User talk:Dominic/Archive16

Steele359 case
You can't just blank a request for ArbCom w/o letting the other Arbitrators look and decide on it. That's a violation of WikiPolicy.

Re: YouTube
You misunderstand me... I didn't find ANY that were acceptable in my random sample. What I found was 60% were links to copyrighted material. Most of the reset were either potential copyrights or for-sure fair use or non-copyrighted material but still not a good source in the article.

However, I'd recommend leaving the template in place for now. I'm going to use it to "spam" a recommendation on article talk pages to review the YouTube links for inclusion. (we have 11,000 links to YT and likely only 2% are actually acceptable) ---J.S (t|c) 10:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great list. Is there any way to sort it alphabetically and/or break it up into smaller pages? ---J.S (t|c) 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reformatted your list so it's alphabetical and a bit smaller in KB. I also changed the links to point directly to the talk pages. User:J.smith/YouTube Linklist I'm going to set up AWB and start adding the notes on the talk pages. Want to give me a hand? ---J.S (t|c) 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are large IP blocks AO?
I can't tell from looking at them as a not-yet-admin, but are the large /16 blocks you blocked AO blocks or complete blocks?

We got a complaint / request to unblock-en-l from someone at 70.231.245.165. If it's an AO block I'll let them know to just create an account and log in.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response on the mailing list and your note on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 02:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

India page
Hi Dcmdevit, I noticed that you are an admin, and I wanted to get some advice from you. There is a user, Hkelkar, who seemed to have suddenly appeared on the India page last week and, since then, has been very unhelpful in his edits. First he uploaded a number of pictures and cluttered up the page and got into conflict with an admin Ganeshk. Now he seems to be pushing a nationalistic POV on the abolition of sati (widow burning). Lately, he seems to have been joined by a user Bakaman (or Bakasuprman). Please see the last two sections of the talk page. He seems to come up with very obscure references, and then aggressively pushes them. The whole thing seems a little bizarre and I don't know what to do. For now, I'm not doing any thing. Please advise. Fowler&amp;fowler 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi.Thanks for your attention to this matter. I would like your opinion of my edits regarding Sati in the India article (not the pictures part, that I have backed down on so moot point). I believe that F&F above is whitewashing Raja Ram Mohan Roy's role in the abolition of Sati and, in the process, is citing equally obscure historical references from old and backdated textbooks to advance the POV that RRR's role was subservient to the British ban. My contention is more balanced, that while the British had a significant role to play in mandating the ban, the key lobbying and grassroots activities were carried out by the Brahmo Samaj under RRR both prior to and after the nominal enforcement by the British. May I have your opinion on this matter? I take great offense at the charge of "Nationalist POV" above as I spent 3 hours in a non-nationalist section of a non-nationalist library looking up all the references that I have cited in support of my viewpoint. The refs are definitely not obscure since they are available in scholarly repositories.I find his accusations of being "unhelpful" as misleading, in poor taste and a violation of WP:AGF since present consensus is in favor of my present edits (see the talk page Talk:India). Thank you.Hkelkar 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to fill up your talk page like this, but let me present my take on this matter in a non-emotive way. There are two aspects to the issue of banning Sati, political and cultural. Culturally, there is no doubt that RRR was strongly influenced by Western thought and Western ideals into regarding the immolation of widows as inherently amoral.Thus, from a cultural standpoint, western ideals got the upper hand. The Brahmo Samaj was a unilateralist Hindu movement that had the same role in Indian history that similar reform movements in Christianity did in the west (who advanced that the immolation of "heretics" was inherently amoral, for instance).However, the implementation of this ban was largely Indian, with westerners playing a nominal role in the process. The latter is a political matter, not a cultural one.Politically, the unilateralists of the Brahmo Samaj have the upper hand here.I believe that the sentence, as it stands, reflect both aspects of the situation. I am not some rabid hesperophobiac and won't deny the cultural contribution of the Europeans in this matter. I have advanced sufficient evidence to support the contention that the political aspect was different from the cultural one.Hkelkar 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, I find Fowler&fowler's accusation of "Nationalist POV" rather ironic since Nationalism is also a western concept that was embraced by Indians around the time of the Sati business. Indians had no concept of a "Nation" prior to the Europeans' dropping by.
 * The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above nationalist speak - there is an event called the first war of independence in 1857 - that involved whole of India TerryJ-Ho 11:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.TerryJ-Ho,

If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you. India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Swadhyayee I am moved by the way you have taken this issue but while I understand your sentiments - I think here on Wikipedia our purpose is not to get into projecting the image of a country or religion as we see it or correcting the deeds or (supposed) misdeeds of others but being objective and moved from the subjects themselves TerryJ-Ho 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed about WP:NOT. But you will need to provide sufficient evidence before making controversial edits/statements.
 * I would like to repeat User:Swadhyayee's question: Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are Hindu religion? Where did you get this information from?
 * As per WP:RS: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.
 * Thanks - KNM Talk 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.terryJ-HO, with due apology, I request you to have some shame. I could not find your nationality. I could find that you were using name of Mr.L.K.Adwani a prominent politician of India. Are you ashamed of using your name or some not misleading name? Are you ashamed of showing your nationality? Nothing gives you a right to wrongfully allege a nation or a religion not only on this platform but anywhere else too. Wikipedia Foundation has no right to give you such liberty. Pl. introduce yourself so we know that you are not basically anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. Tell me, what is your study of India or Hindu religion? What is the basis of your claim that Sati Pratha still exists in India and it's due to religious sanction. The worst is there is no regret in your reply. Your talk page is full with involving your controversial behaviour in the matter of our nation and our religion.

My sincere apologies to Mr.Dmcdevit to answer a rubbish charge and using your domain. Swadhyayee 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you KNM, exactly my words. By that logic, the Quran and Bible sanction slavery. We know that no religion has a monopoly on obscure socioeconomic phenomena. Sati has no real religious sanction, it was a social stain on the Rajput ladies to be done by Muslim men. That was where it emanated from, because RAjputs considered Muslim invaders unclean, and didnt want their women being done by a group of crazy genocidal maniacs. There has been one incident of sati that has actually been famous in the last 10-15 years. Sensationalist Madrassa nonsesne doesnt belong on wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaleem
Swadhyayee - You must be a very ignorant Hindu. Sati is a very religious Hindu tradition. Muslim liberators showed the Indians how to dress, take bath and act like men. They improved your civilization. Muslims have never raped or killed like you mentioned, I believe you are confusing them with the European invaders who were colonial occupiers. Shame on you for spreading wrong information. The saddest part of people like you is how the British pigs misled you. Muslims became Indians, lived there for hundreds of years. Promoted the Hindu Indians to high ranks, allowed Hinduism to flourish. Let me quote some lines from Wheeler's book, these lines are written by Ghosh. " Flowering of Hinduism,including the Vaishnavite development of the theology and sacred geography of Krishna-worship, which took place in northern India under Baur and his successors would have been impossible in a climate of persecution. Hinduism would scarcely be recognizable. Its is a simple fact that contemporary Hinduism as a living practice would not be what it is if it were not for the devotional practices initiated under Mughal rule." Instead of being friends of Muslims who are as Indian as you are or any other Hindu, you thought they were occupiers. People like you let the British pigs destroy India and make it a poor country which it is now. Sati Pratha was and is a Hindu religious practice that teaches - Husbands are GODs to their wives. When they die, the wife has no life and she must also die, even if it takes to burn her alive.

About Immigration in Bhutan
While the intent of the policy was benign and inclusive, the government not totally unreasonably, implied that the 'culture' to be preserved would be that of the northern Bhutanese. This policy therefore required citizens to wear the attire of the northern Bhutanese in public places and reinforced the status of Dzongkha as the national language. Nepali was discontinued as a subject in the schools thus bringing it at par with the status of the other languages of Bhutan, none of which are taught. Such policies were criticized at first by human rights groups as well as Bhutan's Nepalese economic migrant community, who perceived the policy to be directed against them. '''The Nepali immigrants claim that the Bhutanese are clinging to power at the expense of human rights, pluralism, and democratic principles. However many in Bhutan see the ethnic Nepali immigrants’ cry for pluralism and democracy as just an excuse to overwhelm and take over a lightly populated Bhutan through unrestricted immigration.''' or This act led to the increased activity of numerous groups to protest against what was seen as an injustice against resident Nepalis. or Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps. The UNHCR aid provided to these people also attracted the poor from border areas of Nepal, who claimed to be refugees as well to receive aid or Matters reached a head in September 1990 after well organized groups comprised of 10,000 or more ethnic Nepalis from the Indian side of the border, organized protest marches in different districts, burned down schools, stripped local government officials of their national attire which they burned publicly, carried out kidnappings and murders of other ethnic Nepalis who did not join their protests. Some of the organizers of the marches were arrested and detained. However the Bhutanese government later released most of them. Those with ties to the groups responsible for the murders and kidnappings were forced to leave, but unfortunately many other innocent ethnic-Nepali citizens were coerced to leave by the angry ethnic-Nepali dissidents. inflame and provoke the situation further. Considering the ethnic clashes, which are omnipresent in South Asia resulting poorly written and nonneutral articles like this, I propose that this article is either rewritten with a neutral point of view with references/source from United Nations and other such respeced global entities rather than some pro-Druk or pro-Lhotsampa or be deleted and kept in a deleted state till neutral point of view is established. I also would like to request the use of Lhotsampa rather than Nepali if this article is rewritten because the Bhutanese refugees are not Nepalese citizens. Its like calling John F Kennedy as Irish president.--Eukesh 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article deals with issues relating to the ethnic communities of Nepal. The factual presentation of the article are inaccurate at places UNHCR states that Lhotsampas have been staying in Bhutan from 19th century whereas the article states it to be of 20th century. After the recent revolution of Nepal, the ethnic communities have suddenly waken up from their peaceful dormant state to an aggressive form which can be attributed to some extent to the armed conflict of Maoists. The ethnic communities share feeling of kinship with the people who are "refugees" now. The tolerant nature of these ethnic groups had to a large extent prevented any ethnic clashed between the ethnic groups of Nepal and Druks. The article is biased and statements like

Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Block changes
Hi; User:Marskell requested unblocking of User:213.42.2.22 so I adjusted it. Sorry, I should have asked you about it first. Please let me know if I broke anything, and I'll try to fix it. Or, feel free to make any changes to the block. Tom Harrison Talk 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

mail
Hi - you've got mail. Rama's arrow 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wik check
Will do, though it's been a while. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Decision of "Unrelated" is surprising
Hi,

This is about your decision to my request about checking the sock puppetry of User:A M. Khan. Quite honestly, I am surprised at your decision. What other clear evidence should I provide if this is not sufficient. All of those accounts have been created by the same person because they are interested in the same articles. I even outlined those articles for the clerks. All of those users support each other in a very funny way. Any way, I would like to appeal against this decision. I did all the home work and still I am unable to satisfy your requirements, I am just speechless. What else should I do then?? --Marwatt 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Dmcdevit, I am very glad and really sharing a jovial moment at the time, after knowing that I was found free of chare "Using Sock-Puppets". This is not my victory, infact this is the victory of Truth. It is my faith that truth wins atlast.

