User talk:Dominic/Archive8

Because
I keep running into your edits, both recently and in page histories I've been digging through lately, and I keep running into evidence of your good sense and efforts to promote consensus, amicable dispute resolution, and productive editing&mdash;so I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Boothy block
I saw that you blocked Boothy for 72 hours for personal attacks, but now Jtkiefer has blocked him indefinitely for the same thing. Since this is almost surely going to go to ArbCom, do you mind providing a copy of his email on WP:AN? It's currently being discussed there now. Tito xd (?!?) 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC
You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at --Silverback 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 ( talk  &bull;  contribs )



Thank You!
Thank you for voting in my RfA. I am happy to be among those wielding the adminly tools, which I promise to use wisely. While I'm sure you voted before Redwolf, I think the timestamp might be lying a little on this ;). Thanks again, -User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail]]22:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Lying Eyes
There ain't no way to hide your lying eyes ... 130.49.221.74 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew. I see you are back again. I would have thought such a well-educated techie grad student like yourself could contribute more than just vandalism. I'm disappointed really. Oh yeah, and I'm blocking you. Dmcdevit·t 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry
Hold on a moment. I didn't edit the John Kerry page after protection. Your protection appeared after mine on the watchlist. Please don't make untrue allegations. Please return the page to the version you first protected. FearÉIREANN \(caint)23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) (cur) (last)  00:27, 8 November 2005 Dmcdevit (protected, edit war)
 * 2) (cur) (last)  00:26, 8 November 2005 Jtdirl (rv to Mr Tibbs version. Please stop trying to sneak in POV language, Rex. That is vandalism.)

There was no protection on the page when I edited it. If there had been I would not have edited it. I don't do that. Maybe you and I were editing it simultaneously, but it was not there when I did my edit. Please do not make such untrue allegations in the talk summary. BTW Rex has already been banned by the ArbComm in the past for POVing that article. Everyone on that page regards what Rex is doing there as gross abuse of NPOV. It took a 100k row just to get him to allow the use of the word wound on the page to describe what had happened when Kerry was wounded. He then demanded it be called a minor wound, and then when finally not allowed to write that in rewrote the sentence to make the reference to wound sound ironic and snide, by implication reading that what we were actually saying was "so-called wound". Please don't jump to conclusions before you actually know what you are talking about. What is going on there is a simple case of a Bush supporter trying to turn a page into an expose of a Bush rival. It is dirty and underhand and users have been queuing up to tell him to stop. This will probably have to go back to the ArbComm yet again, because Rex is doing the very thing that caused three earlier referrals and one strongly worded ban. Rex is now doing to have a field day accusing me of breaking rules because of your untrue allegation. FearÉIREANN \(caint)

"Edit warring"
I see you posted in the Request for Arbitration that you thought that something ought to be done against me for "edit warring" -- I don't understand what you think the problem is. Some people revert articles to bias and bad versions solely out of ego and POV-pushing, and they don;t discuss things. Putting it back to the good version when people like this are encountered is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. IT's one thing to say, well, you should talk it through, but in each of the cases you mentioned it was a case of the side I was reverting refusing to discuss anything, violating policy, and throwing out insults. I am reather frustrated that so many admins here want to try to blame the victim instead of stopping the people who are clearly violating policy. Note that the vast majority of peoplpe I "edit war" with have eventually been banned from editing those articles because their actions were ultimately decided to be way over the line... My role here is to make the article go back to the good version in the weeks or months it takes other editors to get motivated to actually do something about the bad editors. Without my edits several Wikipedia articles would be stuck in totally distorted versions for months. The end result it that my actions that you are complaining about makes Wikipedia better for all the people counting on the articles as a source of unbiased and educational information. Certain admins seem like they are more interested in fostering a site for social interaction experiments instead of encyclopedia-making. DreamGuy 05:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As you know, I protected chimera in an edit war. While I don't personally know how extensive your edit warring is, having seen it in that article and in freemasonry, I thought I'd mention it. As far as I'm concerned, edit warring is always a Bad Thing. There are other recourses you can take. Edit warring, and especially protection, even if they are for a good reason are always harmful. If an editor has to be banned for disruption (which isn't the case in chimera), that doesn't mean you should indulge them in edit wars. It takes two hands to clap. I think not edit warring is essential to fostering encyclopedia-making. I'm happy to engage in a philosophical debate about this if you like, it's just my nature, but I doubt you'd like to get me started. :) With reference to the "Certain admins" comment, I take full responsibility for my opinions, expressed as a Wikipedia editor, not administrator, and that opinion has no bearing on other administrators' ability.


