I'm not happy with the lack of info given when a block is applied, in general. At the very least, this info should include:
And, since the talk page of the blocked user is the most logical place for such info to be requested and then added, that page should not be locked.
In the specific case of User:A.Z., most of these principles seem to have been violated. It's not clear to me whether the Arbitration Committee instructed you to block this user or you decided to do so on your own. You didn't provide a link to the block or list it's term. You didn't provide any link to the discussion of the block. You did list a reason, but the two links you provided as "evidence" seemed rather insufficient. The user's talk page has been locked. I was able to find the entry in the block log: [1], which lists the term as "indefinite", but I don't know if this is meant to be a permanent ban or just of an indeterminate length. I would also still like a link to the discussion and where the decision was made. StuRat 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New info, User:A.Z. has e-mailed me and said that he was never notified of any action to be taken against him by the Arbitration Committee (he has, however, since appealed to the AC, by e-mail), and now a member of the Committee, User:Charles Matthews seems to confirm that no decision was ever made by the Committee (if I read his response correctly): [2]. This appears to directly contradict User:Dmcdevit's claim to be acting on behalf of the Committee. StuRat 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. We've discussed matters of edit warring and 3RR in the past, and I know you have strong opinions on the matter. That's why I wanted to let you know I've made some comments at a couple of talk pages that may interest you: [3], [4]. If it interests you at all, I'd be really glad to hear what you have to say on this. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I added some extra background to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NotSarenne regarding the use of Tor which might be helpful. Fnag aton 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth are you trying to get rid of IPA chart for English? And what makes you think Wiktionary even wants it when Wiktionary already has wikt:Wiktionary:English pronunciation key? What would they do with it? It's an encyclopedia article, not a dicdef. — An gr 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say yo. :) Been awhile since we chatted. I'm doing my template stuff. Yes still. :) Been at it for almost 4 months now. It's about 90% of what I'm doing on here at this point. But hey. No one else is doing it. :) Let me know how things are. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just posted a new checkuser request at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vandal with a grudge and I'm bringing it to your attention here, since you previously checked on this user and the new accounts to be checked struck between October 4-7 and there isn't much time left before data expires for these accounts. TML 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You seem to have accused me of using a sock puppet called User:QuinellaAlethea but I can assure you this is not the case. Please can you email me the evidence you used to reach that conclusion? Thank you. Fnag aton 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading some talk page messages I noticed the Wiktionary move tag had a different text than you intended to do in this case. I created a template "Move to Wiktionary2" which is more simple. If this is the only time you believe this kind of move happens you can delete it after this article has been copied, if there are more of these moves feel free to improve it. :) Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know the bot wouldn't recognize a new tag. What's in the tag what the bot looks for? I thought there would be something and changing the text wouldn't matter. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please restore the deleted article Wikindx to an appropriate in my user space? I'd like to see what the article looked like as I believe it is a notable topic and the article probably just needs some TLC to get it up to snuff. Thanks! -- ElKevbo 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be on the same edit summary wave length, even, [5]/ [6], which is good, because I'm thinking I'm speaking feline or something! El_C 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Repair
For helping to repair so much damage done by sockpuppets or something. You know why you're getting this! Mr. Z-man 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. While my inexperience with filing checkusers and protocol regarding ArbCom enforcements seem to have damaged interpretation of the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, I would like to ask you to reconsider your declining to address the checkuser request. the instances are in fact old, simply because the time from when the edits were made and the time when I discovered that RfCU was going to be needed was spent repeatedly asking DreamGuy if he was in fact the anon user, and awaiting his response. It seemed a failure to assume good faith and not give the user a chance to respond. When it became clear he wasn't going to admit to it (and still won't, as Dicklyon has since discoverd on DreamGuy's own user Talk page), myself and others took the next step by lsiting a complaint on ArbCom enforcement.
Here is a link to the 3RR DiffTimes. The 3RR wasn't discovered until a comparison of the edits was performed (and also, I am not always looking for people breaking the rules). As well, the edit summaries and the tone of the anonymous user in article discussion was uncivil.
Please do not allow my inexperience with the protocol - which i attempted to follow in good faith, allow someone who seems to not consider the rules applicable to him to walk on what seems to me a technicality. I don't hate the guy, but he has been the subject of intense scrutiny by over a dozen editors and admins and numerous admin actions (including RfCs, SSP's and ArbCom itself). Sometimes smoke does indicate fire. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Trying to find out the reason for the WIKINDX article deletion. It can't be because it describes bibliographic software because there are many other entries that are similar such as Citeulike, aigaion, refbase, endnote, bibtex that still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfragalot ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to handle this. I figured I'd let you deal with it as CU evidence and range abuse is involved (and its your block). Have fun. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This is from my talk page and I want to forward it to you because I think you are familiar with this case and should read this:
-- Behnam 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, why are you ignoring all this? All the evidence shows that Tajik was NOT Tajik-Professor! The evidence is all there, read the above. Please don't ignore this, Tajik was one of the most valuable editors and it is a REAL SHAME that he is banned for being accused of being Tajik-Professor WIHTOUT even a PROPER investigation! -- Behnam ( talk) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Beh-nam is needlessly attacking me on my user talk page for a second time [8], first is here [9]. The indefinite ban of User:Tajik is within the competency of the ArbCom not myself. All I can say that there is no doubt that User:Tajik, User:German-Orientalist as well as numerous other socks [10] who edited Safavid dynasty page in the same disruptive and edit warring manner are the same. I don't see how the argument that user Tajik was Tajik-Professor or not is at all relevant. I would recommend User:Beh-nam to pursue his advocacy within administrative boards instead of harassing me. Atabek ( talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dmcdevit, so as you can see from above. It's been checked and proven that user: Tajik was not user: Tajik-Professor and it is not proven (they just a "Likely") that he was user: German-Orientalist. So can you please tell me just for what he was banned? -- Behnam ( talk) 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I can't believe this, but user: Thatcher131 has actually banned me for asking you about this so that I can understand the situation for an ArbCom for Tajik. Can you please talk to him and tell him that this isn't a reason ban someone, indefinitely. He also disabled unblock on my talk page and I can't ask for ArbCom so if you look into this please. Also, concidentaly he bans me right after I asked for a checkuser here. -- user: Beh-nam
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Our favorite vandal is back. Can you check and hardblock the underlying IP of Chubbboy222 ( talk · contribs)? The vandalism pattern is unmistakable. See also Chubbboy1111 ( talk · contribs) and Roverboy77777 ( talk · contribs) which I also found. -- Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Per User_talk:Thatcher131#Raguseo, can you check to see if Ragusino ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also Raguseo ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)? Thanks. Thatcher131 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