Anyhow, as my fellow and Wiki-Mate User:Marwatt wrote above that ""All of those accounts have been created by the same person because they are interested in the same articles."", so does this means that I am responsible for this all? Isn't this possible that user:Marwatt creates some ID.s and start helping me and later blames that I am doing this all? Well the above provided material about me aren't proofs but they are doubtful claims.

Anyhow, I affirm that I was using a second ID before, later, when I knew that it is against WP:Polcicy, I never logged in from that ID again. But that has nothing to do with the above claim.

Thankyou for making Justice [[User:Dmcdevit], eventhough it is your duty, but I still thank to you.

Regards, A M. Khan 08:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Evidence
I would like a response to my request that I made here please. If I don't get a response from you or aksi great, I will assume it's okay to use the evidence. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason that can't be conveyed privately to arbcom. I can forward the information to the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's no fun, but okay. BhaiSaab talk 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cerastes cerastes
It would seem that you decided to remove the YouTube external link in Cerastes cerastes based on the general assumption that YouTube contains pages that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. While that may be true in some cases at YouTube, it certainly isn't when it comes to the video clips made by user "viperkeeper" at YouTube -- a Mr. Al Coritz, with whom I correspond regularly. He creates all of his own video footage and is therefore not violating anybody else's copyright by posting them on YouTube. So, what's the problem? As far as I'm concerned, his videos are generally speaking, unique, and are excellent additional material to the series of articles I'm writing here at Wikipedia. --Jwinius 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not at all with the quality of the videos, solely their copyright status. Unfortunately, we can't take quality into account. The page linked to gives no licensing information at all. We have no reason be able to believe this is self-made and owned. If you are in correspondence with the creator, please ask him to add a source and copyright status to the videos, and then the links can be readded. Dmcdevit·t 05:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about quality? Have you even seen the video? It's obviously home made! It sounds to me like you're against linking to YouTube video material on principle, simply because few (if any) of these kind of videos include copywrite information. My guess is that will be the vast majority of home-made material posted there. And how would you expect him to add source and copyright status info to all of the 53 videos he's shared with us so far? Somethings tells me he's not going to edit and upload them all a second time. Or would some blanket statement somewhere from him be enough? --Jwinius 08:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "It sounds to me like you're against linking to YouTube video material on principle, simply because few (if any) of these kind of videos include copywrite information." Yes, that's exactly right. We can't link to clips like this that don't give copyright information. Saying it's "obviously homemade" is no reason at all to believe that it's not a copyright infringement. Without a lisence, it can't be linked. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say something like that. At a minimum, what kind of licensing information would he need to include in his videos? Or, as an alternative, do you think it would be acceptable, with the owner's consent, to transfer the existing footage from YouTube to Wikimedia and add the necessary licenses to them there? (PS -- Your talk page is on my watchlist for the time being.) --Jwinius 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfering them to Wikimedia is certainly preferable. In order to be linked to YouTube, they need to have a source and copyright status. This could mean saying he made it and he owns the copyright to it, and then he can release it however he likes. Dmcdevit·t 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Just thought I'd point out I'm right here and have been contributing regularly since arbitration probation was put in force a few months ago. Cheers. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hii

I Am Taher, and currently logged in from Dubai. I am getting an error that my IP address has been blocked from editing etc. Could you pleaes help Thanks Taher

check user
Thanks for your help wrapping that up. Elizmr 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI arbitration
I wasn't totally in favor of banning for a year, but wanting a limit for SPUI's blocks, even the ones not related to his previous arbitration hearings (see User talk:Fred Bauder). I wasn't sure whether or not to start a new arbitration request or if it would be an extension of the previosu ones he's been in, and thats what Fred put on WP:RFAr. I do feel SPUI needs a limit on how many legitimate blocks he can recieve before it becomes a year long or indef without it getting overturned by his friends with adminship. semper fi — Moe  16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
The entry is being vandalized once again by a suspected Chad Bryant sockpuppet. The sockpuppet is attempting to remove inforamtion that was reached by consensus that Chad Bryant did not agree with and has long sought to remove. It is NOT an edit war, IMHO, when the information being re-inserted (by me) is information that was approved not only by consensus but also by numerous other admins who oversaw the recent problems on rec.sport.pro-wrestling's entry. Please direct your attention to the sockpuppet account removing the information. Thanks. TruthCrusader 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello before you prolong my block please look into this, where is the confirmation that user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng
User:Constanz has added to User:Daborhe that he is a confirmed sock puppet of me. He first added it to the talkpage and then Daniel.Bryant added it to the user page but where is the confirmation? My question is where is the confirmation and who did it. As I can see there are 3 Admins involved User:Dmcdevit, User:Thatcher131 and User:Daniel.Bryant and not one of them has said "yes user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet" of me superdeng. And since I will get extra blocked for every post I make on wikipedia and not to have one of you refering to the other I am going to try to post at the same time to all 3 of you. Because As I see it user:Dabhore is a sock puppet of someone just not me.

So where is the confirmation that user dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng

And who did the confirmation

Where is the confrimation that User:Dabhore is a confirmed Sockpuppet of superdeng.

I am violating the ban so that you wont forget the case as you will if I post in one month

Where is the confirmation that user Dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user Super deng.

If there is no confirmation then please remove it from user:Dabhore page.

I have tried maling you all but none of you will give me a direct answer on my questions and you all give me the run around.

And right now I am ONLY interested in geting this resloves then AFTER this has been resloved I will appeal my block but FIRST this must be resloved before you all forget about it which you will in one month.


 * Well, since you're posting here as well I'll leave some notes for Dmcdevit. This is SuperDeng; per your comments at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145 I added the confirmation to Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng.  It may be that I made an error because  was listed on the checkuser request but not the noticeboard thread to which you replied.  If I misread your comment you should definitely let me know.


 * But, even if Daborhe is not confirmed I'm not sure what the significance is. I didn't block SuperDeng because he evaded his previous 2 month ban via Daborhe, but because he was concurrently using the accounts, , and .  Ordinarily we might block the socks and warn the main account but SuperDeng has been blocked enough for sockpuppetry already that he should know better.  I would consider reducing the block as long as he agreed to stick to one and only one account, but that might not be prudent given his history. Thatcher131 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is simple where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me? IF THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION THEN THE TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Where is the confirmation?

No one has said it! Constanz just added the tag because he FEELS like it no one has said "yes there is a confirmation" NO ONE

And user Lokqs cant in any world be an evasion of ban since he was created after my ban was lifted AFTER and how in any world can he also be a confirmed sock puppet of me when it was not possible to check his ip. There are many wrongs here and lets adress them one at the time

1 Where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me

Israel PoV
You have commented in the RfA that the presentation of the case is poor. Could you elaborate on my talk page? I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to file a good RfA as this is the first I have made. Carbonate 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you consider changing your vote for the RfA to accept? I provided a link to the failed mediation in my intitial statement and have added links to diffs that show a pattern of biased editing.  I have also followed the guidelines for dispute resolution by backing off for almost a month.  This has not been reciprocated and in fact, the people I have brought this RfA have not followed any of the guidelines.  I'm at a loss here as it seem that by playing by the rules only makes me the fool while those that refuse mediation, refuse compromise and have more people to edit war (including admins) win out... Carbonate 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did my request for arbitration go? Carbonate 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was removed because it did not meet the acceptance criteria (4 more votes to accept than decline after being listed for 10 days). In fact, the vote when it was removed was 0-3 against hearing the case. Here is the diff of the removal . Thatcher131 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (arbitration clerk)

RFAR/Columbine
I added a standard enforcement clause to the case since you left one out. Please remove it or change the wording if I used the wrong time periods. Thatcher131 08:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, thanks. Now I realize why I never voted in it: I never finished it. I just got distracted somewhere along the way. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistake?
Hi. You removed a link that looked ok to me in this edit:. If it was intentional, please accept my apologies. Thought you'd want to know anyway. --Guinnog 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce
I added the European history article Rise of Sweden as a Great Power to your desk. Please take a look at it and accept, reject or let me know and I'll reassign it. The article may need to be renamed. Thank you. RJFJR 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I blocked?
User1:

I received this message: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Dmcdevit for the following reason (see our blocking policy): edit warring despite warning Your IP address is 152.163.100.198.