 * Now, since I'm here, I wonder if you'd care to reply to my recent comment on Talk:Chimera. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I consider your view to be hopelessly naive, and obviously so if it is looked at with even the slightest bit of logical detachment. Edit warring is absolutely not harmful if it is done to get the article back to a good version. It may "take two hands to clap" but if the good guys don;t clap then only the bad guys end up winning on any article in which there is any sort of disagreement. It sounds like your philosophy comes from some sort of feel-good swami speak or something and not paying attention to what's going on in this encyclopedia. If you want to surrender the whole project to POV-pushing, policy-breaking trolls and so forth, go ahead and follow your philosophy. I would submit, however, that your attitude is even more harmful to this encyclopedia than the POV-pushers: at least they have a goal, albeit misguided. You seem to want to do nothing to prevent the project from gong to pieces and actively try to hinder those people who try to stop it. DreamGuy 06:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Boothy443
To a certain extent your right and to a certain extent I disagree since arbcom and blocking in themselves are two very seperate things. And just because I was the only one to block I disagree that I arbitrarily now have to be the one to put up the arbcom case. I also think it's somewhat hypocritical that people are criticizing the fact that I blocked without going to arbcom while many of them think Boothy443 should be blocked by admins or by arbcom but none of them have put up an arbcom case either. Jtkiefer T - 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a lot to do outside of wikipedia but I may try to write up an arbcom case this weekend. Jtkiefer  T - 18:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm rather busy outside of wikipedia but I'll try to get it done eventually if nobody does it first. Jtkiefer T  04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Hello, I saw that you reverted vandalism to my userpage. This prompted me to look at your contributions and your record of deletions (Special:Log/delete), and discovered that you have been quite active in policing vandalism. For this, I award you the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar. Ingoolemo talk 18:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Disagreement" about block
Oh, sure. I felt invited by your final sentence to phrase my comment by contraries like that, sorry. ;-) Let me say that that that wasn't disagreement, that was applause. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

Block
Yeah, I have no plans to reclose it, either now or after 24 hours are up. Thanks. --Sockenpuppe 01:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I don't edit it for content. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't established how I was "disruptive"? I only added the {npov} header to the article, it should be obviously clear there is an in good faith dispute over the race and intelligence article, check the top and middle sections of the talk page (bottom ones seem tangential). In fact, the entire article is fundamentally disputed. zen master T 03:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dmcdevit, it seems Ryan has given up trying to explain his actions in banning me from race and intelligence, he also has coincidentally archived his talk page apparently to cover up this controversy (but that is his right I suppose, but only makes his case weaker). Anyway, what recourse do I have here? zen master T 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your best bet is to ask the arbcom (under the requests for clarification). If you do so, you should explain in detail why a) Ryan is an involved admin, and should not have banned you himself, and b) why you were not being disruptive in your opinion. And be very civil and polite. I'm not sure that you'll get anywhere though. You could also try an RFC against Ryan Delaney, but I guarantee you you'll just get clobbered yourself. I'm about to post my opinion to ANI. Dmcdevit·t 19:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on SPUI
Regarding the afd, that was a 3rr, SPUI basically figured the closures were a loophole; if nobody stops him there, he wins. If someone tries, he just does it 3 times until he has to have a regular speedy keep vote. The closures and the vote were exactly the same thing in different ways. SPUI's a good editor when it comes to transportation, but he needs to be reigned in somewhat elsewhere, hopefully to the point where he's reformed to the level of Cool Cat. Karmafist 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the unblock, I don't mind at all. If SPUI can avoid being causing problems in the future from knowing that he will be blocked if he tries to skate on a technicality while WP:POINTing, I consider things to be good, whether he's blocked or not. I don't interpret WP:AGF as applicable to users such as him(disruptors) on topics outside of transport related articles. Karmafist 04:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. Honestly, though, I'm about to leave. User:Woohookitty/Vandals. I am pretty sure that the vandal tonight was Rex. It just doesn't feel worth it anymore. It's not fun anymore and it hasn't been for awhile. So I appreciate the barnstar, but I might be done. Don't think I have the makeup for the daily abuse. I'll decide for sure tomorrow. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Arbcom nom. We'll see what happens. Alert User:Neutrality too. He hasn't been involved in JK, but he was the major party in the last arbcom with Rex. He should be alerted. And alert Katefan0. She's been heavily involved as well. I went ahead and added his arbcom from earlier this year, which was about...you guessed it...the Kerry article. I'm in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And btw, in the "3rd party opinion" part, you mentioned his 3RR violations. Well he gets around it by having several versions hanging around that he can go back to. So it's not strictly a revert, but it's a revert to a previous version he put up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in retrospect, I'll just leave it at gaming and let the others explain. Dmcdevit·t 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I'll add that in. Btw, both kizzle and JamesMLane are not going to be involved, so there goes half the case. Kizzle thinks it'll be resolved by the end of the week. Unfortunately he doesn't quite understand the issues here. But whatever. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And yes, it's good that we let Neutrality know since he's going to have to recuse himself since he was a party in the last arby with Rex. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added notices for User:Gamaliel and User:HorsePunchKid. I won't be completely uninvolved, but I did most of the work on the last RfAr (Neutrality was already on the ArbCom by then), and I've really had it with trying to explain Rex's faults.  I'm hopeful that input from people not previously involved will be persuasive to the ArbCom.  Although I hope not to be as heavily involved as I was in the previous cases, I will put in something. JamesMLane 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw
FearÉIREANN \(caint)'s signature is causing problems. I just fixed it for you. If he signs again, just use this page as a template to get it fixed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh
Not sure you want to get involved in Price-Anderson. Your head might spin. ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sort of. I'm going to work on the arby case and that's all. No editing. I don't trust people on here right now outside of my friends (you, Kate, kizzle, Redwolf). Today my user page got vandalized a bunch of times. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Great job! Just for you, here's an iconoclast and zealot award:



If you can tame the savage beast, I bow before you
I hope things work out. I'm afraid I haven't been much help at the Rajput article; I'm too tactless and blunt. I don't think it's a good article now, but Shivraj's version in much much worse. I could probably write a much better article -- ugly to toot my own horn, but there it is -- but only after a couple of weeks of reading and research. For which I have no time. Instead I'm doing stuff like writing Talk:Battle of Uhud/Temp.

Hope I'll have your support if and when Striver files an RFC against me. He believes that I'm persecuting Shi'a on Wikipedia . What fun. Zora 03:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Apology
Point taken Dmcdevit. I apologise for taking the bait on the article and hopefully will refrain from it in future. The lock on the article is a positive but temporary step. We will never actually get a common view amongst us as the arguments are not being accepted. Can we get a mediation or something similar going to get a common ground without any bias?--Raja 10:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back
User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, and posting trolling text to a bunch of talk pages about "nigger lovers". I'm considering a 1 week block for disruption at this point, unless you think you or someone else should do it first. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Block wars, molobo and varia
Tnx for ecucating me about the blocking policy - I will definetly be more careful next time about unblocking. I just hope Wiglaf will be as careful about blocking :) In the meantime, I wonder if you could take a look at this: Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more reasonable and unbiased voices would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * One thing I don't get: why 4 times? I have unblocked Molobo only on two separate occasions when dealing with Wilgaf (and once with Chris73). I have reached an agreement with Chris (it was about 2 months ago?), and the first block by Wilgaf as I have explained was definetly dubious (he was involved in this dispute, reverted reference additions and blocked Molobo without giving any clear rule). So when I got information from Molobo that he was blocked again in the similar situation, and indeed there was (again) no info by Wilgaf on Molobo's page (even through I talked to him about this extensively last time), I reviewed latest Molobo's contribs, so no reason for block (I didn't thought this would be related to Talk namespace edits from over a day ago) and unblocked him, assuming Wilgaf made a mistake again. I was wrong this time, I apologised and learned the procedures - but why are people accusing me of having done the same mistake 4 times?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Blocking policy
''I edit conflicted with you (about an hour ago, I got sidetracked) at WP:BP, when I was about to put in something else. Rather than do anything, I decided to write my response to Piotrus at ANI. Basically, I would have changed your words to:'' ''More explanation I think in my comment at ANI. What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * "(Where the premise of a block is disputed,) In virtually all cases, you should at least notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at WP:AN/I and get community consensus before unblocking a blocked user."
 * I would not go so far; there are situations where building consensus before unblocking is not required (most commonly, for collateral damage unblocks). "Virtually all cases" is too strong a claim here.  Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar, if I may


*chuck* R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL
I've now gotten 3 awards since I threatened to leave the project 3 days ago. I should threaten to leave more often! :) Up to 7 now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw
thanks for the help on the Rex case so far. I supported your temp injunction. I know Rex says he's in a "self-imposed exile", but I don't trust him. Besides, I'm afraid he'll volunteer a "self-imposed exile" for x months and then we'll go through this all over again in x months. His last banishment was self imposed and we see how well that worked. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The hole of polls, and other things
Hi there; understood! I am not stressing: I think polls can assist in guiding a discussion and in forming a consensus, etc. We could go on ad infinitum, but that would defeat the purpose of the poll. Right? No stress! :)