With regards to you intervention in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Footnotes: Thanks. Let me know if ever you need help with a similar type of problem. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Marlith
T/
C hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Send Joy to others by adding {{
subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith T/ C 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my asking you here - I didn't want to clutter the ArbCom page with this. You mention in once sentence that Jehochman "is described by many methods as her" (i.e. Durova). Are you accusing Durova of sockpuppeting as Jehochman, ordoes this mean something else? You might want to clarify. Sorry if it's just poor reading comprehension on my part. Thx, Wikidemo ( talk) 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, my friend, well done! El_C 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a Clerk note, the above case has been deferred to you for handling, if you have the time. Anthøny 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I blanked all potentially user-identifiable info on it, so I'm unclear why the post is taboo. Also, what's with the brusque edit summary? Being "aware of" something is not the same as having "seen" it, and I'm unclear why you felt the need to blank it from Paul's page with such a curt edit summary. What have I done to you to earn such brusqueness? Mr Which ??? 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I outlined an issue in need of attention from an OTRS volunteer here; unfortunately, the user I contacted has since gone on wikibreak. If you have time, can you look into this issue or forward the matter to someone who can attend to it? Thanks and regards. -- Muchness ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:
You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first [[WP:FL]s ever created.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Deskana defered this case to you. Can you take a look at it? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That is NOT all I said in the comments. I said it's to illustrate factual points in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And it now looks like you've specifically targeted me. Half the fun for you deletionists is hassling the uploaders. I've got news for you. I'm not playing your game. Don't waste your time and mine issuing notices. Just delete the bloody images. Would that you deletionists would actually contribute something instead of subtracting. Begone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Does this note from Mr. Kamat explicitly allowing use on Wikipedia (with credits) fall under "Fair Use".
Dear Blogger and/or Wikipedia Author, While I encourage use of our contents and pictures in your own work and content development, please provide credits to the original creator as a courtesy, and as a practice of law. There is no need to pay, as the link you provide to www.kamat.com acts as a sufficient reward for me, thanks to the PageRank technology. Thank you, -Vikas Kamat
. I dont understand what you mean by "full rationale", can you elaborate?. Baka man 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You were a member of the arb committee for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g. [11], [12]. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.-- Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
હું તો અવે ગુજરાતી મા પણ લખી શકુ છુ. જૈ શ્રી ક્રિષ્ણા. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This image was created by the artist Jim McDermott for one purpose only: to illustrate this article in Wikipedia. What is necessary to retain this picture? Pepso2 ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Memory fails. I just don't remember. I think she sent it to me. The photo is perfect because it specifically shows her in action relevant to the copy in the article. Pepso2 ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
sigh-- Docg 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand your reasons for opposing and respect them. However, I would like to point out that I had no idea that Melsaran was using sockpuppets to stalk other editors, since we were not given any information at the time on who his sockpuppets were or what they were doing. So it's misleading to suggest that I view stalking as "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", and I find such an insinuation offensive. When I said "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", I was referring to the behaviour I had seen from Melsaran using his main account - somewhat argumentative and controversial in discussions, but not in violation of policy. I had no idea that he was engaging in stalking. I admit that, in retrospect, my comments were ill-judged, and you're perfectly entitled to oppose for that. But please don't suggest that I was trying to glorify stalking. Walton One 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Given that Carolyn Doran is likely to be a contentious subject, it should probably be taken to WP:AN. Let's try and pre-empt a wheel war here. Ral315 ( talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check your email. - JodyB talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmc, you have had experience with Adil Baguirov socks in the past and unfortunately, his evasion of the ban has continued relentlessly. I have collected some evidence that Adil = user:Ehud Lesar, and would like you to check it out please. Here it is [13]. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. Thanks - Fedayee ( talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you recently posted to WikiProject Arizona about an upcoming meetup. Is it possible someone from the project could upload a good color photograph of a Navajo rug? I'm expanding the article and the images currently on Wikipedia and Commons don't do justice to the craft. A little help there would be just the thing; just ping me and I'll crop/categorize/whatever. Thanks, Durova Charge! 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, looks like once again this will fail to get off the ground. Too bad. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. You may recall the checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jetwave_Dave. Another sock has popped up, Rakatis ( talk · contribs), making the same harassing edits, such as this and this. The user apparently created a fake wanted poster and uploaded it to an image sharing website, and then linked it to the above pages, as well as a host of user pages. I would appreciate it if you would block him and delete the harassing edits. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dominic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- CyclePat ( talk) 07:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sent you an email. Picaroon (t) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh? How's that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check [14]. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 08:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, what was the reason for blocking User:68.187.145.14? Majorly ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. -- El on ka 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, checkuser was used as a last resort, after the SSP had found a connection between DG and the anon likely. A checkuser was requested after EL_C requested it. I do consider it a last resort as well. At every instance, when i was asked for info, i provided it. My mistake in my response to the enforcement complaint (which I did not file btw) was that I over-wrote it. When asked, I specifically pointed to the 3RR. That no one sought to actually look at the diffs for precisely the sort of behavior which was supposedly being monitored seemed puzzling to me. That the very same admin who blocked the prior checkuser for DG blocked this one, added to your lack of response before, led me to wonder what sort of stake you had in the matter. lack of AGF? I guess; I had precious little else in the way of comment to go on from you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it seems you had deleted this image in 2006 as "NowCommons". Obviously only one version – actually the much smaller one – has been transferred to Commons, see there. Please could you see if you can get the first version from the deleted archives here and re-upload it on Commons under the same file name? -- Ü 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
