User talk:Dominic/Archive20

RJASE1 -- RFCU
Thanks for doing this CU. I'm actually rather glad that they aren't related to RJASE1. For future reference, was it worth filing the request, seeing that you had just completed the checkuser that showed that TortureIsWrong != TortureIsBad = RJASE1? I filed the request to see if there were other socks. Would you have already found that out when you did the first CU? If it was a waste of time, then I want to make sure I don't file that type of RFCU in the future. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser/RPJ case
I am not sure what you mean when you say "unless you have something for me to to compare against". What would you need? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It means I need a recent confirmed account, or any previously confirmed IP. Dmcdevit·t 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My turn to add on
Please take some action before it once again escalates. I btw did not actually revert Hillock, but removed clear trolling by User:Ukrained. --Kuban Cossack 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you kidding? This all within hours from gettin out of a block on multiple articles:. And the Admin Notice Board yet again: . Can he stay a single day without reverts?--Hillock65 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also this . --Kuban Cossack 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kuban, I just asked you to contain your incivility when you were blocked for edit warring a few days ago, and here you come to show me a link of you calling someone a troll as you revert them? Comment on content, not on the contributor. As for Russians in Ukraine, dispute resolution is that way. If either of you continue the reverting without before you've started mediation, don't be surprised if you are blocked immediately. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Calbrina36
Noticed this puppy was trolling on RFA's--is this a sock of someone I should know about? I wanna be able to keep an eye out ... the person had the distinctive odor of being from somebody's sock drawer. --Blueboy96 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was no persona I recognized, it was just part of a bunch of run-of-the-mill userpage vandals and troll accounts on an IP. Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia
Hi, I noticed you recently blocked Corticopia. I appreciate your input on the thread at The Noticeboard. I was wondering why you said he should be blocked if his actions continue, but didn't mention what you feel should be done now. I appreciate it if you clarified this point at the the Thread

Thanks,

 BH  (T|C) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a misunderstanding. Maybe "It is time for a longer block if it has continued." would have been better: I didn't mean if there is more after now, I mean if there has been more misbehavior after the previous block there should be something done. If I hadn't already blocked him before I might have done so when I saw the thread, but I think it's a good idea to make sure the same administrators doesn't block someone many times, if possible, so it doesn't become appear as a personal issue to the person being blocked, which would make it even less likely that they'd get the message. Dmcdevit·t 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for clarifying that.  BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Noticed that you blocked him, thanks.  BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars
Hello, and thanks for your concern over the article. You are indeed correct; when I stepped back and took a look at it, I realize that I have fallen into a "revert war". I never really imagined i'd be one to get caught in it, but I guess the joke is on me. Thank you for your suggestions as well and I will make sure to try those out next, as editing back and forth won't solve anything. Feel welcome to keep watch as a possible mediator too, your input is more than welcome! MezzoMezzo 06:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hat tip the second
Dmcdevit, I tip my hat to you once again for uncovering this ongoing abuse., .Proabivouac 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a feeling he's not planning on leaving it at that though... Dmcdevit·t 07:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh.Requests for arbitration. Proabivouac 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians
In response to your deletion rationale:


 *  ' Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose. ' 

I would submit to you that:


 * 1) It is not divisive; it a statement of placement in the political spectrum, and while there may be those who would seek out categories like this to catch targets for flaming (I myself have not seen such, but I imagine it happens on occasion), I find it impossible that it would deliberately offend anyone.
 * 2) It is not a statement from a soapbox; in no way, shape or form does the category 'preach' to anyone; again, it is a statement, and simply that.
 * 3) It is not an expression simply for its own sake, which your citation of WP:NOT seems to suggest. It, like Category:Furry Wikipedians, also allows a venue of collaboration on topics of concern to libertarian socialists.
 * 4) It is of service to the encyclopædia, as much as WikiProjects are; there is not enough demand to make a WikiProject for this particular group quite yet, as the number of the category's inhabitants shows.