Which is nonsense since I have never edited anything in Wikipedia with or without any warnings!! Someone is "spoofing" you perhaps even using my IP address to do so. You must be aware that the "hacker-phreak' community is far more nefarious and random than anything else on the web.    You may reach the real me at: metajohn@aol.com where I have held that email address since 1992.
 * You aren't blocked, since you have an account and it was an anon-only block. In any case, please see Advice to AOL users for why the block inadvertently affected you; it has been removed. Dmcdevit·t 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User2:

My proxy IP (used by thousands) is being blocked for vandalism, what vandalism? Could you be honest and specific to point out, thank you. --User2 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me. Your current open proxy has been blocked now, too. Have a nice day, Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No charges, no trial, no rights. This is way too vague. All this is bad for Wikipedia, IMHO. --User2 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Kven user! Thank you for providing us with another open proxy we hadn't blocked yet. If it's charges and a trial you'd like, your banning at Requests_for_arbitration/Kven is pretty close. Unfortunately, however, sockpuppetry and user page vandalism don't require a trial. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Kven", one word, all that I needed. I personally didn't have any relation to that; well, until now. With respect, you administrators really need to change your attitudes. Anyway, case closed on my part. Recommendations for future:


 * 01:43, 11 November 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "213.216.199.6 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) <= specify vandalism
 * 21:13, 3 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "213.216.199.6 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (IP recently used by banned user) <= specify user


 * --User2 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speed8ump:

I have been blocked with the reason being 'Primetime'. This isn't terribly helpful, but I suspect I have somehow been associated with a banned user? What can I do to convince you that this isn't me? Thanks. --Speed8ump from 207.235.66.3 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No you havent informed me
I understand you are over worked and under payed but please dont say you have informed me

The link you sent says Regarding those accounts, I can confirm by CheckUser that all three are sockpuppets of, and I think they have been used abusively for reverting in tandem and supporting each other on talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is not possible since no ip check was possible to make.

And please remove from User:Daborhe that he is a CONFIRMED SOCK PUPPET BECAUSE HE ISNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

And answer me how User:Lokqs can be a confirmed sock puppet of me when He was created AFTER my ban was lifted and NO IP CHECK WAS POSSIBLE.

I understand you are over worked but please answer my questions please.
 * Please don't scream at me that "NO IP CHECK WAS POSSIBLE". I'm the one that did the check and I asssure that it was. Dmcdevit·t 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Proposed_decision
I think you forgot to vote for your proposals in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom procedure question
I don't think I'll bother all the arbs with this, but I was wondering if you had a view one way or the other on this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the half Answer BUT THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS
Thanks for the Answer

BUT THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS

You said them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

And please answer my questions how can User:Lokqs be a sock puppet when he was created AFTER  my ban was lifted and no ip check was possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Observe that I didnt make one single edit with super deng except on the wp:rcu board.

And PLEASE remove the tag from User:Daborhe page since you havent said ANYWHERE that he is a confimed sock puppet of me

I understand that you have a great workload but please look into this PLEASE

This is all like kafka.
 * This is nothing like Kafka; it makes sense. Again, I checked your IP against the other accounts myself, so telling me it was impossible is useless. I made that earlier statement when the account was too old to check, and I wasn't aware of The Green Fish or Weedro. Then you began editing with the SuperDeng acount, I made the check, and they matched. Now, just stop with the ranting. If you keep this block evasion up, you may never be unlocked. Dmcdevit·t 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube
Yeah... I noticed about 30 edits in. I thought you were going to move down the alphabet, but I guess not. Oh well. I took the opertunity to switch gears. I spent the last 10 min trying to get the Search/Replace function working properly... I was giving up on the note. Your message interrupted my first test-edit. :) ---J.S (t|c) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of YouTube, there was an objection to your removal of the link at Nangpa La killings. I haven't really followed the whole issue at WP:EL—what should I say to him on the talk page? Khoikhoi 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The removal has nothing at all to do with the quality or content of the video. But that clip is a clear copyright violation, with the TV station's logo still visible, and we cannot legally link to it. Dmcdevit·t 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Khoikhoi 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ERROR!
The find/replace does something weird with ref-tags. I've already reverted it, but I figured you should be aware of it. (yeah, I did notice before it was going to happen, I let it happen so I could show you)---J.S (t|c) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't come across that kind of error in hundreds of edits. I think I have a better expression that is more precise, but I'm trying to test it right now. Dmcdevit·t 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Content Dispute BKWSU article
re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

May I just clarify, this is not a "yes or no" answer nor about content dispute.

I just asking for all editors to have specifically clarified what is considered "easily verifiable" and listed a number of options.


 * My request is clarification regarding the listed options.

For me the policy is clear. The elements I have stated are entirely acceptable. I am faced with interested parties that want to supress their use not because the are unacceptable according to policy but because they do not want them made widely public.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the other contributor refused to engage in mediation as noted in the request.


 * It is not a content dispute. It is regarding the acceptability of easily referenced citations.


 * 195.82.106.244 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD addition
Nice work on that. I really think we are moving in the right direction with this kind of thing; indeed it's one of the reasons I'm still here after almost three years. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

submission standards
Regarding the BKWU arbitration, I was looking at the page for abitration policy and it clearly states "submission standards" which is what I am querying. Do the examples I have give meet submission standards? My opinion is yes, the other contributor is no.

Your attention please.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rules

''The Arbitrators will decide cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community ... Wikipedia's "laws": terms of use, submission standards,''

Graham Wiggins
Hi, thanks for your interest in the Graham Wiggins page In the case of the "Sub Aqua" live recording, it comes from the collection of Graham Wiggins, who asked me to link to it at YouTube. Thus, the repeated removal without first considering or discussing this also represents great disrespect to another editor. Would you please re-add that video link, please. Badagnani 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy Goma
I hate to say this, but your removal of a valid link (in fact, a primary source) and replacing it with a "fact" tag represents vandalism. Please undo this edit. There was really no reason for you to have done that other than spite or mean-spiritedness, which we try to avoid here. Many editors work very hard to track down such sources and we don't appreciate their being deleted in this manner. Thank you. Badagnani 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop directing users to YouTube, as that source is a copyright infringement. This policy is not negotiable. Dmcdevit·t 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the height of arrogance to respond to a "discussion" posting on your own "discussion" page. Beyond that, you are uninformed in your interpretation of policy and no amount of justification will negate the fact that you have committed vandalism in replacing a primary source with a "fact" tag. This must be made right! Badagnani 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube
Dmcdevit, I'm glad that there is now a policy on external links about this. --SunStar Net 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for information RE:Konstable case.
Could you please inform me (and hopefully the ArbCom case in general) whether User:Konstable's sock AltUser performed any talkpage vandalism as User:Moe Epsilon has claimed here, in the arbcom case, and repeatedly elsewhere? If this is an untrue claim then Moe has been making false and gravely uncivil personal attacks, while if it is a true claim then Konstable is guilty of running a vandalistic sock.

I apologize for any inconvenience this causes, but it's probably best to confirm or deny Moe's claim now, since it's part of the basis for the dispute. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Konstable Arbitration case
As it may or may not affect this arbitration case, Konstable has given up his admiship rights by asking Angela for it's removal and it has been carried out. Just thought I would let you know this. semper fi — Moe  01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Primetime checkuser
Thanks for your prompt and thorough response. -Will Beback 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted a request for a follow check. There may be two separate sets of sock puppets. -Will Beback 05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I review the case the more I think that I've conflated two different sets of puppets. Now that "Balthazardu" has identified which socks are his, and since you identifed the other two socks which are very clearly Primetime, the distinction is clearer. Balthazardu has at very least abused the consensus by using multiple identities to give opinions on talk page topics but I am inclined to unblock that account with a request to cut back or stop the use of sockpuppets. Does that sound right? -Will Beback · † · 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm satisfied with that conclusion. CheckUser can't really help distinguish them, as they're on the same range, but the subsequent evidence is as good as any. Of course, that means we have another sockpuppeter on our hands (*ugh*), but your course of actions seems best at this point. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden arbcomm
Hi Dmcdevit. In retrospect, some of my actions as an admin may show poor judgement. I've tried to explain some of them here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision. Best wishes, Buck  ets  ofg  03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Acceptance Mechanism
I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know, my thoughts on this particular issue are on the RfAr talk page. More generally, after a couple of years of experience under the Arbitration policy, which in general is pretty well-written, there may be a couple of other procedural points that could use revision or updating. Given that there's an ArbCom election in process, my suggestion would be that in January, the newly constituted ArbCom and the Clerks and any other interested editors have a quick discussion (not an endless Wikilawyish morass which I know it could denigrate into with folks like me around :) ) and address any appropriate changes. I have this item on my list of points I would bring up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about you, dmcdevit? Any advice/thoughts I can pry from ya? ;-) /Blaxthos 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are already at the discussion in question. I largely agree with you, and plan on carrying on this discussion with the arbcom on the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly think both of you understand my point perfectly. I just want to ensure the problem is in the right hands (I wasn't sure whom all has the "right hands"). That being said, if there is anything I can do as a concerned editor please let me know.  Thanks for your help and assurances.  Good luck!  /Blaxthos 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling
why didn't you warn the anonymous IP guy reverting our work? his claim that there was no consensus on the info in question or that the info provided by the RSPW link is not there is bogus. WillC 11:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to continue to re-insert the information that the 'anon' user is attempting to blank out. I understand your 'view' that this is an edit war, but you are wrong. You may NOT be aware but the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling went through a VERY lengthy process to determine what was relevant as far as content goes, with no less than 3 admins co-ordinating the whole thing. The entry, before our 'anon' friend starting changing it, was agreed to by the admins and the participating editors (not JUST me as you seem to think) with only ONE (1, uno, une, jeden) person dissenting: Chad Bryant. The information our 'anon' friend is removing is the exact same info Chad Bryant sought to have deleted, going so far as to be banned for using sockpuppets in an attempt to trick the admins when consensus was sought. Dispute resolution has been used already, i will NOT go through it again just because ONE (1, une, uno, jeden) ANONYMOUS user (who is 90% a Chad bryant sockpuppet). If you actually researched the history of the entry instead of just blindly jumping in as i suspect you did, you would see EXACTLY what is going on. Now, I am giving you 24 hours notice that I will revert the entry back to its agreed on state. I ask that you either do some homework on the situation OR you enact a non-registered block on the entry. If you wish to discuss the process we went through, contact DeathPhoenix or Tyrenius, but in 24 hours I WILL revert the entry back. I am telling you this honestly and upfront. Should you desire to discuss the situation, email me. TruthCrusader 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of 'we already did DR" are you NOT understanding? Do NOT come riding in on your white horse trying to save the day when you obviously have given no one the common courtesy to even study the situation or talk to the other admins involved. I will be bringing up your behaviour to the proper people shortly.TruthCrusader 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you hear me now?
Generally I think e-mailing someone to say "did you get my e-mail" is pretty lame, but in this case I have to ask, did you get my e-mail? I sent a note to arbcom-L last night about the Konstable case and since I don't have read access, I get no feedback on whether it got through or not. Thatcher131 21:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Did you get an email back saying that it was being held by the moderator? I can't think of why it shouldn't have gone through by now... Dmcdevit·t 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. (I did before when I wasn't approved, though.) It's arbcom-L at wikipedia.org? (Because clerks-L is at mail.wikimedia.org—maybe I tried the wrong addy) Thatcher131 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's right. Hm. Well, forward it to me for now if it's still not working, and I'll forward it to the list, I suppose. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail glitches aside, the substance of the note was to ask if you stilll want to hear the Konstable case since he has apparently voluntarily resigned his sysop flag. Thatcher131 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I think it should be opened anyway, since current practice is to allow readminship wihtout approval for voluntary deadminships. I think the issue still needs to be given a final burial. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Next time I mail the list I'll cc your address separately so you can keep an eye out for it. BTW, is there any movement on my sandboxes? Thatcher131 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I take that back. The mailing list appears to be down at the moment, and has been for a few days. No messages are getting through. :-( Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eeek. Thatcher131 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza
Thank you for your insightful comments on the Esperanza MfD. I think you've zeroed in on the problem &mdash; the response from some members of Esperanza is a distressing commentary on the state of the project. Hopefully your comments will help defuse the situation. Fe e zo (Talk) 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube text
Following colaberative editing on a workshop page, and a call for any objections, a suitable text has been found to address "The Youtube Problem".