... to those userboxes I made? æt ə rnal ðrAعon 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you kindly offered to help me set up a checkuser properly. I suspect Dreamguy has another sockpuppet, which I'd like checked. See here [15] and here [16] How do I set one up properly? If I'm correct it is at least a violation of code B. This account had been dormant until Dreamguy's block, and then becomes active, editing the same class of articles. Jack1956 ( talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're around can you add me to #wikimedia-checkuser? My cloak is Thatcher131 I think, my usual nick is Thatcher-wiki. Thatcher 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you have a look, the user is asking you to reconsider your Rejected . Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, old friend. Hope things are going well for you on Wikipedia -- although I don't often see your name on any of the old articles! During the last few months I have been increasingly disturbed by a number of Wikipedia trends, sometimes to the point of ranting at folks. I hate the "inline cite" psychology, for example. But my most recent concern is the behavior of administrators, acting against one another and long term productive users! Blocking, personal attacks, arbitration cases, banning........ it is simply amazing. As I see only thru a small window in this Wiki world, what is really going on in the "henhouse"? Best wishes. WBardwin ( talk) 08:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 207.210.117.188, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can you please have a look at the reason why you blocked this IP? This user is claiming that the IP is on a dynamic pool, but the fact that there are some open ports raises an eyebrow. Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr talk 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Martin Zilic should be Martín Nicolás Zilic Hrepic, minister of education, am I right? Kubura ( talk) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel it has come to that, I will back you up. El_C 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear etc. Dmcdevit, I 'll hope you 're being able to revert your 'protection' from editing my own page through revoking, I am yours faithfully D.A. Borgdorff MASc and retired lector fundamental power electronics, railway traction equipment, and theoretical quantumelectrodynamics, who was awfully blocked by this hardly adult youngster just born when I was granted a pension. So, with esteeming regards, I remain awaiting your reaction: 86.83.155.44 ( talk) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Best
Dmcdevit, I -
86.83.155.44 (
talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC) - did copy here, with permission hopefully, the following text - op.cit.:
I 'll hope my request to become the talk-page unprotected is herewith 'well done'. Awaiting your decission, I remain yours truly:.. D.A. Borgdorff by n°
86.83.155.44 (
talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I got the "you have new messages" bar just now, went to talk page to see what the good news was, and then discovered the hard way that you had yanked all the images off the page State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist anime. Is it so much to ask that when you pull stunts like this you notify the involved parties of your edits? If I had known those images were going to be pulled I would have asked an admin to delete them, rather than suffer through 3200 bot notices about "orphaned fair use" images. I know police is on your side here, so I won;t bellyache about there removal, just in the future try and keep others in the loop, will you? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, Thanks for all your help at the Solumeiras thread. I have a question for follow-up with this: do you want a formal RFCU filed for records' sake and to allow any other findings you might have? Another user approached me through email that he believes that
Doctor Nigel Lewis (
talk ·
contribs) and
Ashford1982 (
talk ·
contribs) are sockpuppets in this. Note that Solumeiras said he registered the Ashford1982 account for his friend, but some of Ashford's recent contributions look like Solumeiras' contributions (lots of helpme requests, creation of templates, focusing on banned users like MascotGuy, etc.). Anything you'd like for me to do from here in terms of that? Thanks,
Metros (
talk)
Metros (
talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood my edit at Transmutation circle. Please see WP:FU#Images and WP:FU#Unacceptable_use. Those images I removed are copyrighted, non-free images. Galleries of non-free images are generally prohibited because non-free images are only allowed for critical commentary on the image itself, not just for identification, and generally fair use images need to be minimal within an article; 7 in a small article is overkill: the lead image is enough. The same applies to the screenshot, which is used for decoration of an article where only one sentence refers to it, and in the context of something visible in the screenshot, rather than the show itself. Hopefully it makes more sense now and you can see that I was not trying to be "unconstructive." Dmcdevit·t 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the ones here. Could you look at the earthlings and aliens pages? I'm not sure whether they're violating WP:NFCC or WP:FAIR as well. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for operating the checkuser on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Downtrip however I still have some questions . Does the possible analysis aplly to all of the accounts in general? What about Banofreep ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) several editors and myself are almost certan that he is a sock of downtrip; he was created shortly after Downtrip was blocked for 3RR and editwarring. Notably Banofreep has only made a few edits, all to the same topic that Down has been battling over for several months now. Sorry to have bothered you with these questions, reply to my talkpage if you wish. Freepsbane ( talk) 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss. It is fair use because it was created by myself. If the majority wants to remove them for other valid reasons, then they are welsome to; it's not going to hurt myfeelings any. Neovu79 ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just how much is "excessive fair use images"? -- Stormwatch ( talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I should have kept my comments to the accusation (which is indeed scabrous and disgusting), not the editor, so referring to the low standards of White Cat, while entirely accurate, was not civil, I admit. However, making accusations of sockpuppetry is about as nasty and vicious a slander as you can lob here, since it attacks the core integrity of the editor in question in a way that speaks to the very principles we espouse in order to collaborate effectively. Since, as you know, WC has a long history of such slanderous attacks against editors with whom he disagrees I feel that the severity of my response is warranted, although I own there will be those who disagree with this. However, temper that disagreement with the consideration that we are too forgiving too often to too many editors who, like White Cat, repeatedly game the system and abuse our basic principles of good faith. He should, in fact, be banned completely for these kind of antics and what does not help is the consistent failure of other editors to call him out when he pulls shit like this. My comments may be harsh but frankly I expect better from other editors such as yourself in making it crystal clear that this kind of vicious attack is simply unacceptable and will in no wise be tolerated at any level. That, I have to admit, is assuming you have not made a similar (if more mildly worded) reproach. At any event, I understand you will disagree with me, so fair enough. Take me over to Witiquette if you wish. I'm a reglar thar yonder. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your outstanding efforts to remove excessive fair use images from Wikipedia (and by extension, unleashing Bettacommandbot to prey on unsuspecting users) I proudly (yet reluctantly) present you with the special barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