With these four points in mind, I would then submit to you a request that you undelete the category.  Bl a  st  [ improve me ] 13.06.07 1020 (UTC)
 * Saying "It is not divisive; it a statement of placement in the political spectrum" and "It is not a statement from a soapbox... it is a statement, and simply that" is setting up a couple of false dichotomies. A "statement" can still be a divisive and advocacy. These categories exist for the sole purpose of grouping users according to their personal points of view, and that does nothing for the encyclopedia. You say that it is a venue for collaboration, but I would seriously question that claim unless you have any examples of such use. I have a political ideology, and other points of view as well, but that does not mean I edit in those articles. Indeed, in your last 1000 edits (an astounding amount of which are userbox-related) I don't see any edits to articles related to this topic. In fact, it looks like you are simply broadcasting your point of view, which is soapboxing. Dmcdevit·t 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the political categories should be reinstated. Apparently, they were removed out of process, and process should be paramount in the Wikipedia. Further, I agree with the arguments that Blast advances. I also will declare that removal of these categories is far more divisive than the categories themselves could ever dream of being (and divisiveness was never their purpose anyway). Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to jump in here in support of Blast and Stevie. I notice that Category:Masculist Wikipedians has just been deleted with the comment: "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". Dmcdevit, if you really believe that, then please have the courage of your convictions. This category should be deleted only if you also dare to delete Category:Feminist Wikipedians. If that isn't done, I will look at re-creating the Masculist category. Gnostrat 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're absolutely correct that Category:Feminist Wikipedians should go, but see WP:POINT.Proabivouac 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really believe that. I would have loved to have deleted that category that you so wisely pointed out, Gnostrat, but it looks like someone got there before me. Anyway, thanks for your support. Dmcdevit·t 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, as I stated above in a previous discussion, I do not edit much in the mainspace these days; yet that is not the point, since I am not the only 'member' of that category. If you do not edit in the articles which you are affiliated—very well. However, if someone were to come to me and ask 'can you find references for the rise of libertarian socialism in country such-and-such?', then I should be glad to gather references, or refer the person to someone else who can. Further, what I meant was that the statement did not go beyond what it said; if the category was named 'Wikipedians who support libertarian socialism' or 'Wikipedians who think libertarian socialism is the best form of government ever conceived, period', then you would have a point. As it stands (or rather stood), however, it was nothing of the sort.  Bl a  st  [ improve me ] 14.06.07 2111 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dmcdevit, reading that gloat over yet another category deletion, I'm finding that assumption of good faith is a position you are making rather difficult for me to sustain. At a glance through the political Wikipedians category you can see that it's abnormally bare compared to philosophy or religion, which can be no less "divisive". By definition, dividing is what categories do, so how far does a point of principle stretch? As for WP:POINT, the phrase I used was "look at"; I don't recall talking about anything disruptive. The current deletions are what I would call disruptive, since if the point of having categories is to promote coordination between people of similar interests, then impeding that communication could prove harmful to the encyclopedia.


 * But let me try to be constructive. If the problem is perceived advocacy, we could exclude any possibility for misinterpretation by simply creating new categories for "Wikipedians interested in libertarian socialism/feminism/masculism/whatever", which would not require the people in those categories to actually be libertarian socialists and so forth (i.e. the present 'identity' templates would place editors into 'interest' categories). I don't know if anybody has talked about this but it looks doable to me and I would think it might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable. As for your current deletions policy, the success of that will be determined by how well the relevant articles fare, as measured by editor feedback no doubt. Gnostrat 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit,. I have no axe to grind either way about these categories: probably, on balance, I'd prefer their deletion, but it's not a big deal for me either way. I am posting here only because my attention was drawn to these deletions by another editor who posted to my talk page.