Please revert your edit to WP:EL and replace it with "Links to sites containing publicly contributed content, such as video upload sites or photo collections, should be removed if the copyright status is in doubt."

Thank you. --Barberio 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please update these pages
Hi Dmc,

Can you please update this page and this page with the latest findings. These links are being used by certain 'holier-than-thou' users to smear me wherever they go. I request you to do it at the earliest. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My evidence is strong, and and  seemed to agree with it. I merely initiated the checkuser, and the checkuser was hijacked by ethnic groups with scores to settle. I really don't care about ethnic conflicts (have a nice history on religious ones, dont need to diversify). "Holier-than-thou", WP:AGF permits me not to assume anything he says is true. You know perfectly well how good I am, I've caught Sarvagnya (At the least of meatpuppetry) and Saavak123/Green23 (of blatant POV pushing and sockpuppetry). Bakaman  Bakatalk  04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Holier than thou' - you can pay yourself whatever tributes you want, but the fact of the matter is that you didnt catch me with anything. not sockpuppetry, not meatpuppetry.  very evidently, I and Gnanapiti are very different users who have similar views on certain things.  neither did he act on my advice nor did i act on his for our actions to constitute meatpuppetry.  and i guess you have your hands full defending your sockpuppet/puppeteer/meatpuppet/puppeteer(??) friend.  so now run along and update your 'evidence'(with the latest findings from my case) on that page if you havent already done so.   Sarvagnya 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find dmcdevit to be very correct in the technical evidence he doled out. You may want to note that I actually have a horrible relationship with Dmcdevit which means he would be even more objective and less likely to please me.Keep in mind that you and Gnanpiti edited the same article (Saare Jahan Se Achcha) and evidence is provided on RFCU to your reverts. Checkuser analyzes all IP's from the same range. I had suspicions about you and Gnanpiti so I initiated one. I did not however add the other two, knowing perfectly well they were not sockpuppets (they were found to be unrelated). Questioning the checkuser, is not questioning me, its questioning the undeniable technical evidence proving that during a period of time, you and Gnanpiti edites the same articles and violated 3RR during that period of time. ITs actually questioning Dmcdevit because I have no (nor do I want) access to checkuser software. Bakaman Bakatalk  04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmc merely matched ips. The interpretation was not his.  The interpretation that we were socks was by the admins which both I and Gnanapiti later demonstrated was erroneous.  As for you, it was just a hunch - one that was way off target, one that was motivated merely by your habitual non-assumption of good faith than anything else.  And ya, I know how good you are.  You just gave me a fantastic demonstration recently when you filed a laughable 3RR vio against me.  I dont know if I can speak better Hindi than you, but I certainly can count better.  LOL :D.  Confine your antics to the Saavaks and the Greens - whoever they are. Sarvagnya 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. If you two continue this intentional provocation, baiting and teasing each other like children, you will be blocked. Any more edits like these to my talk page will be reverted. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Help!
There is some user hiding behind IP addresses that keeps on vandalizing my user page. It seems to have stemmed over a recent edit war over the spelling of "color". The user prefers the british spelling. Not only does he vandalize my page, but he insists on all articles to use the "colour" spelling and goes so far as to even spam me on MSN! While you can't handle the latter, I report it to you to show how far he's going. Please help! This has gone on far enough! You can check my userpage history to see the IPs he's been using. Seems like a range block should do.GrandMasterGalvatron 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me out with this?
Hi Dmcdevit,

You were one of the admins who took part in my Arbcom case with User:Ulritz. Now I've been having some troubles lately with an "Anonymous IP" that claims not to know he is User:Ulritz even though he clearly is.

The IP adress has the same style of writing, and same grudge against me as User:Ulritz. He also started posting when Ulritz stopped and now he's got me edit warring again ...

After adding a nonsense and inappropriate remark (not to mention offensive edit summaries) he now apparantly contest a small piece of writing on the Dutch people article, I referenced it propperly but he still removed it. I, and wikipedia, really can't work like this. Could you please take some action or adress him in order for him to stop this irritating behaviour?

Thanks, Rex 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded at RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

???
Does it ever seem like your talking...er typing to a brick wall? Whisp e ring 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bowling For Columbine
I have since pointed counter evidence in my defense. I request that you reconsider your decision with the new evidence in light, or at the very least, explain how the conclusions you came to can be reached from the cited examples. -Schrodinger82 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Hey - thank you again, a billion times for nominating me. You are my role model and I request you to lemme know anytime u may feel I'm making a bad decision. More importantly, if/when you need anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you. That RfA was a nice show. I'm confident you'll do a fine job. And I'm always here if you have any questions at all. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Majorities and abstaining votes
Does a vote of abstain remove the arbitrator from the majority calculation? In the case of Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision, 2 abstentions changes the number of active arbs from 9 to 7, meaning it passes with 4. It's not a critical FoF, but I would like to know the general rule anyway. Thanks. Thatcher131 18:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's generally how it works. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden and Bucketsofg
Assuming that the proposal to de-sysop Bucketsofg gains enough support to pass, do you want to codify a reinstatement mechanism or waiting time for a new RFA? Thatcher131 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Emulation Galaxy
You have removed links to video files used as reference because of this documents: Links normally to be avoided, but after reading the entire document twice I can not find any mention of "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" being forbiden in WP:EL. Only thing I notice is that those links should be marked as foreign language links. Here is point by point review of disallowed links: 1. Yes its a unique resource 2. Its factually accurate as its recording of regular TV 3. Its not a promotional link, its a reference 4. AFAIK Youtube is accessible to most users. 5. No external applications are needed (youtube provides its own player) 6. Not a link to search engine result, its a direct link 7. Not a social networking site or forum, as target website is only used for hosting the actual reference 8. Not a blog 9. Not a wiki 10. Reference itself is directly related as its actually footage of TV show.

So, could you please kindly explain why should those links be removed? Shinhan 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong sockfarm
Thanks for checking things out, and no, I don't have information on the IPs. I recognize this editor's "voice" from the old gang, but I understand that's not actionable. Oh well! Thanks anyway. -- Shunpiker 07:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GG Allin
I don't understand what was wrong with adding in those links to the videos of Allin on Springer. I have noticed numerous other articles with links to youtube.com on them... If you could explain to me what was wrong, that would be a great help. Vint 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry for the mix up. Vint 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit

Can you please check your e-mail, and read my comment at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --ManiF 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner Ban
Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.) Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Conflict" with Ryulong
I am a little puzzled why you say that I was with conflict with Ryulong at the time Ryushort was created As I said here I was not in conflict with Ryulong at the time, nor ever before that, I only come in conflict with him for a brief moment with AltUser (which was created after Ryushort), though even that is long resolved. Thank you.--Konstable II 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ITV Digital
Take a look at the history of ... slightly amusing situation there. I guess we were working on the same part of the alphabet. ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you might want to look a the convo going on at User_talk:J.smith/YouTube_Linklist. ---J.S (t|c) 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:E104421
Hi, DMC. I had an E-mail exchange with User:E104421 and he is taking this sockpuppeting block quite badly, threatening to leave wikipedia. He is one of the best Turkish editors and it would be a shame if we lose or strongly upset him. Obviously, you are the only one around here with the checkuser facilities but the indirect evidence presented by Future Perfect on WP:AN/I seems to be at least partially convincing. E also proposed to contact METU's sysadmin to check the internal allocation of the IPs on their campus. I do not know what to say but if there is a real possibility of an error in the identification of the puppets I would rather err on the AGF site. It would be a shame to lose or alienate a good editor. Alex Bakharev 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * DMC, I am not criticizing your decision to undo the Futute Perfect's unblock. You are the only one who has the full information. I just wanted to tell you that if the chances are 50% he was a sockpuppeteer and 50% that he was innocent then I would rather have some chances for a sockpuppetter to get away than to drive away a good editor. On the other hand if there are 99% chances that he was guilty the block should stay. Since you are the only admin here who has all the info the decision is yours. Alex Bakharev 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check my E-mail Alex Bakharev 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser
Hi Dmcdevit! You have just performed a CheckUser on RunedChozo. I have added a new account, to the request. Do I need to move the request back up from Completed requests to Outstanding requests, or can it stay where it is? A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, sir. I do not use sockpuppets. The user Wheelygood is a friend of mine also in the math department, and of course we will wind up with similar addresses. Checkuser is flawed and this is one of the reasons why. RunedChozo 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Hi! Been very busy and haven't been around much. Would you take a look at Mountain Meadows Massacre? According to Suspected sock puppets, I really don't have enough evidence to make an accusation. Note two active editors, highly critical of this article and related topics, but one has edited only this article since becoming a user. Thank you. Oh, and didn't we have an appointment for some admin activity in October? Well maybe in December. WBardwin 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced
I do think deletion of unsourced and unsourceable cruft is a good thing. But the "we must change the culture" engineers of the Wikipedian soul are absurdly over-optimistic; and there are semiliterate editors and untrustworthy admins. Let's be cautious. Septentrionalis 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put a new proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion_criterion_for_unsourced_articles. let me know what you think. Septentrionalis 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Shortcut.road
Hi. Could you by any chance clarify whether the result of Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Shortcut.road was for A) *all* login user accounts and IP addresses listed. B) *all* login user accounts and one or more IPs listed but not all listed C) *all* login user accounts to the same IP(s) but not to any of the IPs listed in the case. If you are unable to do this for privacy or other policy reasons, please just indicate that (and maybe a reference to the policy if you have the time). Many thanks.--68.59.240.112 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts were identical. Some of the IPs were probably right, but I'm not comfortable commenting on them at this point. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a Fairly Recent Checkuser Report....
Hello Dmcdevit, recently you blocked the static IP address belonging to User:JINXTENGU and his sockpuppets. Well unfortunately he is still creating many malicious sockpuppets, as you can see in this sockpuppeteer report, which lists his newest accounts. I appreciate any help regarding the issue, thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(personal attack removed) Kla'quot 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden arbitration
Hi Dmcdevit,