You know what is stressful? Now that I have you on the horn, re. quarantine: when SARS struck Hogtown in 2003, I suffered an asthma attack at work (from a usual respiratory infection), was rushed to triage, and admitted to a hospital that was at the epicentre of the epidemic. My (former) workplace got word of this, the witch HR manager misinterpreted (or was misinformed, and not by me) that I had SARS, and imposed a quarantine on the entire 10 storey-building for three days. I was placed on paid medical leave (when I decided to leave), and I'm all better now. Anyhow, polls and similar discussions pale in comparison to things like that. Regardless, take care! E Pluribus Anthony 08:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there! BTW: thanks for restoring our (deleted) discussion on the poll page.  If anything, the deletion doesn't demonstrate that polls are evil: it demonstrates that people can be. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow
Not sure how closely you are following the Rex arby case, but the arbys are already voting in principles and only Tibbs and I have given evidence. I have a feeling the arbys just want this over with. I'm impressed. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Panavision dispute
Thanks for the offer. I was referring to him, however, not me! ;) *shrug* Anyway, the user is pushing a very biased agenda and then complains when I attempt to NPOV it. At the least, though, he should learn how to sign his posts. Thanks for your help again! --Girolamo Savonarola 09:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you look at Moldovan language for me?
I'm still relatively new at this WP:RfP stuff. It was protected by Mikkali, who is an admin, but who is also involved in the dispute. He slapped the vprotect tag on it. While it was protected, he made a ton of edits. You can see them here. I unprotected it earlier tonight. Now it's getting hit a few times. One of the people on Mikkali's side, Ronline is saying actually it's a combo of vandalism and a content dispute. Could you look at it for me? It feels really "fishy" to me. Mikkali proclaims innocence, but I think we may have a violation of admin powers here. Just doesn't feel right. Please take a look. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I protected the page and put a warning on the talk page. Could you still look at it for me? I might need some backup because usually we don't tell other admins not to do something. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I *think* I have it under some semblance of control. The problem is that at least one user is from a different version of WP (Romananian) and I don't think they know our policies. I suggested DR. Hopefully they will listen. Oi vey. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is an edit war going on, too. One of the users who chimed in on my talk page has major problems with Node and has been warring with him for a long time now. So it's not just vandals. If it was, this would be easier. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at this. I know we had this conversation on IRC. I wish people would learn our policies. it's not like we hide them or something. We really should find a way to educate people better on this stuff. Protecting just a paragraph? Sure. ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
While I wholeheartedly support your message on the need of civilty in wikidiscourse, I actually don't remember making any recent edits on Russian architecture. The article was written by me from first line to the last and then was subjected to attacks of trolls who started deleting the whole passages from it. What you call edits were only reverts of their deletions.

AndriyK and his friends from ua.wiki are revert warriors: they haven't contributed a single article themselves, but they endlessly vandalize the articles written by me - take a look at Oleg of Chernihiv, Mikhail of Chernihiv, etc. If you want a complete summary of their offenses, read my two notices on User_talk:Tony Sidaway. Take care, Ghirlandajo 12:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like you obstinately refuse to follow what was actually happening there. Andrew left the following message at the start of the *article*: Please note, the Russian editors continue to claim that the architecture of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, somehow belongs to Russia. This is inflamatory, unjustified, and definitely not a neutral point of view. Please see NPOV.


 * Then I reverted, noting that I "rv vandalism: if you continue messing the article with its talk page, you will be reported!" Where do you see any personal attack there? I was commenting on the content and not the person. The text of the article is not a proper place for discussion of its editors, or do you think otherwise?


 * Finally, I have the full right to edit my talk page as I think appropriate. I may blank it if I think it necessary. Upon answering your comment on your own talk page, I moved your notice to the archive. Hopefully you will look into the matter more carefully before leaving comments in the future. --Ghirlandajo 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry for taking your time but I have just read your comment on [User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]]'s talk page. Unfortunately, I have just a dispute with this user and his way of making it is for me unacceptable.

I don't know en: customs in this matter but would it be possible to notify him officially to stop abusing me calling me a sock puppet? I have realized that this user on several pages writes about some hidden Polish agenda, conspiracy or whatever and insults an admin and an admin-nominee writing about "cronies", accusing them of hidden support for trolls etc.

All these attacks are conducted with an obvious lack of evidence and an obvious anger. In my case I have explained my position on his talk page (what he deleted), what is more I have explained that I do not have to log in here to contribute but if he really wants to check my personality he can ask a check user. Than he stopped but after my strictly infavourable comment of his IMHO biased redirect started it again.

I don't have much time for such games - I am involved in a number of Wiki projects and have some life in L.A. out of my window. :) I would like to work in a pleasant environment.