However, I can see no speedy deletion criteria to justify the deletion on sight of the long list of categories at your deletion log, on the grounds that they are "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". You may well be right in that assessment, but why not just put these categories up for discussion at WP:UFCD? I am minded to restore them, but would first like to hear your reasons for speedy-deleting them rather than nominating them at WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What BHG said, though I have a preference for some of the categories staying. This kind of behavior completely ignores the consensus model of the Categories for Discussion. As I see it, you have a couple of choices: Go to ARBCOM, and see if you can get the entire system of CfD overturned; or participate in the system by actually nominating categories you want to see deleted. But taking the mantle on yourself can't possibly have good results, as at minimum people like me will work to revert your edits, and at maximum people like me will work to make sure you don't have the ability to do it. I'd like to avoid that.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV of Brandt
I understand your dismay. I did attempt to talk to AMIB as did a few other people on the talk page of the AfD. He remained adamant and it seemed clear that no productive discussion was forthcoming. I do agree that it might have been a better idea to wait longer. JoshuaZ 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Regarding your comment on the Arbcom enforcement noticeboard. The only way to solve this issue is if Atabek and I, just the two of us with no outside interference, go into an arbcom, where we post our evidence and let the neutral third party admins decide. I will remind you that Atabek was initially going to be blocked for 1 year for this kind of behavior, but wasnt due to a split vote. I'm not here to say anything more than just that I am planning to make a request for arbcom between Atabek. We've tried RFC, I've tried making a peace proposal with him, we've tried mediation, nothing worked, the last step is arbcom. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete a category without depopulation
Dmcdevit, when you attempt to delete a category, please inform the residents in the category to remove them from the pages first and depopulate the category. Deleting category speedily without depopulation leaves a whole bunch of unnecessary red links. Thank you! WooyiTalk to me? 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, a bot is on the job and will get to it eventually. Special:Contributions/AMbot is taking care of it. Dmcdevit·t 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some userboxes
Dmcdevit, User:Itaqallah brought these userboxes to my attention:User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/christian_homophobia,User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/Islamic_misogeny [sic.] What is your opinion of them?Proabivouac 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were in the template namespace, they'd be speedied. Instead, if someone puts it in the user namespace and transcludes it to pages in a way that is functionally identical to templates, we treat it as if it is somehow different and exempt from deletion. It's completely illogical to me, but, frankly, I have enough on my plate as it is. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical Liberal Wikipedians
Hi - Did you delete this category? If so, why? "Classical Liberal" is a widely accepted phrase describing a school of thought. KConWiki 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that at all. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal opinion, and, indeed, categorizing users based on point of view is a bad idea for an encyclopedia seeking cooperation and the neutral point of view. Please feel free to describe yourself as a "Classical Liberal" on your user page (though as a matter of taste I wouldn't) but the category is unnecessary. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it is a good check against biases (intended or unintended) because the more I identify my opinions in a context clearly distinct from any Wiki articles, the more readily my edits and contributions to those aricles can be checked and balanced by those with different opinions. KConWiki 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with KConWiki's above comment. SteinAlive 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Liberal Wikipedians
Rather disturbed at the deletion of this page, not least as it was nominated for deletion in March, the result being a VERY strong KEEP. Could you say now why it has been deleted without further discussion. Thanks Galloglass 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hello. I have not posted on this page since last Christmas, but I do remember and appreciate how effectively you contributed to reducing revert-warring on a number of Eastern European topics. Now it seems we have a new hot spot, Estonia. There is a number of editors, apparently all based at the Tartu University, making disturbing edits in contradiction to a bunch of guidelines. Stray picks mostly taken from the first day when I took a look there (note edit summaries):  ... Mind-boggling revert warring is accompanied by baiting, accusations of "bad faith" and "patent lies", and a healthy dose of good old trolling in the vein of Bonaparte.   User:Petri Krohn, a Finn who can't be accused of being pro-Russian, seems to be the only non-Estonian editor interested in monitoring these subjects on a regular basis and he has to face an avalanche of complaints from the Tartu guys on ANI and elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians for some context). He asked me for advice, but I really can't figure out what may be done to counter tendentious editing by a team of determined users from the same establishment. When you have some spare time, please take a look at what's going on with Estonian articles. Thanks in advance, Ghirla-трёп- 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The situation is getting more exacerbated each day, as the newest thread on my talk page testifies. I am told that the page has already been the subject of an arbitration, but I'm not sure what it was all about. What a pity that I can't contribute to the project as much as I used to. Furthermore, I'm trying to keep myself away from nationalist disputes and revert-warring. I believe the interested parties should apply to requests for law enforcement or whatever they call it. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply don't have time for this any more. It looks like that article has a probation on it, and anyone being disruptive can be banned from editing it or related articles. Perhaps you should try reporting it at WP:AE. Sorry. Dmcdevit·t 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, you might learn something...
