faded away from day you enforced the block thru July 7ish... Thanks, -- Palffy 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Another sock came through somehow, User:Trapboy. Did he edit from that range you blocked, or something else? Kwsn (Ni!) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. What's the deal with User:Tiger white, is he blocked or not? It's suspected that he's a sockpuppet of User:98E and looking back at my history, I actually remember interacting with 98E. They both edit images relating to hip hop artists, South Park, Crash Bandicoot, and stop signs. You can even compare their contributions (specifically the image namespace): Special:Contributions/98E & Special:Contributions/Tiger_white. And not to mention them both starting similar galleries [2] & [3]. Spellcast 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Dmcdevit, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37 (T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that someone was requesting an autoblock be lifted at User talk:151.75.190.98, and that the reason for blocking listed was {{ checkuserblock}}. Since this involves a CheckUser you apparently handled, could you please take care of this request? The CheckUser block template states that administrators who wish to unblock this address must consult with the blocking administrator, and I do not want to undo your work as a CheckUser. Thank you very much. Jesse Viviano 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
71.233.232.243 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has requested on his talk page that you review his block. You blocked him for six months based on checkuser evidence, but he claims that there is collateral damage. I have no opinion; I'm just trying to help. Cheers. Shalom Hello 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dmc, I just found this posting on a talk page at Talk:Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The diff is here [4]. Since it seems to identify a particular individual, it might be prudent to remove it from the history altogether. I'll go and delete the posting from the talk page now. Thanks in advance, old bean! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and we ran into a Nadirali sock just then... Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! j talk 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
...and he's creating new socks again. Please block existing ones here and may I suggest an extension of the block? Things are nice and quiet when its in effect.. -- Palffy 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have e-mailed you and left a message on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am not a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn nor have I even heard of the user. I use my real name to edit on wikipedia and have done for three years. Please remove my user block ASAP. A quick google search of my name would reveal that I am a real person editing under my real name, as indeed would a review of my edits, at least circumstantially. In my opinion, using bots to block long-standing user accounts with no other evidence of malfeasance is tantamount to lynch law. Sorry for the emotive language. 91.125.114.14 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch
Hi, Cause you were so helpfull last time. Can i please have your assistance again on this [5] Thanks ExtraDry 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, I'm wondering what you think of this. Proabivouac 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please undelete Image:Picsingles.jpg. It was moved to Commons in error, as Commons does not allow fair use, and I am attempting to get it removed from Commons. Thanks! — Jeff G. 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out my recent contributions. I've been able to confirm based on behavior that Ursul pacalit de vulpe ( talk · contribs) (formerly Tones benefit) is a sockpuppet of Bonny. Indexxs ( talk · contribs) has also been blocked. Are there any more? Khoi khoi 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, I hope this posting finds you well. I have a request for a checkuser and I was wondering if you can help me out. If it's not appropriate to ask you in person, please direct me further. There has been an on going issue at the article SEIU Local 1.on. The editor(s) are posting derogatory information and although they have been reverted/warned, the same information is being replaced, now from a variety of user names. It seems to be the same editor using different accounts. If you could have a look at the history there from the past couple weeks and offer your own opinion, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best regards, as always Hamster Sandwich 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You unblocked User:Gnanapiti under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. Thanks Taprobanus 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
just a few:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus ( talk • contribs)
Dunno if Mackensen informed you, but there's a case that's been defered to you. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you hard blocked this IP as being an open proxy earlier, I've run a few (newbies) checks (googling the IP, RBL and port scanning) and I find no evidence it is one. Since this user is asking his block to be reviewed, could you double check for me? You probably have much more knowledge of OP than I do ;). -- lucasbfr talk 10:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I see from the block record that you have been concerned about this user's behaviour in the recent past. May I ask if you think his constant use of the m to tag edits that are patently not minor (such as reverting good faith edits) are problematic for our project?
I have just left the following message on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ACorticopia&diff=149629790&oldid=149231444 but I would appreciate guidance on the matter if I am wrong in the stance I expressed there. Respectfully...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. User:Kaz redirected the White Huns article to the Xionites and Red Huns to the Kidarites article. These redirects are misleading (see my comment on his/her talk page [6]). Could you please restore the redirects ( White Huns = Ephthalites, Red Huns = Chionites)? You can consult the references i've already provided in his/her talk page. Please trust me on this. Kind regards. E104421 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. In any case, it seems StealBoy & friends are back.