Bearcat and I have both left questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Proposed decision. I don't know if arbitrators routinely read the Talk pages, so I'm asking if you would please take a look at these questions. My main concern is that the community won't be able to learn from this case because the rulings are vague. Some of the items in the proposed decision look to me like content findings or clarifications of policy, but they are nonspecific about what content is problematic and how policy should be interpreted/clarified. Best, Kla'quot 07:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and dynamic IPs
Hey Dmcdevit, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan, the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc and User:Lahiru_k, they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.

What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs. And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.

I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.

So can you plase check into this, and make sure whether they really are socks of Lahiru_k? Thanks. --snowolfD4( talk / @</b> ) 10:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for sock puppetry from Lahiru_k (aka Mystic) (aka Arsath)

User user:Sri119 has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. I pointed this out on the TfD before they were all caught. For example setting of userbox just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!" of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k. In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This also speaks for user Mama007 who has done some military edits and to user Psivapalan, which I detail below.

The sock puppet with more extensive edits have one subtle writing feature in common: use of "!!" or "!!!". Here is one from Mystic:. In many of these cases, the users with light editing history changed or created their userbox before voting on the template. Also both Lahiru_k and Mystic indeed have some overlap in writing about Muslim affairs (particularly Sri Lankan muslim affairs). Here Lahiru_k who claims to be Sinhala Budhist with his userboxes did these edits, when someone else blanked it. He appeared keenly sensitive to this tragic yet historic event (affected Jaffna muslims) and occurred in Sri Lanka and made these edits in a couple of pages and issued this warning. With user Psivapalan, the edits have been on the Indian Army (a key feature linking user Lahiru's military edits) and few India related articles for good measure, but the userboxes were setup the same day and some appear to have been copied from user:Sudharsansn page - that target of vandalism attack by one of these sock puppets, and then the voting was done. Its also important to note, the sock puppets all have completely different userboxes, one claims to be Tamil from Canada, another Muslim , another Indian Tamil Hindu , another Sinhala Budhist. One even claims to live in England (Mama007), all from an IP address from Sri Lanka.

Take another interesting thing in common between Lahiru_k and Mystic. Both have very similar signatures, consisting of blue gradients. Could all of this be mere coincidence ? It should also be noted that User:Mystic was caught before for vote stacking and was the person who initiated the tfD which surprisingly got the attention of all these users, without any sort of communication, particularly brand new users that just 'started on wikipedia'. With all of this damning evidence and being caught, I would expect, Arsath (Mystic) to come clean and apologize particularly for the deeply hurtful comments directed at user:Sudharsansn through User:Snsudharsan (which initiated the checkuser) than playing innocent. Elalan 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for sock puppetry from Lahiru_k (aka Mystic) (aka Arsath)

User user:Sri119 has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. I pointed this out on the TfD before they were all caught. For example setting of userbox just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!" of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k. In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This also speaks for user Mama007 who has done some military edits and to user Psivapalan, which I detail below. Comment So Elalan are u saying that no two people can have the same interest, this is a ridiculous point. (This is user Mystic) 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) The sock puppet with more extensive edits have one subtle writing feature in common: use of "!!" or "!!!". Here is one from Mystic:. Comment The use of the exclamation mark is no proof that I am user:Lahiru_k. An this only one instance you have provided. And this is not against wikipedia rules. Are u suggesting that all users who have used exclamations are user Lahiru_k 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) In many of these cases, the users with light editing history changed or created their userbox before voting on the template. comment Can you provide a diff for the instance that I created a userbox before voting on the template (i.e. Mystìc) 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also both Lahiru_k and Mystic indeed have some overlap in writing about Muslim affairs (particularly Sri Lankan muslim affairs). Comment So you agree that we have some overlaps, and could you provide a diff where I have edited regarding Sri Lankan Muslim affairs. 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here Lahiru_k who claims to be Sinhala Budhist with his userboxes did these edits, when someone else blanked it. He appeared keenly sensitive to this tragic yet historic event (affected Jaffna muslims) and occurred in Sri Lanka and made these edits in a couple of pages and issued this warning. With user Psivapalan, the edits have been on the Indian Army (a key feature linking user Lahiru's military edits) and few India related articles for good measure, but the userboxes were setup the same day and some appear to have been copied from user:Sudharsansn page - that target of vandalism attack by one of these sock puppets, and then the voting was done.

Comment Can you provide one diff where user Mystic has edited user:Sudharsansn's page 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its also important to note, the sock puppets all have completely different userboxes, one claims to be Tamil from Canada, another Muslim ,

Comment I have nothing to hide I am a Muslim, and I come from Sri Lanka and I am a member of the wikipedia muslim guild 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

another Indian Tamil Hindu, another Sinhala Budhist. One even claims to live in England (Mama007), all from an IP address from Sri Lanka.

Take another interesting thing in common between Lahiru_k and Mystic. Both have very similar signatures, consisting of blue gradients.

Comment Could anyone be so stupid to create a puppet account and have the same signature copied for both. I agree that both the signatures look alike, well anyone can get a signature done by visiting User:NikoSilver's Signature shop here and see his comments about my signature here and see how he arrived at my signature here. 222.165.180.160 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Could all of this be mere coincidence ? It should also be noted that User:Mystic was caught before for vote stacking Comment Any one who looks at my discussion page I have appologized for my mistake.. 222.165.180.160 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) and was the person who initiated the tfD which surprisingly got the attention of all these users, without any sort of communication, particularly brand new users that just 'started on wikipedia'. With all of this damning evidence and being caught, I would expect, Arsath (Mystic) to come clean and apologize than playing innocent. Elalan 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One Last Comment And why should I plead if I am user:Lahiru_k this particular account is not blocked. If you guys are still not convinced.. Why not block the User:Lahiru_K and see what happens.. then.. 222.165.180.160 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:222.165.180.160, its deeply impolite to scramble up other people's comments like what you have done. I have reinserted my comments (unaltered) above. Elalan 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry for altering your comments.. but I had to.. I had no choice but to do that to prove my point.. Arsath 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On this point I agree, Mystic account (the sock puppeteer) should have a temporary block and one last warning (since this funny business has occurred before), while Lahiru_k, clearly a sock puppet account should be banned permanently. To Arsath's credit, he has made many constructive edits to wikipedia and that I think the community feels will be dearly lost if he is banned permanently.  I also think all this is dependent on an apology and full confession from him to all parties affected by this mischievous conduct.  Elalan 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Elalan you still fail to see light..I am not going to apologize for any mistake that I have not done. I have not been a sock puppeteer before and never going to go to that low level to prove my point. I am an academician with many years of experience and certainly not going to tarnish my name by accepting a mistake done by some idiocratic Sri Lankan (Lahiru_K). I am deeply dishearten by the divisive nature of our Sri Lankans and their public display of stupidity, I nominated that template for deletion only because it clearly violates wikipedia NPOV policy and it achieves nothing but hatred of the Sinhalese, as many in the international community would agree that there is no limit to the stupidity of some Sinhalese like Lahiru_k and there is no difference with some of my Tamil brothers either, you guys have tried to use wikipedia to spread hatred which is not the purpose of the wikipedia. Arsath 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Elalan why dont you answer to my above questions b4 you demand an apology. You have not proven a single point of yours beyond doubt.. Arsath 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arsath, I would suggest you read through the Mystic versus Lahiru section on Lahiru_k's talk page. People sincerely want to help you but an act of responsibility must also be shown.  It is in your best interest not to be confrontational, but rather act in a calm and cool fashion. Saying stuff like "you guys have tried to use wikipedia to spread hatred" is hardly going to win sympathy for your plight, particularly from the parties concerned. Elalan 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Brahmakumaris.info
You told Brahmakumaris.info to request a name change at WP:RCU, but that is the link to checkuser. I think you meant WP:CHU. Could be a nice thing to remember in the future... :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eek, thank you. I saw his name on an RCU request, and must have had that on my mind. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opened an ArbComm case regarding my block
Please respond here Arsath 04:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaack
Please take a look at this. Thanks. He isn't even subtle anymore. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance. I ended up blocking him indefinitely. Enough is enough. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Since you have recused yourself from the HKelkar finding, I have a question which I hope you will answer. Is it likely that the ArbComm will limit its focus merely to HKelkar and his main accuser, and not consider the other editors who stand accused of disruption? Becuase if so, I will follow advice I have received elsewhere and request another RfArb.... Hornplease 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The likeliness is based upon the evidence. I would say, however, that no matter the case, when too many parties become involved, I tend to limit the scope to the central figures which can be coherently covered in one case. Exclusion of perpheral parties may not be a judgment on their behavior; it might simply mean another case is necessary to look at them fully. If you feel a party is being overlooked int eh final decision, you may very well want to make another request with specifics against them. Dmcdevit·t 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll wait till entries start appearing on Proposed Decision, then. Its quite a dreadful mess. Hornplease 12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moroccan Spaniard et al.
Could you please comment on this? It's one of the strangest RFCU findings I encountered. I'm not questioning your competence at all, nor I'm keen to find out personal details of anyone, but I'm highly curious. If there are some not-for-public details that you're willing to share, feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Duja ► 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello it is me from an open proxy
Hello it seems my "friend" Woohookitty has perma blocked can you make this into a time block?