I've dealed before with the likes of you, who go around believing that they have the authority to delete everything based on their high-and-mighty principles of "NPOV" and other assorted crap. Know that the Wikipedian categories you deleted had already survived the deletion attempts of others before you, and they will not end with you. Don't give me your "divisive" garbage, we're not one big, happy, family of hippies. If you can't handle the fact that Wikipedians have varying political opinions, do us all a favour and stay put. I will soon be recreating the Wikipedian categories you deleted, and if you return to your shameful deletionsit ways, I have higher authorities that I can report to. And a good day to you as well. --Voievod 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid intentionally recreating previously deleted material might lead to a block. I suggest you use WP:DRV instead. Which one is it you dispute in particular? Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have unabashedly deleted "Wikipedians who support Romanian-Moldovan reunification" and "Euroskeptic Wikipedians"; I have read that you have also deleted "Classical Liberals". Nice, shows the kind of person you are. --Voievod 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Please, take a look and here. The extent of IP sockpuppeting by User:Tajik in the second case, is just incredible. Thanks. Atabek 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sosomk
Dmcdevit, you might remember this user from Georgia (country). After returning from the block Sosomk maintains the same attitude, revert warring and incivility. My was declined. I asked for it to be reconsidered. Tamokk 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was several days ago now. If he continues, well deal with it then. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now he seems to be careful about 3RR. But this does not makes his edits without merit less disruptive. e.g. Recently he changed the etymology section of the article, promoting something what a medieval theologian has stated to a fact status, and downgrading scientifically referenced material to an alternative. I can not havoc over the article 24/7 like him. Tamokk 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, returning from the block, as you can see, I initiated voting on the Talk:Georgia (country) and most editors favored my version of the economy section and that way I was able to quell down the RV war. On the other hand, Tamokk, anti-EU and pro-Russian editor, made friends with User:Alaexis and is still warring over the economy section. I think that the only person who really needs go on the block is Tamokk just to relax a little bit. Thanks, SosoMK 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lie. I am not rv warring. Despite that the voting was initiated uniliterally by Sosomk. And most people who voted for his version were just those who I had confronted at some stage, and they apparently (I suspect) had not even read the article, I did comply with the result of that voting, and did not revert it until I wrote new, expanded and corrected section, which now again is being reverted by S. without any reason. In other words, this is S. who is rv warring, and again is incivil, attaching some cliches to other users (anti-EU etc.).

Dmcdevit, sorry for this dispute on your talk page. I just wanted to answer Sosomk's comments. Again I will initiate 3RR against S. Tamokk 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, all three of you initiate mediation before reverting the article any more. Dmcdevit·t 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I already initiated this.
 * I understand, but that is not dispute resolution. Please also pursue mediation. Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Azeri socks
Hi, Dmcdevit.