I am awfully sorry if my comments were "nasty" as I was told by this user but I hope they were not. I hope that my argumentation wasn't too strict and it won't harm an admin-nominee or anybody - I've just used even part of the Wikipedia article in that showing an obvious ignoring of the consensus. I just don't want to be treated that way and find "not-exactly-exact" articles or redirects on Wikipedia, even when the creator knows that it isn't exact(!) - just because someone must proves his POV.

Thank you very much in advance for your help and understanding.

aegis maelstrom δ 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Another sockcheck request
''User:Novembre 19 is doing a darned good imitation of User:Lightbringer. Edits on Freemasonry are here -- he complains about links being removed with no explanation when, in fact, User:Jachin was clear on the talk page about why he was doing it.''

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask that he be checked as well. Not a normal way to make your first three edits. Dmcdevit·t 01:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Possible, but not confirmable at this time. Same ISP, but different address, and I think this ISP issues IPs on a "semistatic" basis.  If it's him, he took steps to cause his ISP to issue a new IP.  I recommend a watch and wait posture for now. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arab numerals

 * Sure Dmcdevit, I was not asking for page protection, just explaining the anonymous editor who requested protection why his edits were reverted (according to the edit summary). deeptrivia 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On civility
Dmcdevit, as I had a chance to remark before, you found a strange target for your irksome preaching in me, who made twice as much edits as you during the same period of time. Check here one sample of edits that usually pass unheeded by admins. If I call this person a troll, you will be instantly there to chastise me, I bet. --Ghirlandajo 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hah. Good deflection. Nothing excuses incivility, cetainly, not others' actions, and especially not edit counts. What a silly concept. I see you've deleted my comments from your talk page a second time. Really receptive to criticism, aren't you? Dmcdevit·t 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know where you get the idea that I wouldn't care about that edit. Talk about WP:AGF. I let you know that incivility is not tolerated, and I have just left a note to Alex for the same purpose. But, also, no, his actions don't justify namecalling, just don't do it. Dmcdevit·t 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Admin... Could you please answer some official questions: Thanks in advance, AlexPU 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * is it directly prohibited to create discussion/criticism lists of other Wikipedians on the users' talk pages?
 * can I delete (or demand deleting) the articles started by me and unedited since then?

rollback
Policy does not restrict the use of the rollback button to vandalism. It has been discussed before, but it has never been accepted as policy. Guettarda 02:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

on vandalism
Hello, Dmcdevit. Another user needs to be expained what vandalism is and what is not:. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Dmcdevit! In response to your message to me, I would be glad to accept your offer of nomination. It seems to me that in any of the forums here on WP, the opinion of administrators have more "weight". One of the things I would like to do here is to provide my service as a moderator, or advocate for some of the editors who may become involved in the conflicts that (seemingly endlessly) arise during the course of normal operations of this place. Of course, the reversion of vandalism and the blocking/banning of the perpetrators is of paramount importance to me as well. To answer your question as to the quantity of my editing during the past two months, well as I'm all to sure you are aware, we are stuck right in the middle of a busy semester of classes, and I hold down a job four or five nights a week, besides. I suppose that I have been doing more reading than editing in the recent past. Holidays are coming up, however, and I will probably be able to put in as much time during the next month, as I was able to do during the past summer. I would like to point out to you as well, that although I have fewer than 100 edits siince October 1st. most of my editing has been directed towards creating and improving articles. I feel that my spare time has become precious and scarce, and that I should direct my efforts during this time to editing in article space, rather than AfD, or any of the other forums in which I was able to participate in and devote so much time to during the past summer months. Hope this alays any fear you have about my desire and willingness to offer my service to the WP community. As always, I wish you peace and happiness. Take Care, Dmc. Hamster Sandwich 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Extremely happy to see your nomination for my sysophood today! Whichever way the process may go, you have my deepest thanks. I promise you and the community at large, only to act in the best interest of Wikipedia, the most important online information resource. If you could, please review my edit to the nomination page, for any errors. It all seemed pretty straight forward, but as I hit the "save" button, I had a small moment of doubt. Remember when I asked you to do the same for Angus MacAskill and Victor G. Reuther, way back in the day? Geez, what a nOOb I was :P! Feel free to respond here or on my user page. Lampropeltis ROOLZ, OK? Peace! Hamster Sandwich 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see there's been plenty of attention there before I saw this, but for what it's worth, everything looks good to me. Btw, I could have predicted there'd be some "lack of experience" votes, but I think they will be easily outweighed by the ohers. Hey, I just noticed I'm still listed at your user page. Cool... :) Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NC Vandal
Hi Dmcdevit! Yes, I am quite certain they're all the same person. That "Croboyhelmheimism" bit on DLF's user page gives him away (anything to do with "Croboys" and TV cartoon series is almost certainly the NC vandal); the others are obviously him as well. It looks like after many weeks of being happy playing in the sandbox, he's come back to being a vandal again. Antandrus (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You Reverting My Vote
Dmcdevit,

I don't think your revert is warranted. I voted on User:Karmafist's page and you reverted it without comment. Why?