I need to have one account where I can have a coherent form of dialogue and not have someone saying this is probably superdeng

There is some very detailed information that only like 2 people in all of wiki have in certain areas and I am one of them, perma blocking me will just remove my abillity to form any discussion and only lead to pointless reverts

SuperDeng


 * Deng, you should stop using sockpuppet accounts. This is against our rules and is easily exposed. If you want to lead a coherent discussion, you should desist from this practice altogether. Other than that, I believe that indef block is out of the question. There should be an account which Deng could legitimately use when the block is over. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AltUser
I am taking the position that all accounts of a blocked user are subject to the block. You are the blocking administrator of. Do you wish to continue the indefinite block? Fred Bauder 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Srikeit; an Official ArbCom Clerk??
Hi Dmcdevit :-) Sriket is interested in becoming an Official ArbCom Clerk. Both myself and Thatcher131 support this promotion. He has been very active in Nov., opening and closing most of the cases. He also looked after some of the business on the main RFArb page and answered user questions on site and on IRC. As far as I am concerned, it has been a delight to work with him. Could you check with the rest of the Committee to see if there is an interest in making him official. Thanks and Take care, FloNight 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser page of Khosrow II

 * Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link, Thanks 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The case was never listed properly. I fixed it, and Raul has answered it. Thatcher131 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page Targeted for Deletion
Hi! Are you back yet! Please note the following: ''I've nominated your user subpage User:WBardwin/Chapter for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time.... —Doug Bell talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC'' I assert that user pages, under Wikipedia guidelines, are private property and, if they violate no rules or standards, should not be deleted or disturbed by others.  I would appreciate your opinion in my disagreement with this administrator.  (And you wonder why I hesitate to become an admin!). Thanks.  WBardwin 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arb?
I was referred to you from user:Mgm. I am just curious to know what qualities and prerequisites are need to become an assistant clerk?  Culv e  rin  ?   Talk  11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Speed8ump
This user is requesting unblock on thier talk page. I guess you thought they were a prime-time sock? ttfn, ---J.S (T/C) 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Requests_for_arbitration by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI Zoe
I've posted at ANI requesting CheckUser on one more account that took part in the revert wars at Stalin. Thank you also for the clarification of the policy as regards transwikiing. Moreschi 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_checkuser
Can you check one more account ? He makes threats against Tajik. If he is indeed NisarKand, I would support a long or even permanent ban to all of them Alex Bakharev 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming and blocking sockpuppets of User:NisarKand
Meanwhile, 4 more have been added to the list, two of them insulting me in different articles, as well as on my user-page and talk-page. The following histories prove that it's the same user:.

Thank you.

Tājik 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: I also suggest to protect certain articles against vandalism by IPs and newly registered users: Afghanistan, Ghazni, Mahmud of Ghazni, Kandahar, Demographics of Afghanistan, Kabul, Herat, Farsiwan, Tajiks, and some others.
 * Tājik 15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong vs GreenNinja
FYI, GreenNinja and many others have done the prior steps, but Ryulong is so stubborn, he has refused to listen, and insists everything on his pages must be his way or the highway. What he posted was a joint effort by people who are fed up by the way Ryulong is running things. Just look at the edit histories and discussions on the Power Ranger and Super Sentai pages Ryulong frequents. He goes ahead and changes long time articles to his liking, even though no one complained about how they looked for years. He changes facts that have been the general consensus of the fandom for years to things he pulls out of nowhere. If you look at the edit histories, you can see him reverse basically anything anyone contributes, and in the discussion he acts like he has total say of what goes in. The fandoms of these shows have basically blacklisted Wikipedia because of his actions. His name is mentioned at several message boards where people say Wikipedia is crap and no one should go to these articles for reference anymore. He is unqualified to edit these shows because his knowledge on them is very limited. For example, someone put something about a guy named "Tony Oliver" on a page for Power Rangers, he instantly removed it with the comment "Who's Tony Oliver?". If he doesn't know the guy responsible for creating the early seasons of Power Rangers, he has no business touching the PR pages. 71.241.91.142 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...looks like someone is a sockpuppet of GreenNinja. Can we get a CheckUser here? Everything in the above post is a bitter lie. jgp TC 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I just forgot to login. My points against Ryulong still stand.Kyl416 16:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found out who you are. You're from that message board who's pissed at him because Ryulong (rightfully) won't consider one of your own members a reliable source . And you're also pissed becayse Ryulong insists on using proper English. Yeah, I think I also remember a death threat in that thread too... . Oh, and let's not forget this latest thread... jgp TC 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, trying to access that board now gives a message "You have been banned from this forum". I'm not sure how they got my IP. But luckily I saved stuff to my hard drive... jgp TC 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We've never debated of it because it's proper English. It's a show title, there's this thing called artistic license which means proper English rules and spelling don't apply. (Ever hear of Superhuman Samurai Syber-Squad?) Our point was that the official releases and schedules from the divisions that regularly handle publicity for PR don't include colons. And I had nothing to do with the death threats. Our points still stand on why Ryulong shouldn't have final say though, we have seen many places where his knowledge on the show is limited. He should contribute, but he shouldn't act like he has final say due to his limited knowledge on the ins and outs of the show.Kyl416 17:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Update
Hi - I think your away message on the top of the page is obsolete, no? Newyorkbrad 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube stuff again...
Our project was talked about on notable blog Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow. (link) That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. ---J.S (T/C) 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases
Only ArbCom members can make motions for prior cases. There is a discussion about site banning Instantnood (oh no! not that again) for a long period that I don't think would be helpful. At the end of that, I've made a proposal for a 0RR rule instead but I don't think administrators believe they can enforce that without ArbCom saying they can. If you think it'd work, would you propose it at RfAr? SchmuckyTheCat 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oi. Vey.
It's a conspiracy!. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dulcorne's unblock request
Hi Dmcdevit, could you please justify your block of Dulcorne (talk • contribs)? I suspect that Dulcorne is possibly a sockpuppet or a single purpose account since his first edit was to vote for the undeletion of Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels, but that alone is somewhat weak justification for an indefinite "vandalism" block in my honest opinion. Was there a checkuser involved and something else behind this block? Thanks. --  Netsnipe   ►  17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's on a shared IP that's been used exclusively for vandalism. I've unblocked since it's shared and could be innocent, but it might be best to keep an eye on the account with that in mind. Dmcdevit·t 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To do something useful
I would like to do something useful, but on Meta nobody cares about my petitions and here I am stalked by -jkb-. If he stops to reveal my real name, I will have more time to do something useful.

I apologize from bringing my username change request from cs: to en:, but since on cs: I cannot edit even my talk page, I've seen no other way. I ackowledge it was a misjudgement. -- Zacheus 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got mail!
I've got a problem. Thatcher131 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennislover
has requested an unblock. I've been following the mess since before the first block. I must admit, it has crossed my mind that Tennislover was another sock but in all of my investigations, this has not been born out. That is to say, it is my belief that Tennislover is not a Cute 1 4 u sock. I'm not saying it is impossible but I will say that I think it unlikely. I'd welcome any evidence you have that this is a sock. Alternatively, I ask that you consider lifting the block. It is of course not my intention to engage in a wheel war with you so I will not take any direct actions here. (If you respond, please either copy your response to my talk page or leave a note there indicating that you have responded here... thanks) --Yamla 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryulong said: "Tennislover's IP was tested against known IPs utilized by Cute 1 4 u. They matched. Larger explanation at my talk."
 * You said: "Correct. There were suspicions; it sounds like you had them too. And a checkuser verified the identity: I wouldn't have blocked without it. (You said "I'd welcome any evidence you have that this is a sock" so I'm thinking maybe you didn't realize that...?) In any case, I'm very convinced."


 * Okay, thanks you two. The checkuser page at Requests for checkuser/Case/Cute 1 4 u made no mention of this check and so I was just making sure that a checkuser really had been performed and that this wasn't just a situation where someone jumped the gun.  You've certainly convinced me.  Now, if only there was some way to stop future sockpuppets which we know are going to be created.  --Yamla 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
You said above:


 * "It sounds to me like you're against linking to YouTube video material on principle, simply because few (if any) of these kind of videos include copywrite information." Yes, that's exactly right. We can't link to clips like this that don't give copyright information. Saying it's "obviously homemade" is no reason at all to believe that it's not a copyright infringement. Without a lisence, it can't be linked. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Linking to copyrighted works

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

You are confusing use of copyright material with linking to copyright material. The difference is important, because the standard for determining infringement changes. The case linked orders:


 * Defendants, their agents and those under their control, shall remove from and not post on defendants' website, addresses to websites that defendants know, or have reason to know, contain the material alleged to infringe plaintiff's copyright.

Based on the policy statement and the case law, if you know, or have good reason to believe, that content on YouTube is on YouTube without permission of the copyright holder, then the link should be removed. But absent such information - absent any copyright notice - the link is legal. Embedding such content within Wikipedia would be a fairly obvious violation of WP:COPY and U.S. copyright law, but linking to it, in the absence of clear evidence that the material linked to is in fact infringing, is not a violation of either WP:COPY nor U.S. copyright law.