I have blocked a bunch of obvious socks:, , , ,. They are obvious socks of an experienced Azeri user, but I do not know who. Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot User:Atabek, but I am not sure that it is him). In the event the master is identifiable he should probably be blocked. Can you do checkuser to identify the master? Alex Bakharev 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex Bakharev, can you please, provide diffs for your claim about "Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot User:Atabek". Also, I would like to draw attentions to this diff as well as accusation made earlier, with an apology provided afterwards . Thanks. Atabek 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant blocked by Golbez as very likely a sockpuppet of atabek; firing first, caring later: it did the same edits. Please note that unlike Golbez I have not attributed the sock yet Alex Bakharev 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, have not looked into your diffs. Then I am sorry, for mentioning your name; still I think this a sock of one of the experienced Azeri users, most probably named in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcom Alex Bakharev 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while making title "Azeri socks", you should check the same report, which has an obvious sock User:TheTruth4578, which as its history shows, was created solely to make rv's on that page. I understand that this does not fall to "Azeri socks" category, but nevertheless, it's still a sock. Atabek 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked him. Thanks for the report Alex Bakharev 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser shows that one of those accounts is not related with any registered Azerbaijani users: Grandmaster 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility
Could you please take a look at 71.235.81.32. I warned him against making offensive remarks such as this one 1. He just responded with this on his talk  page 2, and left this comment on the talk page for New England 3. Is there a way you could block a range of IP addresses since he mentioned on his talk page (diff 2) that he can create IP addresses as he pleases? I'd take this too WP:ANI, but there kind of slow when it comes to responding to my threads. Thanks,  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He just left this on my talk page 4  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs

 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, having checked the CheckUser log, it doesn't look like a checkuser was ever run on either of those accounts. You'll just have to get an admin to make a judgment call, if the evidence is convincing enough. Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy block for 161.200.255.162
Hi. I see that you blocked 161.200.255.162 (talk, contribs, block log) on 15 May for being an open proxy. Apparently, the proxy is used by Chulalongkorn University and all traffic from the University's networks seem to go through it. I already put an unblock request at WP:OP, but thought you might be able to tell me if the network configurations need to be fixed, so that I may notify those responsible. - Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for bumping, but I'm not sure if you saw my message the first time. - Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't remember why I blocked it as an open proxy. Having checked again, it looks clean, o I'll unblock it. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JackLumber
Please do not censor Jack's userpage. Our policy prohibits personal attacks, not general comments. Leave others' user pages alone, please. Discuss the issue with Jack if it really bothers you. Thank you.  Sala Skan  22:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Salaskan) Regarding : Please do no revert me with an anti-vandal tool without any discussion. As to the content of the revert, a big banner saying "STAY AWAY FROM WIKTIONARY. Wiktionary is full of idiots." is very disruptive. Do not add it in again. Dmcdevit·t 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You want to remove content from Jack's userpage. Discuss it with him instead. This is not a blatant personal attack, so may not be removed at the discretion of anyone. It is his user page, after all. (comments moved to your talk page, centralised discussion)  Sala Skan  22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am not a vandal, actually. That we have a policy on personal attacks does not mean that a general attack on a group of editor is acceptable. That is absurd. Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you are not a vandal, I just clicked the 'rollback' button instead of manually clicking 'undo' as it was a bit faster, sorry.  Sala Skan  10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Thanks for the checkuser on Doctor11. Best wishes.--MONGO 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For my reference since he filed an arbitration request that was removed based on your findings, who did you determine that he was? If there is an on-wiki checkuser, link? Thanks much, Newyorkbrad 10:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There wasn't an on-wiki request, but it was . Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that after I posted here ... I'm not familiar with that particular bannee, but since this was a sock, I'm glad it was spotted. Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

H
I was wondering--since you're a former arbitrator, would it be appropriate to get ArbCom to rule that anyone who unblocks User:ColScott will be desysopped? I know this is extreme, but given the situation, I would think that anyone who unblocks him has no business being an admin. Blueboy96 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will happen Blueboy96, the only way he ever would get unblocked is if it was by the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, or the Arbitration Committee, and then it would be an official act. --MichaelLinnear 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't see the point in an ArbCom general threat. You should also consider the potential consequences of needlessly antagonizing ColScot further. Dmcdevit·t 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WT:UCFD
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion and possibly the section directly above it. –Pomte 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're asking about it
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Could you please explain? Kwsn (Ni!) 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose.