--Jason Gastrich 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please unblock 143.248.139.90
I'm responsible to the IP. I'm using the Bot account User:Chobot for updating the interwiki (Special:Contributions/Chobot). Strangely it updates the webpage without the account information. I cannot understand why the bot software(pywikipedia) updates the page using IP address. Unstability of wikimedia server coule be a reason. -- ChongDae 13:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Phew
I'm glad you removed the protection on Second law of thermodynamics. The reduction in vandalism to that article implies an overall increase in vandalism to the rest of the project. --GraemeL (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj_Singh
Does the block have to be a whole week? He emailed me privately and asked to be unblocked. Uncle Ed 03:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Clemson University and University of South Carolina
I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 07:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Mr. Transit
I say we remove the protection. Let me know what you think. I think we can take his post as evidence that he's the same person, so then there's no reason to keep the tag. We'd be helping him out by keeping it and I'm not sure that it's in Wikipedia's best interest. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yikes. We now have one of Eddie's sockpuppets asking for unprotection. I'm deferring to you and Kate on this one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dmc, i'm trying to help out user:EddieSegoura, the apparent main account of all those socks, which include Mr. Transit. He's in deep WP:AGF/WP:BITE territory, I mean, last month he intiated an rfa after 3 edits, and then after having it closed within a day, started another one a week later. C'mon... He didn't do this maliciously. I blocked all his socks, he asked for them to redirect to the EddieSegoura user page. I haven't checked the log of WP:RFPP in regards to the protection, but I ask that you keep an open mind on this. karmafist 03:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Second the notion; Eddie has a more-than-average fear and loathing of the "sockpuppet" label, and having the socks blocked and those pages simply redirecting seems to make the most people content. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Call
Good call on the 3 hour block. I don't know how to put this delicately enough, but, um, Eddie's kind of lost here. I've told him to watch some TV or something for the next 3 hours. That should solve this once and for all. I've told him to ask you or me if there are any problems with the redirects at the sock user pages.

Also, looking above, what's that "vote" that Jason's talking about? Jason's almost in the same boat, although it seemed he had a bit more of malicious intent(a clear POV). karmafist 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP
Yeah...This reminds me so much of Maoririder. I'm reverting now, and giving him a warning.

Russian architecture
I thought you'd like to know, the page was unprotected (without an ensuing revert spree). I dawdled a bit much, but I've now submitted a revision to the page for everyone's consideration. Please see my comments at talk:Russian architecture. Regards, Michael Z. 2005-12-1 05:50 Z 

Message from Eddie
Hey Dmcdevit, I certainly didn't create those to be mean or harass people or mess up Wikipedia. I certainly didn't intend for those names to be "abusive" as You stated. I also wasn't aware of a "one account per person" policy on Wikipedia at the time I created the accounts. Especially for the fact I had account only for a few days. I don't mind those usernames being blocked. All You had to do is leave those redirect pages alone and the warring would have never happened. But You persisted on having the dirty "sock" notes. Couldn't You see that Karmafist is trying to help? It was being taken care of and You didn't have to do anything at all.  I'm sorry for the all the misunderstand I cause You, and I apologize for accusing You of wrongdoing, but I would appreciate if You let Karmafist handle this. -- Eddie 7:47 AM, December 1, 2005 (EST)
 * Dmcdevit: Yes, I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding going on. I'd appreciate if you read some of our policy pages to get you acquainted with our common practices here (start at WP:WQT perhaps)....
 * Well, that's why I've pushed to get those userpages deleted (or at least redirected), and I see Mr. Transit has been taken care of. Now that all the tags are gone, I hope My previous misadventures on Wikipedia are water under the bridge.  I'm ready to move on, build a good reputation, and hopefully earn an promotion someday.  (Just like on EBay, You earn Positive Feedback).  I'm going to archive My Talk page in a few days and make a fresh talk page to show that the slate is clean and this is when I really start My editing.  -- Eddie 6:54 AM, December 2, 2005 (EST)