... and these are just the ones I know about. The IP is again from Exetel and I'm wondering when it starts to make sense to report this to them (or is that completely useless?). In any case, if you could again look at a possible range block, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And of course, these are only the ones I managed to catch. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, it appears you've gone on a wikibreak. Should you return, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf, User:MONGO/Ban evasion. Proabivouac 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a thread about your block of the runcorn sock farm: [7]. You'd think I'd cease to be surprised at that the way people make these threads and never bother talking to the person who made the original decision or even telling them about the thread... -- W.marsh 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess not…I just found it very strange that he smiled at me, then marked User:X-Force as a sock after I'd reported it at WP:AIV, when last I heard from Connell66 as User:LOZ: OOT, he smiled at me and congratulated me for tracking down the likely (though not certain) puppeteer. Sorry to have bothered you with this. Proabivouac 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
202.4.79.163 ( talk · contribs) - I think it is obviously Spartathreehundred ( talk · contribs). Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly an anon IP sock of User:Tajik, please, check [8]. Thanks. Atabek 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit,
Michael White has emailed unblock-en-l from his @waitaki-dc.govt.nz email address, and from his position at the Waitaki District Council, he might be able to help you track down the original source of the abuse from this IP address that led to the checkuserblock.
Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, take a look here [9]. User:Fadix appears under the User:Drosophilawhodoestnotfly and openly admits he is User:Fadix. This is a second time after the case of User:Anatolmethanol. Among other listed accounts both new User:Andranikpasha and User:Hu1lee are currently involved in revert warring at Khojaly Massacre. Atabek 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am just fed up of being accused of using those socks without having the power to answer back. I have emailed Thatcher requesting a checkusers, which was never in my knowledge run. Anatolmethanol was primarly created to counter Flavius disruptions a previously undefinitly banned user. Since I don't feel having done that much wrong, I find no reason to hide behind multiple socks cowardly. I have to be a sado-mazo to be the author of those edits on Khojali article when I was one of the main users with Francis and Grandmaster involved in the past making the concessions to then have to change by undoing my own concessions. Just say yourself that at least you are set with me, you don't have to run any checkusers to confirm anything, I will endorse any socks I have used. But I refuse this admission to be used to attribute to me edits which I have not done. While a banned user is not protected by any of the policies, I think the minimum required decency to edit should be enough for Atabek and Grandmaster to refrain themselves in seing me everywhere each time a sock appear. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Dmcdevit_and_moving_images_to_the_commons. Talk about you. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by your comment "unrelated" on RFCU/Artaxiad 8, since you blocked a bunch of other socks. Does "unrelated" only refer to Gazifikator? If its not a sock of one of those banned users his edits re odd. Thatcher131 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you previously blocked this user for under a checkuser block, and it appears that whoever it is is back and has knowledge of Wikipedia. He's been canvassing talk pages, etc. Is this the same person? The Evil Spartan 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi a new user (assuming it is not a sock) [11] has broken many Wikipedia laws. They include 3rr, making racist outburts like:"Anti turk kurds or persians, stop editing my ethnic web-page, you can not play with facts; turks in iran are so strong and you are not" and "don't remove without any reasons. i understand you are presian and may belong to pan-Iranist (fascism)". The user is uploading an ethnic map from separatist site that contradicts academic maps. [12] (unfortunately every ultranationalist will maximize the distribution of one ethnic group and minimize the rest). So he is pushing an OR view which simply contradicts plain facts. I think at least he should be blocked for 3rr but the problem goes further since he is making personal comments and does not understand Wikipedia's OR policy. -- alidoostzadeh 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Here is another comment: " http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iranian_Azeris&action=history"((Fascis and anti turk Doostzadeh, i saw ur racist and anti-turkic ideas, wikipedia is not a place for a fascist persian, you can not change facts and clean azeris in area showed in the map)) -- alidoostzadeh 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you officially have a fan. Join the club. Cheers, Nihiltres( t. l) 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, good to know that you still continue to accuse others of being sockpuppets ... of course without any proofs. Good job, admin ... And, yeah, THIS here is my IP. Go ahead and launch your CheckUser ... your wrong accusations were exposed ... now you have to explain why you banned me for no reason and prevented my from defending myself in the arbcom! - Tajik
Noticed that you blocked 67.155.0.0/16 this past winter [14]. XO Communications (an ISP) runs that block, and while there may be an open proxy among those 65K addresses, blocking the whole subnet is probably overkill. (As it was, there was a complaint on User talk:67.155.169.170 and on OTRS about this.)