Hello. There are currently 28 instances of "WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose." on the ucfd page. While although I won't complain about the number of categories you nominate (if one assumes that there are far too many categories, then it makes sense that several would be nominated), I'm nevertheless concerned about the lack of individual consideration you appear to be giving each nomination. If you wish to remove something that someone else has consciously and deliberately included, then it's only respectful to treat each such case as an individual and unique case. Bot-like actions aren't very sensitive to the editors who may be affected by your actions. Particularly disappointing is the constant inclusion of the link to not#myspace. While although, obviously, some tags are used for social networking, this is not always the case. And treating them all like they are, with such a blanket declaration, is impolite at the very least. It even suggests a tendency to assume bad faith. Again, I'm not asking you to stop nominating categories for deletion. You do what you feel is best for the project. But I would ask that you rethink the manner in which you go about doing it. Bladestorm 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think there is a lack of individual consideration. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that you make the characterization of "bot-like" before even we've talked about it; you know, I wish I'd been able to have bot do it! The fact is, if you look, most of the contested nominations have comments from me elaborating on my reasoning, many times pointing out specifics that have to do with the category in question. I am not being bot-like. But, I have to deal with the fact that there are many, many hundreds or thousands of these categories, and the fact that the majority of these categories are simply uncontested deletions. Most are instantly obvious why they were nominated and what the problem is, and crafting a customized is unnecessary and a waste of time. As for whether linking to WP:NOT is an assumption of bad faith, this mystifies me. Many people come here and create inappropriate content created in good faith, be it dictionary definitions, self-promotion, or these categories. We deal with them by deleting the content, but that doesn't mean that those people acted in bad faith. My linking to the policy that justifies their deletion, or that I think does, and that most people seem to be agreeing with me on, does not in any way constitute my assuming bad faith on the part of the category creators. Dmcdevit·t 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I was harsher than necessary, looking back.
 * But I'd like you to look at how it looks. Seeing the exact same piece of text twenty-eight times in the same page really doesn't look good. Also, not every personal touch that's added, even if it is non-collaborative, is intended to be used for social networking. Just off the top of my head, the example of "Wikipedians with World Citizenship". Sure, at first, it looks silly. But, when you think about it... wikipedia currently has a major problem with nationalistic editors trying to put in severely-skewed ethnocentric views. Some editors pushing pro-israel agendas. Some pushing pro-palestinian (I know, not a nation, but same idea) agendas. Some pushing american styles over english, and vice versa. Someone declaring that these borders are meaningless is not entirely identical to social networking, or using their userpages as personal webpages.
 * And yet, the only thing you have to say about people declaring that they won't put such a significance on borders/nationalities: "WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose." And that's the only rationale provided. Nothing else. Does that really not seem like you're jumping to a conclusion about the purpose of the category? And can you really not see how it would, at least, seem like you aren't putting much consideration into each nomination individually? Bladestorm 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are conflating categories with user pages. Categories don't have anything to do with user self-expression. Removing categories does not remove the templates that the majority of these are populated by. "Declaring that borders are meaningless" (which isn't necessarily the same as declaring to not be a nationalist: opposing state borders is a POV of its own) is not being restricted in any way, as categories don't declare anything. They just group pages for navigation. No one is proposing that declarations be removed from user pages. That is the major reason I have cited WP:NOT. None of these require users to be grouped, whether they want to make declarations on their user pages or not. Dmcdevit·t 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I entirely understand what's being nominated. :) (With that in mind, I'd ask that you re-read the last entry I wrote here; hopefully you can understand the problem) In any event, obviously I can't stop you from continuing. I just wanted to point out how it looks. Bladestorm 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not trying to talk past you. I suppose you can't really stop me, but I'm not threatening to ignore you like that: you expressed concerns and I'm trying to talk to you about it. :-) Now, I see that your point seems mostly to be that even if all the nominations are good, they look automated, and nominated en masse at random because it appears as just a big block of identical comments. That can cause resentment from the people whose categories are up for deletion and see the page like that. I can see that too, but as long as it seems that most of them are being deleted as is, (and there are hundreds if not thousands more) I'm not sure what else to do. What do you suggest? Dmcdevit·t 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Just give each nomination its own phrasing. Obviously, there will be a LOT of overlapping (there's no way to nominate that many without it sounding redundant), but I'm guessing you're using copy&paste? Just don't do that. :) And try to avoid linking to things like not#myspace. There's a biiig difference between saying, "this has little value beyond social networking", and, "this was intended for social networking". There's nothing wrong with saying a category can't be used for social networking, but it may be better to argue that it isn't being used for social networking.