There are some cases which ought to be fairly obvious. Anything which is obviously a product of most major commercial content producers on YouTube is probably infringing. That would include videos with station-id or network markings, clips from major-studio movies or trailers, music videos of bands signed to major record labels, and most commercials. An exception would exist if there was good reason to believe the uploader was the copyright holder. But many minor content producers, including many student and independent filmmakers will post their material to YouTube, in the belief that exposure of their work to a wider audience is worth giving up potential royalties. So it is not reasonable to assume that all content on YouTube which lacks a copyright notice is actually infringing. Argyriou (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tennis expert
Yes -- I reviewed the user's contributions, the sock-puppeteer's contributions, the reasons for the sock-puppeteer's block, the user's discussions with others responding to the unblock (including Ryulong, who decided to close the request -- an action which, coming from a non-admin, I disagree with -- and then reopened the request upon response from Tennis expert), and then I considered the fact that there seemed to be multiple requests for communication from you, with no response. I am sorry if it seemed disrespectful, but I hoped to show that I meant no disrespect with my comments in the reason for the unblock (in which I said that I didn't wish to step on anyone's toes, but considering the evidence I felt greater harm would come from leaving the seemingly innocent user blocked than waiting for further communication). Again, sorry, and feel free to overturn my action if my unblock of the user was in error. -- Renesis (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "multiple requests for communication from you, with no response"? This is the first message to my talk page about it, and I don't see any other attempts other than Tennis expert's own talk page. You haven't actually offered a reason for the unblock other than that you reviewed the situation, when I tell you that IP and behavioral evidence connects this account to a banned user. Also, I conferred with another CheckUser before making it public. I suggest that you reverse your unblock, and instead offer an argument for unblocking. Dmcdevit·t 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple users on Tennis expert's talk page said they tried to contact you, I assume through email. I don't know how you mean that I have not offered a reason for unblock -- this user seemed to have no (recent) history of disruption, and no similar behavior to the said sock puppeteer, and was reasonable in requests and conversation in response to the block.  Again, I don't see why you are treating me like I am being hostile, I made it very clear originally and again with apology in the above message that I did not consider my position indisputable or meaning to upset anybody else's prerogative.  I know almost nothing about CheckUser, despite trying to research policy with regards to CheckUser decisions and blocking/unblocking.  Everything I read is extremely vague, and I have only had admin privileges for about a week so I have no prior experience to draw from.  If I am in the wrong here, someone who knows more about the situation can take any further action. -- Renesis (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When your first communication to me is via a block log reversing my block, then it does appear hostile. That's not proper adminly behavior. In any case, "no similar behavior"? If you had asked me, I would have explained my reasoning to you. Please take a look at Cute 1 4 u's other sock, Tennislover, who has edited many of the same pages. Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you ever check the message I left on the talk page? -- Renesis (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed Tennislover's contributions, and I've noticed a few things.
 * First, there is quite a difference between Tennislover's obvious and immature attempts to exonerate User:Cute 1 4 u and User:Tennis expert's request for unblock:
 * Tennislover:
 * Tennis expert: (Didn't even type the name correctly the first time),, etc.
 * Second, there is often overlap in editing times with no pattern of articles edited (Nov. 1, Oct. 24, etc.). In some instances needing to log out, log in as Tennislover and make a User Talk edit, log in as Tennis expert again and return to the same articles (tropical cyclones) that Tennis expert was editing previously. Also, this user must practice polyphasic sleep if the two accounts are the same user, as the edits frequently span almost a 24-hour period.
 * Third, Tennislover registered right as User:Cute 1 4 u was being blocked. Tennis expert has amassed 2650 since August. Also, I don't see that much specific article overlap, or even similar patterns of editing.  Tennislover edited a few well-known tennis figure articles and welcomed users, with mostly no edit summaries, while Tennis expert edits competitions, seems to mainly edit user talk pages to notify users of existing scoring format standards, and frequently uses mature edit summaries.
 * --Renesis (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, but I sent you an email about this problem on December 6, 2006, at 05:30 UTC, which you have not answered. user:J.smith said on my talk page that he had "sent a note to dmcdevit." That's at least two requests for communication from you.  I would've placed a note on your talk page but could not do so because I was blocked.  That would have made at least three requests for communication from you.  And what exactly is this behavioral evidence that you believe links me to the banned user?  Tennis expert 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that a new admin would reverse a block applied on the basis of checkuser evidence while admitting to have no idea how checkuser worked. You could have dropped by Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser at the very least. Thatcher131 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a paradox, isn't it? I know/knew what checkuser is, just not that checkuser blocks are apparently not available for reconsideration by admins (if that is in fact the case, then a new template should be used instead of the standard unblock, so that they get placed in a checkuser request log and not in an admin backlog).  Even upon reading after-the-fact, I can't see any clear policy regarding unblocking. -- Renesis (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Checkuser policy does not say anything about who to ban or unban. Checkuser only determines that two or more users are using the same computer.  There have been claims of brother/girlfriend/roommate that have been believed, and some that have been disbelieved.  However, with strong evidence that the tennis users are coming from the same computer as Cute 1, and no forthcoming explanation from them (and a long history of flase claims from this person) I think unblocking was the wrong decision.  Apparently you think that community bans for disruption do not apply to non-disruptive personae that the person is able to maintain.  I disagree. Thatcher131 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is that evidence? I have said that my IP addresses are not the same as the IP addresses used by cute 1 4 U.  I have sworn that I am not cute 1 4 U.  I have given my age and gender.  I have said that my IP addresses will prove that I am no where close to Chicago, Illinois, the suspected home of cute 1 4 U.  I have offered to provide to Dmcdevit by email whatever private information is needed to convince him that I am not cute 1 4 U.  I have emailed Dmcdevit but received nothing but silence in response.  That and much more (including, but not limited to, my 2000+ edit history, my original authorship of numerous articles, my contributions to the tropical cyclone project) constitutes my "forthcoming explanation."  Tennis expert 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u. You may deny that if you like, but I have the button that shows me your IPs, so that's a silly thing to do. Now, you may deny that you are Cute 1 4 u,a nd thre is active discussion about that. Note, it is being actively discussed on-wiki, and here I am, so there's no need to repeatedly claim that I haven't responded to your email (of hardly a day ago), because I have responded here. I don't have any particular reason to want you blocked other than my belief that you are a banned user, so I also will not feeel any great loss if the community decides otherwise. Actually, my greatest irritation in this mess has ben Renesis' rudeness to me, and lack of understanding of what seems to simple common sense in using the admin tools and communicating with others. Dmcdevit·t 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I strenuously deny that I have the same IP address as cute 1 4 U because she and I are not the same person and no one uses my computer except me. It's possible that because of dynamic IP address assignments, she occassionally has an IP address that is the same as one I used IN THE PAST.  I access Wikipedia from two (and only two) computers, through two (and only two) Internet service providers (ISPs).  Right now, my IP is 204.XX.XXX.XX because I am using ISP #1.  Earlier today, my IP was 76.XXX.XXX.XX when I was using ISP #2.  You should be able to verify both IP addresses.  The information that's been reported publicly about cute 1 4 U says that she has an IP of 75.XXX.XXX.XX.  Given that information which you can easily verify, please tell me how I am "on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u."  Or did you mean to say that I am on the same "ISP" as Cute 1 4 U?  If you meant to say the latter, than she, myself, and thousands of other people have the same ISP.  Are all of them sock puppets of cute 1 4 U?  As for your method of responding to my email, contacting the blocking user by email is one of the approved Wikipedia methods for resolving a contested block.  While Wikipedia does not explicitly require the blocking user to respond to the email by email, that's a reasonable implication of the policy.  What was puzzling is that you claimed no attempts to contact you about this matter except for the posts on my talk page.  Your words:  "What do you mean 'multiple requests for communication from you, with no response'? This is the first message to my talk page about it, and I don't see any other attempts other than Tennis expert's own talk page."  user:J.smith also said that he had sent a note to you.  Maybe we should assume that when you posted your comment about not being contacted, you had not yet received my email or J.smith's note.  Tennis expert 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As some one who has had run-ins with Tennis expert I will agree that the user does not display any of the behaviour nor editing patterns shown by C14U. Also: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248. – Chacor 08:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied on ANI. I respectfully disagree. Dmcdevit·t 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My permanent ban case was resolved in my favor: I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 u or Tennislover. I sincerely appreciate Dmcdevit's decision to take a fresh look at the Checkuser data. Tennis expert 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I invisible?
Have my posts been invisible to you? I have done nothing but apologize and explain over, and over, that I did not initially mean any disrespect, and tried to show you my original unblock message to demonstrate that I meant that from the start. I have since explained where I was coming from, that I am happy to have you undo any actions of mine if you see fit, and why I initially did not contact you (because I thought you had already been contacted). I have been here for the last 7 hours communicating with you, and responded to your initial message on my talk page within 11 minutes. Why are you still insisting to me and others that you are upset with my rudeness and lack of communication and common sense? I do not see what more I can do to convince you that I meant no ill-will, did my best to be discern the situation and be communicative initially, and am more than willing to work toward a remedy. What is going on? -- Renesis (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think you meant ill-will. So far, it seems as if your comments have showed that you meant no disrespect in what you did, which is different from understanding why it was. I feel as if your offer that I undo your unblock is useless: if you now recognized that the block before discussion was inappropriate, you would have reversed yourself as I suggested from the start. I will not perform the same admin action twice. I won't. Having said that, if I can make this clear: I don't take anything here personally. Don't be worried that I'm personally offended. I'm not trying to frustrate you, I feel this principle is iportant for maintaining a good atmosphere which is conducive to encyclopedia writing, and so I don't hesitate to express that, but nothing more. Dmcdevit·t 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that helps to know. I just don't understand where your comment above to Tennis expert regarding your irritation over my rudeness was coming from. I have tried to be straightforward, honest, and apologetic -- I don't see where rudeness entered the picture on my part.  I also don't understand where I exhibited not displaying common sense in using admin tools or in communicating -- I feel I exceeded due diligence in both, having done as much research before the action as possible (even if I made a mistake in not recognizing a deeper case), and in having responded to you as quickly as possible at all times.
 * As for neither of us undoing my unblock -- I have not merely because I don't think any further action should be taken until the matter at WP:AN is settled, and I don't feel right reversing an unblock which I still feel (personally) is the correct position. Because of this and since you do not want to redo your own action, it is probably best to leave it to a third party to proceed from here. -- Renesis (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You guys don't get enough kudos. It's not said enough: we really appreciate all the hard work you do as an arbitrator.  Cheers -- Samir धर्म  10:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the recognition. I'm sure what I do is no more valuable than what you do (especially since the job sadly draws me away from the main namespace), maybe only less desirable. For that, I thank you for your countless hours devoted to improving the project. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seahbcan Arbcom
I was wondering after reviewing the proposed decision page why there is no header regarding "Mongo is uncivil", have you personally found after reviewing the evidence for there to be no case of Mongo being uncivil? I wonder because its been said that Fred was lenient with Mongo in his last RfA and now once again there seems to be a call for Seabhcan to lose his admin rights but not Mongo, the only difference I am seeing is that Mongo does not have a section questioning his civility, which is particularly odd considering the numerous edits people have given as evidence on the main evidence page regarding Mongo's civility and Fred only tackling 4 of such eits and only from one user, Travb. Any information or better understanding you can off would be greatly appreciated. Your opinion on this matter is appreciated. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested a re analysis
I and others have made some comments regarding the proposed decisions on the Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan under the section "Railroad" that I hope you consider.--MONGO 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the section header name "Railroad" was not chosen by MONGO. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my admitted rudeness, I thought I put a question mark there though. --Nuclear Zer0 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence has been posted regarding desysopping.--MONGO 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I may not know
What did you mean by fishing ... --evrik (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Image:Ethanol_Car.jpg
Hello, can you please undelete my image? Whoever took it and uploaded it to Commons didn't list me as the source, and it was deleted there. Now it has been removed from my User page and key articles. Uris 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input sought
Pmanderson is up for another RfA, and I had similar experiences to the ones you were talking about on his last RfA. I don't think he's ready, or may not even have the temperament period (as witnessed also by his recent 3RR). Skyemoor 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:USA-satellite.jpg
Hi! You deleted that image some time ago, because it was in Commons. But it has been from there also, and Geography of the United States now shows a broken link. I wonder if you could undelete the image. If there is any source info, I can upload the file again to commons, and if there isn't any, we can leave it here under the fair use rights. Thanks. --Angus 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant
This account is interesting... yandman 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ani
Any clues to whether Pkulkarni and green23 are connected? I added the link to the rfcu on the ani section on "buddhism" and sockpuppetry. Baka man  23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You have got Email
Hi, can you please check your email...Jidan 23:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO
With this much support, it seems difficult to make the case he is egregiously uncivil or unfair enough to warrant desysopping. Why not propose a "Blocking Parole" and limit MONGO's blocks to 48 hours in lieu of desysopping? --Tbeatty 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wish for MONGO to reconsider his departure and value his contributions, but your proposals are unworkable. "limit MONGO's blocks to 48 hours"&mdash;This addresses no problem: simple vandalism and inappropriate usernames get indefinite blocks, and even 24 hour blocks can be inappropriate. Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But how is that different from a civility parole? There is no absolute guarantee, rather it is up to the honor of each person (with escalating penalties for non-compliance).  limiting block times limits the impact of admin abuse.  LImit it to 3 hours if you think the time is important.  It allows blocks to expire without a wheel war.  It seems this would be a form of counseling.  it seems that almost all of the admin abuse claims about Mongo stem from quick, indefinite blocks.  Limiting blocks to {3 to 48} hours eliminates the abuse and allows other admins to "catch up".  Similarly, a page protection probation for Seabhcan could be implemented.  Again, it's an honor parole just like most of Wikipedia polices.   --Tbeatty 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no correlation between block lengths and appropriateness. Even warnings may be inappropriate. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But all the remedies are geared towards limiting the damage, not adressing problems.  Desysopping is an attempt to limit damage.  Limiting his block time to a time limit is a form of limiting the damage.  Just like revert parole with a block penalty is an attempt to limit the damage without indefintely blocking the editor.  If you have an editor who keeps reverting, you put him on revert parole, you don't ban him indefinitely unless he ignores the parole. The damage is reverting so reverting is addressed.  In this case, MONGO is a great administrator who may have been overzealous in some circumstances by indefintely banning some editors, but wouldn't you rather want to reduce the damage from the overzealousness while allowing the great administrator acts to continue?   Wikipedia is built around limiting the damage, not disabling editors and admins.   Think about how damage from IP vandalism is combatted:  semi-protection, IP blocks, IP range blocks, checkuser, sockpuppet blocks, user blocks, full-page protections.  These are all steps used to limit the damage of the person doing the edits.  The "problem" is never addressed as you say above, rather the damage is managed progressively.  There is no reason to desysop MONGO when the damage of his actions can be managed in a less agressive manor.  --Tbeatty 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 (as well as Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2 and Requests for arbitration/Everyking) where the arbitration committee has previously grappled with an admin who was good on the technical aspects but poor at interpersonal relationships, especially regarding other admins. Thatcher131 09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, to use your language, your proposal limits blocks, but doesn't limit damage. Desysopping solves the problem. Everyking (at the time of that arbitration) is a good foil, though I differ from Thatcher's use of the case: that case was about an admin with civility problems, but no deonstrated problems with administrative misconduct. The resolution was to impose restrictions that didn't affect his adminship. Here, the impetus for desysopping is based solely in the judgment demonstrated as an administrator. Your essential problem here is equating administrator issues with editorial issues. Adminship is not a big deal; it is certainly not an entitlement. As I've said: taking away some useful buttons in no way inhibits participation in and contribution to the encyclopedia. This is the difference between editor sanctions (bans) and administrator ones (desysopping). There is very little potential for harm to the encyclopedia in a more liberal stance on desysopping; individual adminships are not important when we have a large pool of them, and it doesn't adversely affect contribution to the encyclopedia. This holds true even when I recognize that the vast majority of an administrator's actions were noncontroversial and helpful: desysopping in the case of a few clear misjudgments, especially with lack of understanding of why they were misjudgments, is still called for. A conservative stance on desysopping is far more likely to be disruptive to the community. Dmcdevit·t 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of desyssoping. Regardless of the intent, it sends the same message to the community that banning someone does. A desysopping that is perceived as unjust damages the community in exactly the same way as an unjust block does. A permanent editing ban solves the problem too, but it is disproportionate to the problem. Desysopping is disproportionate too. This is not about the sheer number of editors or admins as you could argue that no single block or desysopping has a substantial impact to the project. But alienating large groups of editors by liberal interpretation of the desysopping policy (or a liberal interpreation of the blocking policy for that matter) is the damage that is done. There is no entitlement to either editing or admin tools but the good faith of the community depends on sanctions being applied in a proportionate manner. Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 In the case cited by Thatcher, Everyking problems are essentially his interactions with other Admins at AN/I. The Everyking problem could clearly be solved by desysopping too since sniping at admins is tolerated by editors (or at least I would hope so if adminship is no big deal). If you want admins that ban trolls, block disruptive editors, etc, then you can't make the admin "death penalty" the solution when a mistake is made especially when those mistakes are easily corrected and not wheel warred. The overwhelming majority of MONGO's admin actions are appropriate and measured. Active admins are bound to make mistakes and they need a proportionate remedy to those mistakes. --Tbeatty 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty, your pleas on behalf of Mongo are bizarre. I think it would be difficult to find examples of Mongo using admin tools appropriately. How many editors have received an editors "death penalty" from Mongo acting as judge, executioner and jury (along with his minions)? These were valuable editors basically chased away from the project by a power hungery admin: a power hungry admin who shows he has no interest in the project if he can't misuse that power. This is not an admin "death penalty". Mongo is simply having the power he's abused taken away and now he's threating wiki suicide. And Mongo's abuse of admin tools and abuse of disciplinary channels have placed an undue burden on everyone else on Wikipedia. He shows no remorse whatsoever. Some editors should just never be an admin. Mongo is clearly one of those. --OhTheIrony 16:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pkulkarni is back
He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits and. Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist movement ). Hkelkar 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already blocked the user as an obvious sock. I have also extended Pkulkarni's block to 2 months. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Konstable arbitration
Hi. I have probably invested more effort in the Konstable arbitration than the situation might have merited (and probably more than any of the parties have). However, following yesterday's (one-word) post to the Proposed Decision talk page by User:Ryulong, I went back and checked a couple of things in the logs. Konstable appears to be right that the "Ryushort" imposter account was created before his "AltUser" account. There is no evidence that Konstable and Ryulong were ever in conflict about anything other than Ryulong's response to AltUser, which obviously occured afterwards, and both of them deny it. This leaves the finding about to be adopted, that Ryushort was created when Konstable and Ryulong were quarrelling, unsupported by any evidence.