Rangeblocks are a very drastic measure, and should not be done without quite a bit of research first. Please be more cautious about blocking entire ranges in the future. Thanks! - Jredmond 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Both you and some bot recently made changes to this image: [15] and now it will not link to the South Dakota article. That is, the larger image will, but any modifications done to size, etc. render the image blank in the article. I've tried to figure out what happened, and can't. (I think the same thing happened to a map on the Nebraska article) Could you please take a look at it? Thanks - AlexiusHoratius 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcdevit. Your participation in the discussion here would be genuinely appreciated. -- Macropode 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
All those spoken articles you just approved the transwiki of need to have "en-" prepended to their file names, according to the standard presently observed. Are you aware of a method of automating this process? tgies 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Durova Charge! 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Allthough I don't understand fully, I think you have selected image Niharika Acharya.jpg for to be copied on wikipedia commons. I thought that it is already on commons. I don't know why you yourself didn't copy it to commons.
Anyway thanks. abhishka 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Niharika_Acharya.jpg
Category:Journalists from the United States
abhishka 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
βcommand 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. For a few months ago, User:Koavf was unblocked from his indef block to apparently give him another chance to edit differently, and was placed on revert parole for a year. He was blocked for extensive revert-warring and for other disruptive behaviour. looking at his block log for the period after the unblock, I just wonder if it is not time to take the case again and see if the user has ever changed. Judging by the amount of blocks and the problems he caused either in edit-warring or massive moving of pages without concensus, I doubt there is any hope he changed or will ever change. Please have a look at this case. -- A Jalil 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got mail. Picaroon (t) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please come and participate in the discussion of Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | ||
The barnstar is presented to Dmcdevit for his efforts in fostering civil discourse on Wikipedia and IRC. |
You don't think that there was no decision to deprecate it, a discussion concluding it wasn't deprecated, and a guideline that your change does not comply with is reason enough? Come to that, what reason was there for making the change in the first instance? Alai 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have a complicated request in regards to this image. I was the original photographer and uploader of that photo quite a long time ago. Since then, user Nagytibi had uploaded the image to Commons, and the image page on Wikipedia has been deleted. However, when Nagytibi uploaded it to Commons, he failed to include my green infobox in its description page, which contains details about the photo and attributes the image to me, including my real name. In his/her defense, I think I may have added the infobox some time later after uploading the image, so it may not have been there when he/she uploaded it to Commons. Thus, as it stands now, there is no information on the image page attributing the image to me. Now normally, I wouldn't care about this, but this photo was used in an episode of The Colbert Report aired JAN'19 2006 (despite the fact that it's a crappy quality photo taken with an ancient camera phone), and I want the bragging rights among my friends (interestingly, no attribution for the photo was given in the show as far as I could tell, despite its cc-by license, though they may have mentioned it in the final credits). Now I could just edit the Commons description page to include my name or username, but I think it would look weird/suspicious if I did that. I would prefer it if someone with authority (specifically, the ability to verify my claim that I created the image through the deletion log), like an administrator such as yourself, could access the deleted image description page on Wikipedia, and copy the infobox to the Commons description page. I chose to request you to do this simply because you were the one who deleted the image page on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, and also apologies in advance if my request seems a little petty. -- Aram գուտանգ 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please comment. [16] -- יודל 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. That guy just won't quit. He's back at it with what seems to be a new ISP (though from Australia again). I've indef-blocked Blueboy7777 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Yallowboy6666 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) whose pattern of hoax articles is unmistakable. I've also soft-blocked the accompanying IP 58.168.36.197 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) for a month. You might want to adjust that last one: if the IP is dynamic then that's probably too much collateral damage but if it's static this should be made into a hard block. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look into this new checkuser request [17], as you also identified earlier several sock accounts associated with it. Thanks. Atabek 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, I'm contacting you because you are listed as a person with an account on the OTRS system and this image has a tag suggesting contacting such a person to verify we have appropriate licensing. Let me know if this is not actually the way I should do this.