 * Also, are you considering other options for seemingly bad categories? For example, just take the 'religion' category. I believe that category can be used for responsible collaberation (see my 'kosher foods' example). However, it's also true that, by putting the category into a userbox, it was probably being applied in cases where it shouldn't have been. Did you consider petitioning to remove the category from the userbox first, and then see if it was still be using frivolously? Anyways, food for thought. Bladestorm 22:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually didn't participate in the religion categories discussion. ;-) Well, I was using WP:NOT#MYSPACE because that is the policy that relates to this. I suppose I could pipe it to something else to try to avoid any insinuation. In fact, I haven't been saying (other than the implications of the links) that it it was intended for or has little value other than for social networking, I have been trying to say that it has no collaborative value, which makes the point better, I thought. In any case, I'll try to take these concerns into account. See this nomination. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik decided
The above named arbitration case, in which you have commented, has been decided. The Arbitration Committee endorses the current indefinite ban on Tajik, and also has banned him for one year should his indefinite ban be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:User socialist
Could you please move this to the namespace of the creator instead of deleting it (WP:MIG), or nominate it for deletion if you want to get rid of it?  Sala Skan  21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This was deleted according to policy. Please see WP:CSD. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't recreate this as a redirect. I've deleted it again. Dmcdevit·t 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to speedydelete everything on Userboxes/Politics as "divisive or inflammatory"?  Sala  Skan  10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These rabid Deletionists simply must be reigned in. They're like locusts over the land. I mean, what is motivating them? A tender paternalistic care for the magnetic disks at Wikipedia HQ, worrying that they are being called upon to store too many bytes? Just don't get it. JDG 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! This is my talk page. I'm not sure what you thought it was, but this comment does seem to belong here, or anywhere on the project, for that matter. Please come back when when you feel like being constructive. Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit, again, could you please explain why the socialist template was "divisive or inflammatory", and all the other templates at Userboxes/Politics aren't? And also why you didn't just move it to the userspace of the creator?  Sala Skan  12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a response.  Sala Skan  11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A day or two is not a big deal. I don't quite understand your assertion. You don't like that I deleted this template, so I should delete more? What you are trying to say, I think, with fallacious reasoning, is that I singled this one out unfairly. Well, I deleted around 4, but I'm not going to delete them all because, frankly, Idon't feel and urgency so there is no need for drastic action when measured action will suffice. And deleting them all at once would cause unnecessary fuss that would distract from the issue. Dmcdevit·t 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wonder how 'I'm a socialist' is "inflammatory", but 'I'm a capitalist' is not. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could restore the redirect, because the template is used on many userpages and CSD T1 doesn't apply in userspace (unless the template is obviously offensive).  Sala Skan  09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User socialist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall
Hi. When you requested a week ago that Category:Administrators open to recall be speedily renamed to Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall, you neglected to tag the category. Discussion of problems caused by the name change is here. Your input is welcome on the new proposal of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Tim Smith 03:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot
What is the purpose of: (Robot: Automated text replacement (- +)) --DieWeisseRose 04:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN. The edits were just housekeeping after the closure. Dmcdevit·t 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This "housekeeping" partially and selectively depopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. I don't agree that there was any consensus for this or to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance ". I would ask you to please undo these changes. --DieWeisseRose 07:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have notified the Admin who closed the review of my disagreement on her/his Talk page. --DieWeisseRose 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also FYI, Tony is not an admin. Viridae Talk 07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Considerable concern was expressed about the abuse of templates like this for proselytism and the like. My close was an attempt to answer those very serious concerns while permitting editors to user the userspace for the purpose of displaying notice of their biases in a manner that they choose.  In short, there should be no visible effect to the change.  It merely stops editors abusing the whatlinkshere mechanism to find someone who shares their politics.  