Could you lift the block on my usertalk page? -- Ryan Utt ( talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Glancing at the edit history, I'm not sure how you concluded that this editor is an obvious sockpuppet. Isn't a checkuser in order? Bikasuishin ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you confirm that the reason for the block was: CHECKUSER EVIDENCE: IDENTICAL IP, not just similar, or the same network, or a proxy, etc. Thanks in advance. No, Gwen! ( talk) 11:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On 10 October 2006 you have confirmed that this user is using multiple accounts for edit warring because of which he has been banned from Wikipedia. In summer of 2007 his puppets has been blocked and now in 2008 suspected puppets of this user has been blocked again. Because old accounts are stale there has not been clear confirmation that Smerdyakoff and Standshown are new puppets of this banned editor [17] . I have been informed that only editor which has before worked on this case can check if this user is really puppet of Velebit. Editor which has blocked this user in 2007 is not having needed data so you are only hope for this confirmation ?? -- Rjecina ( talk) 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For acting in the case of this user and protecting the privacy of a colleague moderator of mine on Wiki-nl, this one [18], by blocking the address for a week. This Dutch anonymous person is a difficult one to have to deal with for our community and unfortunately misuses the Wiki-en talk page for his problems with us as well and frequently changes/deletes matters there as well. He hs been blocked from editing nine times sofar, lastly on feb 19 for varying periods up to two weeks. A contributor to watch since he seeks attention everywhere on various talk pages mostly and his edits are sometimes right, sometimes debatable (which he wishes to do anyway). MoiraMoira ( talk) 08:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit. Who can I ask about Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace, a file you've edited. This page is turning up in the category Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion where it risks being accidentally deleted by noob admins such as myself. In fact, this template is included in about a million categories.(Just click on the template name above and scroll to the bottom of the page). Is this normal? The same problem doesn't happen for Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, which is only in Category:User warning templates. Forgive me if the answer should be obvious. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For a couple of days now I've been thinking about how to clarify the misunderstanding we had regarding the workshop proposal I wrote. With regard to your response, I could see how someone might read my proposal commment as for this reason alone I write this proposal, and intend it in strong terms. Actually it was more in a sense of writing this in broad terms that could be interpreted conservatively or otherwise; I've asked in enough times and in enough ways for a nail on which to hang the good faith hat. For want of a nail... Maybe this says it better. [19] Regards, Durova Charge! 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
this level of drama is not just annoying, or a distraction, it has harmful side-effects. It is, in fact, community-sanctioned harassment; the target will feel so alienated by having been put under a microscope and every edit of his brutally scrutinized and attacked in a forum, as ANI, RFC, and RFAr often become, where accusations can be made and stand even if they are outrageous and insulting. You will see on those arbitration pages, mixed in with the sockpuppetry charges, accusations, often paranoid or completely off-base, against a dozen administrators, some of whom have no connection at all to the case. Several of the people involved are transparently acting as proxies for a banned user known to engage in stalking. I would strongly recommend that you read this insightful essay and reconsider your participation in the case. I can see that it will only continue (indeed, Cla68 is building a case against Jzg in his userspace as we speak) unless ArbCom steps in and takes a stand not just against the original subject of the case, but against the initiators that used their pages for harmful drama and divisiveness. It is impossible that they failed to notice it by now. I realize that's not exactly what you asked, :-), and probably not likely to make you happy either, but that's what has been brewing in my head for days now, and I think that is the much more important issue we face in this case. Dmcdevit· t 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be an email waiting for you when you have a sec - can't get on IRC right now or I'd have tried to catch you there. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. Best wishes,-- House of Scandal ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not arbitrary British English I am fixing misspellings of a name, not changing the usage of an English dialect within an article. These misspellings are incorrect ways of writing a proper name, not simply dialectical choices, which are matters of taste and local convention. If there are any instances where I have changed anything other than the actual name of the OIC within the text of the article and generically changed the word "organization" to "organisation," please let me know. Looking back on my edits, I don't see how that is possible, nor that such has happened. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid ( talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have conversed with User:Daniel about an OTRS request, 2007110910016335, and would like you to review it. Thank you for your time.
My argument is thus: dimensions (pixels) on screens have zero correspondence to the dimensions (inches, etc.) of real life objects. Sure, there are standards for output dimensions (72 pixels per inch for Macintoshes and websites, 96 ppi on many Windows machines, 300 ppi for many printing processes) but these do not correspond to dimensions of physical objects. The "less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half" rule does not apply here. It has been misinterpreted by this government contractor and misapplied by User:Daniel. I mean this as respectfully as possible and apologize for this nitpick. — Parhamr ( talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You have blocked the user 62.212.208.65. Please note my comment at [20] where I explain that sockpuppetry is unlikely to have happened in this case. I have also reviewed March 12 edits of this user and they appear to be quite reasonable:
Other edit restores harmless link to a postage stamp of this shortlived statelet (Republic_of_Central_Lithuania), another removes disputed statement where there are different interpretations by Polish and Lithuanian historians. I would like to ask you to reconsider the block of this user. Feel free to ask if you need more information about these edits. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guy -- a small Native American article has a small relatively controversial section that has been repeatedly deleted a number of times in the last couple of years. It is well sourced, but..... On the most recent IP number used, the editor refuses to respond to the article editors requests on his talk page and keeps deleting. He may be an established user who occasionally uses an IP number (I do sometimes, anyway). If you are around, would you review/consider a semi-protection on Chumash people from User talk:68.6.108.39? A block of the IP may also be an option. Thanks. WBardwin ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcdevit. You may remember this checkuser case from October. I wanted to let you know that he's come back with this account: Wuckfank ( talk · contribs) example of harassment: 1. I've already blocked him, but if you have the time, could you check to see what IP he's using, and potentially block it? I know he's used 87.194.247.144 recently, last month, so that may be what he's still using. Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
--thx Victuallers ( talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit. Remember that StealBoy troll creating hoax articles. His socks keep on reappearing every now and then. Actually, I probably do roughly half of the blocking for his accounts (many recent blocks have been made by others simply on the grounds of absurd usernames) and as you can see from my log of blocks [23], he's not showing any signs of fatigue. I'd appreciate it if you can again consider a range block of 220.233.239.xxx or 220.233.238.xxx or some of the other underlying IPs. Note that I've hardblocked a few IPs and you might want to tweak those if checkuser indicates collateral damage. And it would be nice if you can let me know what comes out of your investigations so that, hopefully, I can do a better job of dealing with future incidents. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
By the looks of it, we've hit the wrong IP range... My last three blocks are almost certainly that same guy: same hoax pattern, same sort of usernames, same sort of editing times.
Perhaps you can broaden the range block. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Although you probably are tired of this case as much as I am, you may want to revoice your analysis here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Did all 16384+/- addresses in this range offend you, that you felt it needful to block them?
Please note that the block summary >>blocked "64.22.64.0/18 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (Global Net Access hosting company)<< is perhaps misleading, as editing is blocked (at least for me, personally, lucky thing that I am) rather than merely acc't creation.
Lastly, the block message is baffling in and of itself: >>... disabled by Dmcdevit for the following reason(s): Global Net Access hosting company<<
While the act and quality of existence may be blockable - I haven't boned up on the regs in a while - this was not helpful to me, as an end-user, in my efforts to improve Wikipedia.
All that snark aside, I really like your userpage, and am sorry we had to meet like this. There might be very good history warranting this block, but my point is, it's opaque. Obfuscated. Arcane. Confused.
Thanks for your time, and for working to make Wikipedia a better place. No snark.
— Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 2008-03-22 20:28Z
I'm not happy with the lack of info given when a block is applied, in general. At the very least, this info should include:
And, since the talk page of the blocked user is the most logical place for such info to be requested and then added, that page should not be locked.
In the specific case of User:A.Z., most of these principles seem to have been violated. It's not clear to me whether the Arbitration Committee instructed you to block this user or you decided to do so on your own. You didn't provide a link to the block or list it's term. You didn't provide any link to the discussion of the block. You did list a reason, but the two links you provided as "evidence" seemed rather insufficient. The user's talk page has been locked. I was able to find the entry in the block log: [1], which lists the term as "indefinite", but I don't know if this is meant to be a permanent ban or just of an indeterminate length. I would also still like a link to the discussion and where the decision was made. StuRat 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New info, User:A.Z. has e-mailed me and said that he was never notified of any action to be taken against him by the Arbitration Committee (he has, however, since appealed to the AC, by e-mail), and now a member of the Committee, User:Charles Matthews seems to confirm that no decision was ever made by the Committee (if I read his response correctly): [2]. This appears to directly contradict User:Dmcdevit's claim to be acting on behalf of the Committee. StuRat 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dmcdevit. We've discussed matters of edit warring and 3RR in the past, and I know you have strong opinions on the matter. That's why I wanted to let you know I've made some comments at a couple of talk pages that may interest you: [3], [4]. If it interests you at all, I'd be really glad to hear what you have to say on this. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I added some extra background to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NotSarenne regarding the use of Tor which might be helpful. Fnag aton 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth are you trying to get rid of IPA chart for English? And what makes you think Wiktionary even wants it when Wiktionary already has wikt:Wiktionary:English pronunciation key? What would they do with it? It's an encyclopedia article, not a dicdef. — An gr 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say yo. :) Been awhile since we chatted. I'm doing my template stuff. Yes still. :) Been at it for almost 4 months now. It's about 90% of what I'm doing on here at this point. But hey. No one else is doing it. :) Let me know how things are. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just posted a new checkuser request at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vandal with a grudge and I'm bringing it to your attention here, since you previously checked on this user and the new accounts to be checked struck between October 4-7 and there isn't much time left before data expires for these accounts. TML 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You seem to have accused me of using a sock puppet called User:QuinellaAlethea but I can assure you this is not the case. Please can you email me the evidence you used to reach that conclusion? Thank you. Fnag aton 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading some talk page messages I noticed the Wiktionary move tag had a different text than you intended to do in this case. I created a template "Move to Wiktionary2" which is more simple. If this is the only time you believe this kind of move happens you can delete it after this article has been copied, if there are more of these moves feel free to improve it. :) Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know the bot wouldn't recognize a new tag. What's in the tag what the bot looks for? I thought there would be something and changing the text wouldn't matter. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please restore the deleted article Wikindx to an appropriate in my user space? I'd like to see what the article looked like as I believe it is a notable topic and the article probably just needs some TLC to get it up to snuff. Thanks! -- ElKevbo 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be on the same edit summary wave length, even, [5]/ [6], which is good, because I'm thinking I'm speaking feline or something! El_C 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Repair
For helping to repair so much damage done by sockpuppets or something. You know why you're getting this! Mr. Z-man 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. While my inexperience with filing checkusers and protocol regarding ArbCom enforcements seem to have damaged interpretation of the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, I would like to ask you to reconsider your declining to address the checkuser request. the instances are in fact old, simply because the time from when the edits were made and the time when I discovered that RfCU was going to be needed was spent repeatedly asking DreamGuy if he was in fact the anon user, and awaiting his response. It seemed a failure to assume good faith and not give the user a chance to respond. When it became clear he wasn't going to admit to it (and still won't, as Dicklyon has since discoverd on DreamGuy's own user Talk page), myself and others took the next step by lsiting a complaint on ArbCom enforcement.
Here is a link to the 3RR DiffTimes. The 3RR wasn't discovered until a comparison of the edits was performed (and also, I am not always looking for people breaking the rules). As well, the edit summaries and the tone of the anonymous user in article discussion was uncivil.
Please do not allow my inexperience with the protocol - which i attempted to follow in good faith, allow someone who seems to not consider the rules applicable to him to walk on what seems to me a technicality. I don't hate the guy, but he has been the subject of intense scrutiny by over a dozen editors and admins and numerous admin actions (including RfCs, SSP's and ArbCom itself). Sometimes smoke does indicate fire. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Trying to find out the reason for the WIKINDX article deletion. It can't be because it describes bibliographic software because there are many other entries that are similar such as Citeulike, aigaion, refbase, endnote, bibtex that still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfragalot ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to handle this. I figured I'd let you deal with it as CU evidence and range abuse is involved (and its your block). Have fun. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This is from my talk page and I want to forward it to you because I think you are familiar with this case and should read this:
-- Behnam 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, why are you ignoring all this? All the evidence shows that Tajik was NOT Tajik-Professor! The evidence is all there, read the above. Please don't ignore this, Tajik was one of the most valuable editors and it is a REAL SHAME that he is banned for being accused of being Tajik-Professor WIHTOUT even a PROPER investigation! -- Behnam ( talk) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Beh-nam is needlessly attacking me on my user talk page for a second time [8], first is here [9]. The indefinite ban of User:Tajik is within the competency of the ArbCom not myself. All I can say that there is no doubt that User:Tajik, User:German-Orientalist as well as numerous other socks [10] who edited Safavid dynasty page in the same disruptive and edit warring manner are the same. I don't see how the argument that user Tajik was Tajik-Professor or not is at all relevant. I would recommend User:Beh-nam to pursue his advocacy within administrative boards instead of harassing me. Atabek ( talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dmcdevit, so as you can see from above. It's been checked and proven that user: Tajik was not user: Tajik-Professor and it is not proven (they just a "Likely") that he was user: German-Orientalist. So can you please tell me just for what he was banned? -- Behnam ( talk) 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I can't believe this, but user: Thatcher131 has actually banned me for asking you about this so that I can understand the situation for an ArbCom for Tajik. Can you please talk to him and tell him that this isn't a reason ban someone, indefinitely. He also disabled unblock on my talk page and I can't ask for ArbCom so if you look into this please. Also, concidentaly he bans me right after I asked for a checkuser here. -- user: Beh-nam
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Our favorite vandal is back. Can you check and hardblock the underlying IP of Chubbboy222 ( talk · contribs)? The vandalism pattern is unmistakable. See also Chubbboy1111 ( talk · contribs) and Roverboy77777 ( talk · contribs) which I also found. -- Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Per User_talk:Thatcher131#Raguseo, can you check to see if Ragusino ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also Raguseo ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)? Thanks. Thatcher131 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