I'm questioning the licensing because the image claims cc-by-sa 3.0 but the web page the picture comes from states a CC attribution, non-commercial license. - thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
.. is back and I caught his latest page, German collective guilt on NP Watch. It obviously isn't a speedy, nor even a PROD, but I have left a note on the talk page. There is a lot of POV and I think it's arguable the content is so adrift from the title that it may never be any better than existing articles covering the same topics. When I looked into his edit history, I felt you should be aware of this. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Requesting your input concerning some speedy deletions. Please see: User:CharonX#Regarding your T1 Deletions (and a semi-related DRV). - jc37 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI from another user page...
A bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [19] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
I just wanted to let you know that I nominated your image of the penguin life cycle as a featured picture candidate. If you are interested in checking out how the voting is going go to the nomination page. -- ZeWrestler Talk 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This section was blanked. Per ArbCom, all appeals of blocks for pedophile activism should be directed to ArbCom in private. Dmcdevit· t 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
On 6 April I deleted Goat Glossary of Terms and Talk:Goat Glossary of Terms because they had been prodded as having been transwikied to Wiktionary. The original editor, User:GoatLink, can't find it at Wiktionary. I saw you were an admin over there as well, so could you take a quick look and see what happened to it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you get my emails from Monday? Blnguyen ( two years of monkeying) 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I debated long and hard myself about creating that ... but after finding out that this was a guy whose edits not only could be reverted, but must be reverted, I figured we needed something to let people know about this guy. Maybe if it were restored under semi-protection ... I dunno. Was wondering why this couldn't have gone to AfD ... I was just trying to help out. Blueboy 96 12:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For cleaning up over half of the RFCU requests that were open. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hello Dmcdevit. Regarding this [20], the block log [21] of this identified sock of User:Artaxiad actually claims that it's most likely sock of User:AdilBaguirov. I think this comment unnecessarily targets User:AdilBaguirov, which could potentially extend his current ArbCom restriction for no reason. So can this situation be addressed in the block log. Also, banned User:Tajik again reappeared on the same old Safavid dynasty, disrupting the article [22] and continues again at Talk:Safavid dynasty claiming he is not Tajik, but says he only inserts Tajik's text :) on the talk page. Thanks. Atabek 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
While you are at it, Dmcdevit, make sure you read this and comment on it. Also make sure you check my IP ( 82.82.138.140, provided by Arcor) and compare it to User:Tajik's ( 80.171.47.194, provided by HanseNet/Allice) and User:DerDoc's ( 193.170.48.2 which is an Austrian IP). All three are alleged socks which is totally impossible. You also need to explain why User:Tajik is still banned, although his alleged sockpuppet User:Tajik-Professor is unblocked after checkuser revealed that the accusations against both were wrong!
you are urged to put your political feelings aside and tell the truth. i think many are so mad at derek that this is clouding their judgement. i am not convinced that greenwinged is polounit. i am more convinced that they are different. Appealplease 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the checkuser on Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani. -- Yamla 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at whether your range block reported at that talk page is still required? A user of that IP range is requesting to be unblocked. Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed on A.Z.'s discussion page a reference to emailing ArbCom. Would I be correct in assuming that an email then identifies the sender in real life? While I have no comment to make on the block, pro or con, I was surprised to read, given the drama on the discussion page, that no one had yet emailed ArbCom. Could it be because no one wants to have their on-line identity connected to their real lives, especially around such a contentious subject as Paedophilia? Could that not then weight the discussion in an unfair manner, a "process bias" as it were? Of course, if there is no way to tie the identities together, then there is no problem. Bielle 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to [25], I knew that checkuser only reveals the IP of a user, and I'm really sorry that the case wasn't obvious to me. Please accept my apologies.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there. Saw an unblock request at User talk:Drono, apparently affected by the block on 76.199.100.0/22 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)). One curious thing, I noticed your block reason was "{{ anonblock}}{{ checkuserblock}}" but the block doesn't appear to be anon-only. You know more than I do, so I can't do much more than point out what seems to be a discrepancy. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you because you wrote "Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved" [26] as a response to this request, which was made by Art LaPella. However, on examining the blog logs of Iantresman's suspected sock puppets, I see that one of them, Leokor has a clean block log. Would it be possible to reinstate the Leokor part of the checkuser request? Cardamon 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)