Message from EddieSegoura
Hello, Dmcdevit! Just wanna say everyhthing been fine for the past few days. Looks like it's shaping to be My first successful week on this site. I haven't heard from You, though. How have You been? I hope to earn Your support when I try for RfA in a few months. I already added a few photos to the Subway Car sections: R143, R68, and R40. More should be on the way, but it will take time. -- Eddie 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Dmcdevit: A word of advice: you don't need to be so eager for adminship. Being an admin is No Big Deal... I just hope You're not offended by Me trying for one. -- Eddie 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-Hell - Thanks
The pics are perfect - thanks. BD2412 T 13:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hamster Thanks You!
I want to thank you for nominating me to help represent WP as a janitor. Quite a bit of poop to clean up, I might need a bucket of minty smelling sawdust. I gave it a try today here, so check that out if you get a sec. would you? I tried to leave an edit summary there by going to "Edit page" button, but when I saved it just left a standard revert message there. While I was shovelling my driveway (three hour job), I was thinking that article might be better merged with Zakk Wylde or Black Label Society articles. Ideas? Thanks for your vote of confidence, Dmc, I'll do my best to retain your confidence. I'll be doing a lot of reading in the next week before holidays, but I'll try to get on to some of the AfD's that are piled up. Big Hug, Peace! Hamster Sandwich 01:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RSPW Poster now User: RSPW Coaster
The abusive user you blocked for 48 hours for various reasons has switched socks - same tactics, verbiage, etc. Chadbryant 21:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Chadbryant is simply being paranoid as a result of his paranoia schizophrenia & socipathic behavior. I am not the same person, just someone who thinks Chad is being a dick and feels like the other guy got a raw deal as a result. RSPW Coaster


 * This use has once again violated the 3RR rule in his vandalism of my talk page, KTVX, and Category:Von Erich wrestling family. Chadbryant 01:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Chadbryant has once again removed comments placed on his talk page by admins and continues to falsely claim "vandalism" as a result of his biased actions within several Wikipedia entries, up to and including his own talk page. RSPW Coaster 02:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Probation scope increase?
I believe you have misinterpreted or misconstrued a probation scope increase. There was some discussion of doing that by some arbcom members but nothing ever passed officially as far as I am aware. Please point me to where that was officially decided. Also, I have been working on improving the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act article with other people so I'd hardly call any of my edits "disruptive". I was just earlier made aware the article has historically been highly contentious but that is not my fault. zen master T 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know my probation is inapplicable outside of race and intelligence and related articles, please correct me if I am wrong. Also, please point out edits of mine that you interpret to be a cause for concern? I only reverted the article once and had long since moved to the talk page to hopefully resolve my minor critics' view clarification point there by the time the article was protected. FYI: my most recent small clarification edit was to the "consensus" version of the intro, not Benjamin Gatti's. zen master T 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The scary part
Is that you actually looked up those diffs. ;-) Thanks for protecting P-A btw. We were at 8 reverts when I went to bed. Apparently they went nuts after I went to bed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Imperialism.jpg
I really hope this is not a big problem. The image is a common one - I am sure I have seen it in print and in history books. You can probably tell that it is an old one, dating from perhaps more than 100 years ago. But still, I am unable to find the exact source I got it from. It seems it can only be found on sites citing Wikipedia. Hopefully, this is not a major infringement if that source can't be found. --R OY  YO &#1071; 23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Even so, I am not sure of that exact source. But one can be found at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/79-104/Readings/Gallery/5.html.  Actually, that may be the same one.  It was a while ago that I put it up.  I don't remember.  I can help more, if you need.  Who was it that wanted to know? --R OY   YO &#1071; 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA
Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your support - I hope to continue earning your respect, and will do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

RfArb
This is to inform you that I have requested the Arbitrarion commitee to review the Protection of Price Anderson. Please comment at: Requests_for_arbitration Benjamin Gatti 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

infernal machine
Restored. It looks like I need to take a wikivacation. I am making too many mistakes during newpages patrol recently. mikka (t) 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RfAr against Ben is live
Just letting you know that I opened the RfAr on Benjamin Gatti. Please comment so we can get this case opened ASAP. Comment here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. I don't think this makes me a party though, so I removed my name. I really don't feel like getting involved in this arbitration except for the sake of you or Kate if you needed help. Right now I'm in the midst of finals and really strapped for time, mental power, and patience, so I don't think I'll be around much in the next week. I don't think you'll need my comment to get the arbitration opened anyway, the arbitrators will see it for what it is. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson
Just to clarify that my unprotection is no reflection on your decision to protect. I just want to WP:AGF. Let's see what happens. If you decide to reprotect, I won't argue. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Beckett must have been able to see into the future. Nobody could have written that line unless they knew what life on Wikipedia is like. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't think this will lead to anything good. Simesa 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck!
Good luck with exams Dmc! (sticks nose back into "Globalization and the Future of the Collective State") Hamster Sandwich 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich
Heya! Replied at user talk. Kim Bruning 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * replied Kim Bruning 06:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * replied :-) Kim Bruning 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Ok, I'm listening... (replied) Kim Bruning 07:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(um, and is this taking away from your study time? Do as I say, not as I do, go study! ;) )