With regards to you intervention in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Footnotes: Thanks. Let me know if ever you need help with a similar type of problem. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Marlith
T/
C hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Send Joy to others by adding {{
subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith T/ C 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my asking you here - I didn't want to clutter the ArbCom page with this. You mention in once sentence that Jehochman "is described by many methods as her" (i.e. Durova). Are you accusing Durova of sockpuppeting as Jehochman, ordoes this mean something else? You might want to clarify. Sorry if it's just poor reading comprehension on my part. Thx, Wikidemo ( talk) 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, my friend, well done! El_C 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a Clerk note, the above case has been deferred to you for handling, if you have the time. Anthøny 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I blanked all potentially user-identifiable info on it, so I'm unclear why the post is taboo. Also, what's with the brusque edit summary? Being "aware of" something is not the same as having "seen" it, and I'm unclear why you felt the need to blank it from Paul's page with such a curt edit summary. What have I done to you to earn such brusqueness? Mr Which ??? 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I outlined an issue in need of attention from an OTRS volunteer here; unfortunately, the user I contacted has since gone on wikibreak. If you have time, can you look into this issue or forward the matter to someone who can attend to it? Thanks and regards. -- Muchness ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:
You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first [[WP:FL]s ever created.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Deskana defered this case to you. Can you take a look at it? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That is NOT all I said in the comments. I said it's to illustrate factual points in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And it now looks like you've specifically targeted me. Half the fun for you deletionists is hassling the uploaders. I've got news for you. I'm not playing your game. Don't waste your time and mine issuing notices. Just delete the bloody images. Would that you deletionists would actually contribute something instead of subtracting. Begone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Does this note from Mr. Kamat explicitly allowing use on Wikipedia (with credits) fall under "Fair Use".
Dear Blogger and/or Wikipedia Author, While I encourage use of our contents and pictures in your own work and content development, please provide credits to the original creator as a courtesy, and as a practice of law. There is no need to pay, as the link you provide to www.kamat.com acts as a sufficient reward for me, thanks to the PageRank technology. Thank you, -Vikas Kamat
. I dont understand what you mean by "full rationale", can you elaborate?. Baka man 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You were a member of the arb committee for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g. [11], [12]. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.-- Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
હું તો અવે ગુજરાતી મા પણ લખી શકુ છુ. જૈ શ્રી ક્રિષ્ણા. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This image was created by the artist Jim McDermott for one purpose only: to illustrate this article in Wikipedia. What is necessary to retain this picture? Pepso2 ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Memory fails. I just don't remember. I think she sent it to me. The photo is perfect because it specifically shows her in action relevant to the copy in the article. Pepso2 ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
sigh-- Docg 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand your reasons for opposing and respect them. However, I would like to point out that I had no idea that Melsaran was using sockpuppets to stalk other editors, since we were not given any information at the time on who his sockpuppets were or what they were doing. So it's misleading to suggest that I view stalking as "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", and I find such an insinuation offensive. When I said "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", I was referring to the behaviour I had seen from Melsaran using his main account - somewhat argumentative and controversial in discussions, but not in violation of policy. I had no idea that he was engaging in stalking. I admit that, in retrospect, my comments were ill-judged, and you're perfectly entitled to oppose for that. But please don't suggest that I was trying to glorify stalking. Walton One 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Given that Carolyn Doran is likely to be a contentious subject, it should probably be taken to WP:AN. Let's try and pre-empt a wheel war here. Ral315 ( talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check your email. - JodyB talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmc, you have had experience with Adil Baguirov socks in the past and unfortunately, his evasion of the ban has continued relentlessly. I have collected some evidence that Adil = user:Ehud Lesar, and would like you to check it out please. Here it is [13]. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. Thanks - Fedayee ( talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you recently posted to WikiProject Arizona about an upcoming meetup. Is it possible someone from the project could upload a good color photograph of a Navajo rug? I'm expanding the article and the images currently on Wikipedia and Commons don't do justice to the craft. A little help there would be just the thing; just ping me and I'll crop/categorize/whatever. Thanks, Durova Charge! 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, looks like once again this will fail to get off the ground. Too bad. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. You may recall the checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jetwave_Dave. Another sock has popped up, Rakatis ( talk · contribs), making the same harassing edits, such as this and this. The user apparently created a fake wanted poster and uploaded it to an image sharing website, and then linked it to the above pages, as well as a host of user pages. I would appreciate it if you would block him and delete the harassing edits. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dominic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- CyclePat ( talk) 07:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sent you an email. Picaroon (t) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh? How's that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check [14]. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 08:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, what was the reason for blocking User:68.187.145.14? Majorly ( talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. -- El on ka 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, checkuser was used as a last resort, after the SSP had found a connection between DG and the anon likely. A checkuser was requested after EL_C requested it. I do consider it a last resort as well. At every instance, when i was asked for info, i provided it. My mistake in my response to the enforcement complaint (which I did not file btw) was that I over-wrote it. When asked, I specifically pointed to the 3RR. That no one sought to actually look at the diffs for precisely the sort of behavior which was supposedly being monitored seemed puzzling to me. That the very same admin who blocked the prior checkuser for DG blocked this one, added to your lack of response before, led me to wonder what sort of stake you had in the matter. lack of AGF? I guess; I had precious little else in the way of comment to go on from you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it seems you had deleted this image in 2006 as "NowCommons". Obviously only one version – actually the much smaller one – has been transferred to Commons, see there. Please could you see if you can get the first version from the deleted archives here and re-upload it on Commons under the same file name? -- Ü 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