We're not a social networking site and the problems of people of like politics banding together is a real one. --Tony Sidaway 07:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The userbox was nominated for deletion because it was allegedly "... divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad." This conclusion was rejected. I don't agree with you that there was "Considerable concern ... expressed about the abuse of templates like this for proselytism and the like" nor was there any consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox". Also, Dmcdevit's implementation of your deletion review summary/decision resulted in the partial and selective depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. Will you please revise your deletion review summary/decision? --DieWeisseRose 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think the close was the most equitable possible. It doesn't harm legitimate expression on user pages but it does very effectively sabotage attempts to abuse Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved this dispute to Deletion Review. --DieWeisseRose 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your claims there are false. You can see from the edit history that I didn't edit the template. All I did was run a script to carry out the closure. The decision was made by the closing party, Tony. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My assertion that you edited the userbox in my user space was incorrect and I have corrected the error on the delrev page. My apologies. --DieWeisseRose 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deadminship proposal
Hi, I liked your proposal here and was about to start a discussion on something like this but you've already done so. I also learned there are a lot of other proposals too. I wonder why none of them got through. What happened to your proposal? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That proposal is more than a year old, I'd almost forgotten it. I'm still not sure I like it because of the amount of process it institutes. There is always the difficult work of getting an effective mechanism that isn't susceptible to trolls. In particular, though, there is the idea that most administrators, even ones who have done a good job, have made plenty of enemies who would like to see them desysopped. In the end, it seems most people are content to stick with what we have. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw the dates on it, it was an old proposal but it was about what I was thinking. Even if anyone has made enemies, they should still go through an RfA if they qualify for one. I agree though, the presense of trolls is what will make it difficult. Do you mind if I make that page as a starter and see if I can shape it? I really beleive that this kind of "trimming" will eventually get rid of bad ops and once they're gone, it will be much better. In real life governments too they have systems to bring down corrupt people and thats very important, otherwise the corruption just snowballs and permeates everything. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to copy it and change it however you like. I'm just not optimistic. :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do! Yes I feel I'm probably not going to accomplish anything considering how many proposals people have made before. I'll give it a try and see how far I can go before dropping it too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Another...
hi, could you check for any signs of Bonapartism? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't bother, it's apparently already been dealt with on RFCU. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I went to check this a while ago and noticed VoiceOfAll had already done so. I figured you would have known about that or asked for him to look at it, or else I would have said something here, instead of just looking like I was ignoring you. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Salman Khan
I think that Adriana Aurora and Nandana23 might be the same person. . Blnking the same parts of the article. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, very likely. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

HE checkuser
Hello. You didn't comment on User:Ezag. Arrow740 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Yes, I just checked and that one is His excellency as well. Blocked. Dmcdevit·t 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sosomk
Sosomk is again edit warring over the same article. We write our arguments on the talk page. S. is just reverting us calling our edits vandalism and anti-georgian. Please block this user again so that next time he will go to the talk page. Tamokk 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This time he is operating with User:Tones_benefit another edit warrior and suspected sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. Tamokk 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite S. did not give arguments for his reverts I did try to alter my edits to meet his point. Mediation will not be relevant in this case. There is nothing to mediate. I will go there only if S. will say anything constructive on the talk page. Tamokk 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like other admins have taken care of this already. has given him conditions for remaining unblocked; please talk to him if problems persist. Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your vote in the election
Hi! I have stricken your vote from Meta in the current board election. Each editor is only allowed to vote once, even if xe meets he voting criteria in several projects. I therefore struck your vote from Meta and kept the one from the English Wikipedia, because your vote from the English Wikipedia is the latest one. Thanks for understanding, Jon Harald Søby 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)