Well, that sounds reasonable. Deal! Kim Bruning 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll still have to get hamster sandwich to agree though. Hmm. Kim Bruning 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Block release
Thank you -- appreciate your attention to my plea. But..................................Go Study!!!! Best -- WBardwin 07:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What, me worry...?
No stress, sir, except for one exam coming up (I'll play it close to the chest which one, I don't want you to tease me!). Good prof. though, and he keeps telling me I should be tutoring. No time, no time... My roomie just took off for a holiday with his family, so I'm kickin it freestylee. I did get a mesage to go talk to Kim on the #Wikipedia IRC channel, so maybe we can come to an understanding. For the record, I feel we have to agree to disagree. That happens sometimes. No big deal! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 08:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh geez Louize! I forgot! You HAVE to tell me about your Von Erich connection! Damn! And how is your litttle slithering buddy? Inquiring minds, need to know! Always, Peace! Hamster Sandwich 08:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

P-A Arbcom
I don't feel that posting to the private list would be the best thing to do either, since it's even worse if my opinions are private (all parties involved have no idea what I've said, and probably assume the worst). If I were to say anything, I feel I'd have to make it public, and stay neutral, providing diffs for certain occurences while not stating my opinions at all. Anything more violates the confidence I've tried to have with those I've mediated with. Thanks for bringing it up, though. Ral315 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you!
Well, I just saw your post ..stand by for a transmission... Hamster Sandwich 06:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to catch your attention, because I was hoping you might be able to help me. I just got home from work, opened my WP page, and theres all this stuff thats been written concerning the Kim Bruning Episode. I presume the RfAr has been denied? I can't seem to find a copy of it, or the posts to it in the past ten or so hours, maybe you know where they are? Second, where the hell am I supposed to respond to any of this? I looked at the RfAr this morning before work, and Bruning has pated up some note, saying "This Arbitration may be settled through mediation" or something to that effect (as I say I can't find the page) and, I don't know about you, but isn't it more logical to suggest mediation before filing a complaint to begin with? And what was there to mediate? Does Kim Bruning possess some inate charm or awesome power of persuasion that I will succumb to his whim and become a willing thrall to the Kim Bruning Experience? He has gone over the line of propriety in my opinion and I'm sure there are editors who have responded to this outlandish episode in some way or another see me attempt to retalliate. If it weren't antithetical to everything I want to accomplish for the Wikipedia, I would counter the bogus, spurious RfAr he filed with a legitimate one of my own, citing continued and vexatious harrasment. Instead, I will continue as I have been, doing what I can to improve Wikipedia and trying not to stink up the joint with a lot of useless and counterproductive crap. One more thing Dmc, and this goes to your comment on the RfA talk page...how defensible would any of Kim Bruning comments concerning Rl, concensus, whatever... be, if I did choose to leave the project due to his actions (in the classic Don Quixote, tilting at windmills thing)? If your still here, say something (or give me a slap), all you have to do is point me in a place to type a response to this whole ridiculous episode, and I will attempt to spin gold from from dross (read: shit). Hamster Sandwich 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You could try actually talking with me directly. I'm a reasonable person, and it's been known to help :-) Yelling is good too. Kim Bruning 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did. Many have. This is an example. Why don't you read some of the things people have been saying. Did you read all those other statements on the RFAr you put up? You keep poiting me to "see above" on the RFA page. Well, good, I'm glad you made one suggestion. Now do something about it. And that doesn't address the harssment with is why I repeated myself. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Already ahead of you there. :) Kim Bruning 09:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh god, Kim. I had you until you said "You have -after all- driven off an editor." That is absurd, and bears no resemblance to reality. Perhaps you didn't see BD2412's or my comments on that, but the wild accusations and blatant assumptions of bad faith need to stop. As someone who's been involved in mediation, you have to know that's not how you approach a discussion and hope for a real response. And then you complain about stonewalling. If it was me you were going after, I would have stopped responding long ago. Could you maybe try a little harder to think about what others are telling you? Dmcdevit·t 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He is one of a group of people that have indeed driven off an editor, as far as I am able to ascertain. At least, they all jumped on the editor, and the editor left right after, so there is some correlation there. Kim Bruning 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)