... to those userboxes I made? æt ə rnal ðrAعon 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you kindly offered to help me set up a checkuser properly. I suspect Dreamguy has another sockpuppet, which I'd like checked. See here [15] and here [16] How do I set one up properly? If I'm correct it is at least a violation of code B. This account had been dormant until Dreamguy's block, and then becomes active, editing the same class of articles. Jack1956 ( talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're around can you add me to #wikimedia-checkuser? My cloak is Thatcher131 I think, my usual nick is Thatcher-wiki. Thatcher 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you have a look, the user is asking you to reconsider your Rejected . Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, old friend. Hope things are going well for you on Wikipedia -- although I don't often see your name on any of the old articles! During the last few months I have been increasingly disturbed by a number of Wikipedia trends, sometimes to the point of ranting at folks. I hate the "inline cite" psychology, for example. But my most recent concern is the behavior of administrators, acting against one another and long term productive users! Blocking, personal attacks, arbitration cases, banning........ it is simply amazing. As I see only thru a small window in this Wiki world, what is really going on in the "henhouse"? Best wishes. WBardwin ( talk) 08:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 207.210.117.188, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can you please have a look at the reason why you blocked this IP? This user is claiming that the IP is on a dynamic pool, but the fact that there are some open ports raises an eyebrow. Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr talk 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Martin Zilic should be Martín Nicolás Zilic Hrepic, minister of education, am I right? Kubura ( talk) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel it has come to that, I will back you up. El_C 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear etc. Dmcdevit, I 'll hope you 're being able to revert your 'protection' from editing my own page through revoking, I am yours faithfully D.A. Borgdorff MASc and retired lector fundamental power electronics, railway traction equipment, and theoretical quantumelectrodynamics, who was awfully blocked by this hardly adult youngster just born when I was granted a pension. So, with esteeming regards, I remain awaiting your reaction: 86.83.155.44 ( talk) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Best
Dmcdevit, I -
86.83.155.44 (
talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC) - did copy here, with permission hopefully, the following text - op.cit.:
I 'll hope my request to become the talk-page unprotected is herewith 'well done'. Awaiting your decission, I remain yours truly:.. D.A. Borgdorff by n°
86.83.155.44 (
talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I got the "you have new messages" bar just now, went to talk page to see what the good news was, and then discovered the hard way that you had yanked all the images off the page State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist anime. Is it so much to ask that when you pull stunts like this you notify the involved parties of your edits? If I had known those images were going to be pulled I would have asked an admin to delete them, rather than suffer through 3200 bot notices about "orphaned fair use" images. I know police is on your side here, so I won;t bellyache about there removal, just in the future try and keep others in the loop, will you? TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, Thanks for all your help at the Solumeiras thread. I have a question for follow-up with this: do you want a formal RFCU filed for records' sake and to allow any other findings you might have? Another user approached me through email that he believes that
Doctor Nigel Lewis (
talk ·
contribs) and
Ashford1982 (
talk ·
contribs) are sockpuppets in this. Note that Solumeiras said he registered the Ashford1982 account for his friend, but some of Ashford's recent contributions look like Solumeiras' contributions (lots of helpme requests, creation of templates, focusing on banned users like MascotGuy, etc.). Anything you'd like for me to do from here in terms of that? Thanks,
Metros (
talk)
Metros (
talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood my edit at Transmutation circle. Please see WP:FU#Images and WP:FU#Unacceptable_use. Those images I removed are copyrighted, non-free images. Galleries of non-free images are generally prohibited because non-free images are only allowed for critical commentary on the image itself, not just for identification, and generally fair use images need to be minimal within an article; 7 in a small article is overkill: the lead image is enough. The same applies to the screenshot, which is used for decoration of an article where only one sentence refers to it, and in the context of something visible in the screenshot, rather than the show itself. Hopefully it makes more sense now and you can see that I was not trying to be "unconstructive." Dmcdevit·t 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the ones here. Could you look at the earthlings and aliens pages? I'm not sure whether they're violating WP:NFCC or WP:FAIR as well. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for operating the checkuser on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Downtrip however I still have some questions . Does the possible analysis aplly to all of the accounts in general? What about Banofreep ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) several editors and myself are almost certan that he is a sock of downtrip; he was created shortly after Downtrip was blocked for 3RR and editwarring. Notably Banofreep has only made a few edits, all to the same topic that Down has been battling over for several months now. Sorry to have bothered you with these questions, reply to my talkpage if you wish. Freepsbane ( talk) 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss. It is fair use because it was created by myself. If the majority wants to remove them for other valid reasons, then they are welsome to; it's not going to hurt myfeelings any. Neovu79 ( talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just how much is "excessive fair use images"? -- Stormwatch ( talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I should have kept my comments to the accusation (which is indeed scabrous and disgusting), not the editor, so referring to the low standards of White Cat, while entirely accurate, was not civil, I admit. However, making accusations of sockpuppetry is about as nasty and vicious a slander as you can lob here, since it attacks the core integrity of the editor in question in a way that speaks to the very principles we espouse in order to collaborate effectively. Since, as you know, WC has a long history of such slanderous attacks against editors with whom he disagrees I feel that the severity of my response is warranted, although I own there will be those who disagree with this. However, temper that disagreement with the consideration that we are too forgiving too often to too many editors who, like White Cat, repeatedly game the system and abuse our basic principles of good faith. He should, in fact, be banned completely for these kind of antics and what does not help is the consistent failure of other editors to call him out when he pulls shit like this. My comments may be harsh but frankly I expect better from other editors such as yourself in making it crystal clear that this kind of vicious attack is simply unacceptable and will in no wise be tolerated at any level. That, I have to admit, is assuming you have not made a similar (if more mildly worded) reproach. At any event, I understand you will disagree with me, so fair enough. Take me over to Witiquette if you wish. I'm a reglar thar yonder. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your outstanding efforts to remove excessive fair use images from Wikipedia (and by extension, unleashing Bettacommandbot to prey on unsuspecting users) I proudly (yet reluctantly) present you with the special barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