The proposed remedy about to be adopted in the case is reasonable if perhaps unnecessary (though the section header should be retitled), but the rationale for it is not dependent on the finding I am raising. (Note that this is also a separate question from the argument Ryulong made and the follow-up question I asked about Ryushort = Konstable checkuser result, which was never responded to, but I'm not the technician on that.) It seems wholly undesirable that an ArbCom decision issue with a demonstrably unsupported and seemingly incorrect finding of fact. It is submitted that that paragraph, or at least the sentence claiming that Konstable was in a dispute with Ryulong when "Ryushort" was created, should be stricken. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already submitted the matter to the mailing list (not wanting to unilaterally change a measure with five supports) and am waiting for a response. Dmcdevit·t 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your consideration. I'm sorry not to have made this point earlier in the case. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Closures of Konstable and Hkelkar
Apparently the closure of Konstable with the present wording is in doubt (?), and Hkelkar has asked for a 6 day extension to prepare mitigating evidence in an appeal for a less severe outcome. Since we don't have access to the mailing list, can you give the clerks some guidance at Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration on whether to postpone the closes or not? And if so, let us know when they are released? Thanks. Thatcher131 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Konstable can go ahead. I brought the matter up on the mailing list, and will change it once there is sufficient feedback, and I can just modify the finished product for that. As for Hkelkar, I'm recused, but I would say that the party's request doesn't affect the case until an arbitrator proposes it. Frankly, it looks like a delaying tactic to me. Dmcdevit·t 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)