Could you lift the block on my usertalk page? -- Ryan Utt ( talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Glancing at the edit history, I'm not sure how you concluded that this editor is an obvious sockpuppet. Isn't a checkuser in order? Bikasuishin ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you confirm that the reason for the block was: CHECKUSER EVIDENCE: IDENTICAL IP, not just similar, or the same network, or a proxy, etc. Thanks in advance. No, Gwen! ( talk) 11:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On 10 October 2006 you have confirmed that this user is using multiple accounts for edit warring because of which he has been banned from Wikipedia. In summer of 2007 his puppets has been blocked and now in 2008 suspected puppets of this user has been blocked again. Because old accounts are stale there has not been clear confirmation that Smerdyakoff and Standshown are new puppets of this banned editor [17] . I have been informed that only editor which has before worked on this case can check if this user is really puppet of Velebit. Editor which has blocked this user in 2007 is not having needed data so you are only hope for this confirmation ?? -- Rjecina ( talk) 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For acting in the case of this user and protecting the privacy of a colleague moderator of mine on Wiki-nl, this one [18], by blocking the address for a week. This Dutch anonymous person is a difficult one to have to deal with for our community and unfortunately misuses the Wiki-en talk page for his problems with us as well and frequently changes/deletes matters there as well. He hs been blocked from editing nine times sofar, lastly on feb 19 for varying periods up to two weeks. A contributor to watch since he seeks attention everywhere on various talk pages mostly and his edits are sometimes right, sometimes debatable (which he wishes to do anyway). MoiraMoira ( talk) 08:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit. Who can I ask about Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace, a file you've edited. This page is turning up in the category Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion where it risks being accidentally deleted by noob admins such as myself. In fact, this template is included in about a million categories.(Just click on the template name above and scroll to the bottom of the page). Is this normal? The same problem doesn't happen for Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, which is only in Category:User warning templates. Forgive me if the answer should be obvious. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For a couple of days now I've been thinking about how to clarify the misunderstanding we had regarding the workshop proposal I wrote. With regard to your response, I could see how someone might read my proposal commment as for this reason alone I write this proposal, and intend it in strong terms. Actually it was more in a sense of writing this in broad terms that could be interpreted conservatively or otherwise; I've asked in enough times and in enough ways for a nail on which to hang the good faith hat. For want of a nail... Maybe this says it better. [19] Regards, Durova Charge! 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
this level of drama is not just annoying, or a distraction, it has harmful side-effects. It is, in fact, community-sanctioned harassment; the target will feel so alienated by having been put under a microscope and every edit of his brutally scrutinized and attacked in a forum, as ANI, RFC, and RFAr often become, where accusations can be made and stand even if they are outrageous and insulting. You will see on those arbitration pages, mixed in with the sockpuppetry charges, accusations, often paranoid or completely off-base, against a dozen administrators, some of whom have no connection at all to the case. Several of the people involved are transparently acting as proxies for a banned user known to engage in stalking. I would strongly recommend that you read this insightful essay and reconsider your participation in the case. I can see that it will only continue (indeed, Cla68 is building a case against Jzg in his userspace as we speak) unless ArbCom steps in and takes a stand not just against the original subject of the case, but against the initiators that used their pages for harmful drama and divisiveness. It is impossible that they failed to notice it by now. I realize that's not exactly what you asked, :-), and probably not likely to make you happy either, but that's what has been brewing in my head for days now, and I think that is the much more important issue we face in this case. Dmcdevit· t 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be an email waiting for you when you have a sec - can't get on IRC right now or I'd have tried to catch you there. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. Best wishes,-- House of Scandal ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not arbitrary British English I am fixing misspellings of a name, not changing the usage of an English dialect within an article. These misspellings are incorrect ways of writing a proper name, not simply dialectical choices, which are matters of taste and local convention. If there are any instances where I have changed anything other than the actual name of the OIC within the text of the article and generically changed the word "organization" to "organisation," please let me know. Looking back on my edits, I don't see how that is possible, nor that such has happened. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid ( talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have conversed with User:Daniel about an OTRS request, 2007110910016335, and would like you to review it. Thank you for your time.
My argument is thus: dimensions (pixels) on screens have zero correspondence to the dimensions (inches, etc.) of real life objects. Sure, there are standards for output dimensions (72 pixels per inch for Macintoshes and websites, 96 ppi on many Windows machines, 300 ppi for many printing processes) but these do not correspond to dimensions of physical objects. The "less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half" rule does not apply here. It has been misinterpreted by this government contractor and misapplied by User:Daniel. I mean this as respectfully as possible and apologize for this nitpick. — Parhamr ( talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You have blocked the user 62.212.208.65. Please note my comment at [20] where I explain that sockpuppetry is unlikely to have happened in this case. I have also reviewed March 12 edits of this user and they appear to be quite reasonable:
Other edit restores harmless link to a postage stamp of this shortlived statelet (Republic_of_Central_Lithuania), another removes disputed statement where there are different interpretations by Polish and Lithuanian historians. I would like to ask you to reconsider the block of this user. Feel free to ask if you need more information about these edits. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guy -- a small Native American article has a small relatively controversial section that has been repeatedly deleted a number of times in the last couple of years. It is well sourced, but..... On the most recent IP number used, the editor refuses to respond to the article editors requests on his talk page and keeps deleting. He may be an established user who occasionally uses an IP number (I do sometimes, anyway). If you are around, would you review/consider a semi-protection on Chumash people from User talk:68.6.108.39? A block of the IP may also be an option. Thanks. WBardwin ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcdevit. You may remember this checkuser case from October. I wanted to let you know that he's come back with this account: Wuckfank ( talk · contribs) example of harassment: 1. I've already blocked him, but if you have the time, could you check to see what IP he's using, and potentially block it? I know he's used 87.194.247.144 recently, last month, so that may be what he's still using. Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
--thx Victuallers ( talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit. Remember that StealBoy troll creating hoax articles. His socks keep on reappearing every now and then. Actually, I probably do roughly half of the blocking for his accounts (many recent blocks have been made by others simply on the grounds of absurd usernames) and as you can see from my log of blocks [23], he's not showing any signs of fatigue. I'd appreciate it if you can again consider a range block of 220.233.239.xxx or 220.233.238.xxx or some of the other underlying IPs. Note that I've hardblocked a few IPs and you might want to tweak those if checkuser indicates collateral damage. And it would be nice if you can let me know what comes out of your investigations so that, hopefully, I can do a better job of dealing with future incidents. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
By the looks of it, we've hit the wrong IP range... My last three blocks are almost certainly that same guy: same hoax pattern, same sort of usernames, same sort of editing times.
Perhaps you can broaden the range block. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Although you probably are tired of this case as much as I am, you may want to revoice your analysis here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Did all 16384+/- addresses in this range offend you, that you felt it needful to block them?
Please note that the block summary >>blocked "64.22.64.0/18 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (Global Net Access hosting company)<< is perhaps misleading, as editing is blocked (at least for me, personally, lucky thing that I am) rather than merely acc't creation.
Lastly, the block message is baffling in and of itself: >>... disabled by Dmcdevit for the following reason(s): Global Net Access hosting company<<
While the act and quality of existence may be blockable - I haven't boned up on the regs in a while - this was not helpful to me, as an end-user, in my efforts to improve Wikipedia.
All that snark aside, I really like your userpage, and am sorry we had to meet like this. There might be very good history warranting this block, but my point is, it's opaque. Obfuscated. Arcane. Confused.
Thanks for your time, and for working to make Wikipedia a better place. No snark.
— Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 2008-03-22 20:28Z